But why would anyone in their right mind write such an algorithm? Google is trying to prevent people from gaming the system, not set up weird ways for them to do so.Pony99CA wrote:I think that a Web crawler might look at words in the URL and see if they also appeared in the page content. If they did, the SERP would get a (slight bump); if not, SERP would take a hit.
I don't think what Pony 99CA described is someone "gaming the system". Take a look at the phpBB website. There is a page with the URL https://www.phpbb.com/downloads/ which contains a title "phpBB • Download phpBB3" and has the heading "Download phpBB". All that stuff gives a search engine bot context, so that when someone searches for "phpBB download" that page might come up high in the search engine results. So a human-readable URL would be something that would also help a search engine bot.Marshalrusty wrote:But why would anyone in their right mind write such an algorithm? Google is trying to prevent people from gaming the system, not set up weird ways for them to do so.Pony99CA wrote:I think that a Web crawler might look at words in the URL and see if they also appeared in the page content. If they did, the SERP would get a (slight bump); if not, SERP would take a hit.
Code: Select all
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/canonical-link-tag/
Code: Select all
http://www.spottedpanda.com/2011/seo-news/confirmed-seo-facts-matt-cutts/
Code: Select all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRzMhlFZz9I
Code: Select all
https://www.google.com/#q=matt+cutts+seo+friendly+urls&tbm=vid
Marshalrusty wrote:Okay, where does he say that then?Pony99CA wrote:I don't think that's what he's claiming Matt Cutts said. I think he's claiming the Matt said that
http://www.example.com/how-to-make-seo-friendly-urls
is better than
http://www.example.com/viewtopic_12345.html
I cannot think of any reason why a modern web crawler would treat those two URLs differently.
abcEzy, I'd appreciate some clarification of your above claim.
Using outdated information doesn't prove anything. Web crawlers have changed over the years, so something that was true 2 or 5 years ago isn't necessarily true now.February 15, 2009
13 November 2012
Uploaded on Mar 5, 2009
So I did, and didn't find anything of what you said. So now it'sabcEzy wrote:Try going to Matt Cutts page and learn a thing or two
Frankly, between this topic, and the other one where you argued with 2 phpBB Team Members about whether phpBB caches some styles data in the database (it does), I'm not really too keen on the whole "trust me" thing.abcEzy wrote:All one needs to do is get off their bottom, send Matt Cutts an email or post to one of his blogs as a reply, and he will tell you what ive been trying to say to you lot all this time
That doesn't say that URLs need keywords embedded in them at all. It says that pages that may have multiple URLs associated with them should help search engines by using a new header tag to help page rank accrue to the canonical link instead of the various URL forms.abcEzy wrote:some urls to read from his site and others:Code: Select all
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/canonical-link-tag/
That link did say that keywords in URLs are useful -- with a caveat.abcEzy wrote:Code: Select all
http://www.spottedpanda.com/2011/seo-news/confirmed-seo-facts-matt-cutts/
If it's only one factor out of over 200, the question is the same as before -- among all of those factors, where do keywords in URLs fall. If they're in the top 5 or 10, that might be important. If they're down at 195 or 200, they're probably not so important.It is better to have keywords in the URL as it is taken as a factor in the ranking results, albeit only one of over 200. Matt Cutts on Keywords in URL’s - See more at: http://www.spottedpanda.com/2011/seo-ne ... 8MpHp.dpuf
If possible use a file extension (.html) or at least have mime type to help Google and also users. Matt Cutts on File Extensions - See more at: http://www.spottedpanda.com/2011/seo-ne ... 8MpHp.dpuf
(Emphasis added)abcEzy wrote:Trust me, Titles, keywords in urls URLs, non-www domains, no .htm's / .htmls / .php's receive better page rank
Why would anybody be unless they're trying to make money off their site (or sell services as an SEO "professional")?abcEzy wrote:I guess you're not an avid SEO'er then?
Based on the next paragraph, would it really matter? If you're hogging all of the keywords and do this for a living, what hope would a part-time admin have?abcEzy wrote:but hey, if you all want to remain skeptical, or think im full of it... no problems, im just trying to help you all, but if you dont want my help and remain naive about it all, good luck in getting more traffic if one is not going to budge...
What does "My sites get over 300,000 hits a month just from SEO alone" even mean? Does it mean that your content is garbage but thanks to SEO you get lots of hits? If your content is good, how do you know that those hits are coming from SEO alone?abcEzy wrote:My sites get over 300,000 hits a month just from SEO alone and I rank for 10's of thousands of keywords on page one and a LOT of the keywords for many of my sites all rank on the first page and knocked previous first page rankers back down way into the 2nd thru 4th page of google, and I hold 80-90% of the rankings for a nice selection of keywords.
Harsh, but true . (true in the sense that many people think that, not necessarily that it's true)Pony99CA wrote:Is it any wonder why many of us here regard SEO people as the modern day snake oil salesmen?
However, that's not a human-readable URL.antonjw2 wrote:https://support.google.com/webmasters/a ... 6329?hl=en
Which clearly says it is better to use human-readable URLs.
That's not really that ironic. They use WordPress to handle the blog.antonjw2 wrote:But here's another delicious irony... of one with a friendly URL..
https://blog.phpbb.com/2008/08/23/seo-p ... in-phpbb3/
So if you want Human Friendly URLs, it's ironic that you'd cite that article.These changes [eliminating duplicate content URLs] will be far more beneficial for Search Engines than any Human Readable URLs change will have.