Matt Probert wrote:

>Google parses URLs, and prefers words to be separated rather
>than run together

Do you have evidence that Google prefers *common* words to
be seperated (preferring bread-muffins.com to breadmuffins.com)
or is the above just an educated guess?

>Relying upon search engines for free advertising is generally
>ineffective.

Please tell that to the IRS -- they are taxing the heck out of me
because my "generally ineffective" reliance upon search engines
for free advertising keeps bringing in more work than I can handle.

#1 result: GuyMacon.com
http://www.google.com/search?q=elect...ngineer+resume
http://www.google.com/search?q=elect...ngineer+resume
http://www.google.com/search?q=calif...ngineer+resume
http://www.google.com/search?q=los+a...ngineer+resume
http://www.google.com/search?q=orang...ngineer+resume
http://www.google.com/search?q=pneum...ngineer+resume
http://www.google.com/search?q=micro...ngineer+resume
http://www.google.com/search?q=analog+engineer+resume
http://www.google.com/search?q=embedded+engineer+resume
http://www.google.com/search?q=mattel+engineer

First page result (first actual resume): GuyMacon.com
http://www.google.com/search?q=engineer+resume
http://www.google.com/search?q=los+angeles+engineer
http://www.google.com/search?q=orange+county+engineer
http://www.google.com/search?q=aeros...ngineer+resume
http://www.google.com/search?q=hydra...ngineer+resume
http://www.google.com/search?q=digital+engineer+resume







--
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:

>
>
>
>Matt Probert wrote:
>
>>Google parses URLs, and prefers words to be separated rather
>>than run together
>
>Do you have evidence that Google prefers *common* words to
>be seperated (preferring bread-muffins.com to breadmuffins.com)
>or is the above just an educated guess?
>

I can't speak for common words, but what I said was based upon
evidence. Unlike many Usenet posters I am a professional web publisher
(and not a con artist offering SEO or "web page design" to naive
business managers), but even so, don't take my word on it. Test your
own theories, NEVER believe anything on Usenet or the Internet without
obtaining corroboration - especially not with regards to SEO and all
that bollocks. I once took advice which is widely circulated about
"small pages", it cost me thousands of pounds in lost revenue.

Matt


--
The Probert Encyclopaedia - The Reliable Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

"Andrew Heenan" <fire@will.com> wrote:

>"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote...
>> Do you have evidence that Google prefers *common* words to
>> be seperated (preferring bread-muffins.com to breadmuffins.com)
>> or is the above just an educated guess?
>
>While we know that Google *can* parse worsdruntogether - often with the
>interesting results you've alluded to, but we also know that Google
>willalsways give priority to the actual term searched for.
>
>So it is a logical deduction (way beyond Probert;'s league, but hey ho),
>that bread-muffins is better placed for 'normal' searchers.

I don't understand the personal attack (except that it is exactly what
one would expect in a school playground) , particularly as I said that
in my experience Google perfers words to be hyphen separated in a URL
- exactly what you just said.

Unless you are implying through your own guesswork that Google prefers
"breadmuffins" as a search term to "bread muffins", which is just
silly, since no one runs words together in the real world.

Matt


--
The Probert Encyclopaedia - The Reliable Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

Andrew Heenan wrote:
> "Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote...
>> Do you have evidence that Google prefers *common* words to
>> be seperated (preferring bread-muffins.com to breadmuffins.com)
>> or is the above just an educated guess?
>
> While we know that Google *can* parse worsdruntogether - often with the
> interesting results you've alluded to, but we also know that Google
> willalsways give priority to the actual term searched for.
>

Yes, and at one time "we all knew" the world was flat, "we all knew" the
earth was the center of the universe...

Do you have any EVIDENCE?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

wrote:

> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Matt Probert wrote:
> >
> >>Google parses URLs, and prefers words to be separated rather
> >>than run together
> >
> >Do you have evidence that Google prefers *common* words to
> >be seperated (preferring bread-muffins.com to breadmuffins.com)
> >or is the above just an educated guess?
> >
>
> I can't speak for common words, but what I said was based upon
> evidence. Unlike many Usenet posters I am a professional web publisher
> (and not a con artist offering SEO or "web page design" to naive
> business managers),
<snip>
Matt, what you say is not really the case. Many people in these NG's
do actually make a decent profit on the net.
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk is one such web design company.
I also have done some freebie sites (well assisted with soem and
designed others) for organisations such as the Cliff Young Australian
Six Day Race, which is the only event of it's kind in Australia.
I am also currently working on a site for the 3RAR Association in
South Australia, which will be launching very soon.
So WE ARE NOT ALL CON ARTISTS!
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote...
> Do you have evidence that Google prefers *common* words to
> be seperated (preferring bread-muffins.com to breadmuffins.com)
> or is the above just an educated guess?

