True or False

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by HigherHeights

I dont think it makes such a big difference because search engines will index and rank pages based on their content so basically putting a dash in ur domain name is only really usefull if you want your visitors to be able to read your website URL easier.

It is true that keywords in the URL do not matter a whole lot on their own. Anchor text is the biggie when it comes to search engine rankings.

[HigherHeights]

Yes your absolutely right. That makes almost all the difference when your page is being ranked.

[Sadu]

Originally Posted by John Scott

The underlined part is incorrect. Google does NOT parse keywords in domains when they are run together.

OK, I'm listening, and are certainly not wanting to pass on information that is not correct.

I based my conclusion on being able to get brand new word1word2.com domains ranking for their own name very very easily, and the fact the words in the result are bolded. I also find that greenwidgets.com is easier to rank for terms that include "widgets" or "green" than other domains. It's possible this is a product of incoming link text.

On top of that, I'm a believer in doing what seems logical at the user level - not just pandering to whatever Google thinks is cool at any particular time.

I think if search engines didn't exist, most people would agree that a domain without dashes is best. It's easier to say and remember - 2 very important components of a domain. In most cases it's still perfectly readable.
So to hear that Google does not reward "good practice" in this regard is a little surprising. Normally what is good for the user is good for Google - descriptive anchor text, descriptive titles, well formed code etc etc.

By rewarding dashed domains with good rankings, does this encourage britney-mortgage-casino-widgets.com type behaviour?

But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I'll be updating that article accordingly.

Thanks John.

[John Scott]

So if anchor text is important, and people link to a site using the URL as the anchor text, which link would you rather own:

http://www.quality-web-hosting.net
or
http://www.qualitywebhosting.net

?

Yeah, I know, they both suck.

http://www.v7n.com/keyword-descriptive-domains.php
http://www.v7n.com/keyword-descriptive-domains-2.php

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Sadu

I based my conclusion on being able to get brand new word1word2.com domains ranking for their own name very very easily, and the fact the words in the result are bolded.

It's a common mistake. People think bolding equals parsing. It doesn't.

Originally Posted by My Blog

This really doesn’t help, because it’s generally agreed upon that the highlighting is not indicative of algorithmic parsing of keywords. In order to prove that Google’s highlighting is non-algorthimic, all we need to do is find an instance of Google highlighting non-words. That is to say, insofar as parsing keywords requires Google to identify actual words as such, highlighting non-words will prove that the highlighting is simple highlighting and not parsing.

And here it is:

webhos talk

Webhos is not a word, but Google highlighted the occurence of those characters anyway.

90854

Random letters, not a word, but Google highlights them anyway because Google’s highlighting is simply there to highlight. Not parse words - just highlight.

http://www.internet-marketing-blog.c...words-in-urls/ <-- Read that, much more in depth.

[HigherHeights]

Originally Posted by John Scott

So if anchor text is important, and people link to a site using the URL as the anchor text, which link would you rather own:

http://www.quality-web-hosting.net
or
http://www.qualitywebhosting.net

?

Good question....i had to think for a second.

Well for me it would be a toin coss because if you put both those websites together and give them both equal incoming links with the exact same anchor text. The website with the most relevant page content based on the search term would be ranked highest.

[John Scott]

On top of that, I'm a believer in doing what seems logical at the user level - not just pandering to whatever Google thinks is cool at any particular time.

I think if search engines didn't exist, most people would agree that a domain without dashes is best. It's easier to say and remember - 2 very important components of a domain. In most cases it's still perfectly readable.
So to hear that Google does not reward "good practice" in this regard is a little surprising. Normally what is good for the user is good for Google - descriptive anchor text, descriptive titles, well formed code etc etc.

By rewarding dashed domains with good rankings, does this encourage britney-mortgage-casino-widgets.com type behaviour?

But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I'll be updating that article accordingly.

From a pure SE standpoint, dashes are good.

But if you knew my history, you'd know I don't give SEO the driver's seat.

This forum, and this entire site, used to be located at www.internet-marketing-research.net

It is now at www.v7n.com

You see where I'm going with this?

My web hosting division used to be at www.quality-web-hosting.net - now it's at www.v7inc.com

Brand domains are much easier to promote. From a marketing standpoint, brand domains rule.

[bcombs]

From a link building perspective, many sites (especially directories) will only link to the company name, so dashes have a real advantage.

I think they look ugly from a branding perspective as well, even though we chose to use them in the Apogee Search domain. We did, however, buy the non-hyphenated domain name as well, and mirrored it to the main site.

Not a perfect solution, but catches many of the problems.

[Sadu]

Originally Posted by John Scott

You see where I'm going with this?

For sure.

It's the toss-up between easier rankings for a handful of phrases, or go with a more-difficult-to-seo branded name that will have a greater appeal and most flexibility later on.

I mostly do sites for bricks and mortar businesses, and they always want the brand. I tend to agree, but it's different for all businesses.

[John Scott]

I just realized you're from NZ. You know Peter Da Vanzo?

[Sadu]

Have visited his site before, but don't know each other as such.

You have a good site here John - a lot of the content here and in the blog really makes sense, and it's not just the recycled stuff that we already know.

[John Scott]

Thanks, Sadu

[ninjashoes]

Hmm I wonder what difference in relevency there is say with the name John Doe

is John-Doe more relevent to the words "John" and "Doe" because of the dash as opposed to "John Do" which is more relevent for "John Do" but less relevent for "John" and "Doe" seperately?

Nm I just gave myself a headache uyyyyyy

[Bluecircle]

I had been wondering about this. Finally I know for sure. I guess I should change http://www.qualitytrafficsupply.com/websitetraffic.php to http://www.qualitytrafficsupply.com/website-traffic.php.

I wonder how much effect this will have on my SERPs.

[John Scott]

Do it. Just rename the file, and 301 websitetraffic.php to website-traffic.php.

[lizza]

Originally Posted by HigherHeights

I dont think it makes such a big difference because search engines will index and rank pages based on their content so basically putting a dash in ur domain name is only really usefull if you want your visitors to be able to read your website URL easier.

You are right.Search Engine Listed sites according to the keywords.

[cessai]

i think it's true and based from the other forums as well