Dots in File Naming Conventions

[pageoneresults]

There are some recent happenings that indicate Google may automatically degrade anything that ends with .0, .1, .2 etc in the file name. For example...

www.example.com/2.0

The above file naming convention apparently causes major issues. If there is a trailing forward slash, no problem. But, when you have that dot [.] and one, two or three characters afterward and no trailing forward slash, there appear to be some challenges. Why? Well, it may look like a file extension.

I know there are few here who may advocate the use of dots as separators in file naming. I've never really endorsed that and now I know why. Whew! For those using Content Negotiation, this presents a major challenge if you use dots to separate file names.

[tedster]

Glad you brought this up, pageone. For those who haven't seen the blog post from Matt Cutts, here's a link:
[mattcutts.com...]

If you're using a CMS that creates a "friendly" url from a title or headline, then you can unintentionally get a url such as www.example.com/blog/web-2.0 or www.example.com/using-setup.exe -- and apparently that can cause ranking troubles with Google.

[pageoneresults]

Interesting closing to that post...

Even though urls ending in "g.0" are often binary and therefore end up getting dropped later in our indexing pipeline, it's always good to revisit old decisions and respond to feedback by running new tests. So just in the last day or so, we switched it so that Google is willing to crawl pages that end in "g.0". This will help the small number of pages out on the web that want to serve up HTML pages with a "g.0" extension.

They've made adjustments.