While we know that Google *can* parse worsdruntogether - often with the
interesting results you've alluded to, but we also know that Google
willalsways give priority to the actual term searched for.

So it is a logical deduction (way beyond Probert;'s league, but hey ho),
that bread-muffins is better placed for 'normal' searchers.

For the purpose of this discussion, I suggest that a search for breadmuffins
is *not* 'normal'.

But don't lose sight of the fact that the difference between the two is
miniscule, compared to <title>, <Hx> and a myriad other factoids.

--

Andrew
seo2seo.com
sick-site-syndrome.com

UK Residents:
STOP THE "10p Tax Ripoff"
Sign the petition to stop the government stealing from the
very poorest tell your friends about this petition:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/10penceband/

"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote ...
> But people *do* run together words in domain names (guymacon.com
> and probertencyclopaedia.com come to mind as examples). I fail
> to see anything silly about the idea that Google might treat URLs
> differently than other text strings based on this fact.

While Google may see URLs as special case (though I'm not sure why), there's
no doubt that [guy-macon], [guymacon], and [guy macon] all produce
different results.

And while [guy-macon.com] and [guymacon.com] both produce the same result,
I'd hesitate to draw a universal conclusion from that; we know that one 301s
to the other!
--

Andrew
seo2seo.com
sick-site-syndrome.com

UK Residents:
STOP THE "10p Tax Ripoff"
Sign the petition to stop the government stealing from the
very poorest tell your friends about this petition:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/10penceband/

Matt Probert wrote:

>Unless you are implying through your own guesswork that Google
>prefers "breadmuffins" as a search term to "bread muffins",
>which is just silly, since no one runs words together in the
>real world.

But people *do* run together words in domain names (guymacon.com
and probertencyclopaedia.com come to mind as examples). I fail
to see anything silly about the idea that Google might treat URLs
differently than other text strings based on this fact.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Matt Probert wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>
>>Matt Probert wrote:
>>
>>>Google parses URLs, and prefers words to be separated rather
>>>than run together
>>
>>Do you have evidence that Google prefers *common* words to
>>be separated (preferring bread-muffins.com to breadmuffins.com)
>>or is the above just an educated guess?
>
>I can't speak for common words, but what I said was based upon
>evidence.

I would be most interested in finding out what that evidence is.

>Unlike many Usenet posters I am a professional web publisher

Alas, that's not evidence. Being a professional web publisher
does not give you any special insight into Google's algorithms.
Evidence would be a detailed description of what experiments you
performed and what the results were.

>(and not a con artist offering SEO or "web page design" to naive
>business managers),

You might want to consider the fact that the above statement is
likely to be interpreted as an attack upon a group of people
who are well represented in this newsgroup. It has been my
experience that alt.internet.search-engines posters are mostly
white hats who expose con artists, and that business managers
are found in other newsgroups, not here.

>but even so, don't take my word on it. Test your own theories,

Such tests would be a lot easier to do if you were to reveal what
your evidence is.







--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Andrew Heenan wrote:
>
>"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote...
>
>> Do you have evidence that Google prefers *common* words to
>> be seperated (preferring bread-muffins.com to breadmuffins.com)
>> or is the above just an educated guess?
>
>While we know that Google *can* parse worsdruntogether - often with the
>interesting results you've alluded to, but we also know that Google
>willalsways give priority to the actual term searched for.

Reading the above comment, I am unsure as to whether it is an
answer to the question above it. Assuming that your meaning
is that that you believe that Google does prefer common words
to be seperated (preferring windy-city.com to windycity.com),
my question is what evidence that conclusion is based upon.

If instead you are simply restating the easily verifiable fact
posted elsewhere in this thread that Google uses the rest
of the page to help parse the URL, then may I assume that you
disagree with Matt Probert's claim that Google prefers common
words in URLs to be to be separated by hyphens rather than
run together?

>But don't lose sight of the fact that the difference between
>the two is miniscule, compared to <title>, <Hx> and a myriad
>other factoids.

That certainly fits with the results of various experiments
done by those who make a living selling SEO services.




--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Andrew Heenan wrote:
>
>"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote...
>
>> That certainly fits with the results of various experiments
>> done by those who make a living selling SEO services.
>
>How do they differ from experiments done by normal people?

Normal people have no motivation to experiment with search
engine algorithms. The only folks who do that are the ones
who make a living from SEO and the occasional crazed geek
who is really into algorithms (that would be me).



--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>