Re: Google friendly URLs?
- From: Big Bill <bill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:57:21 GMT
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:38:56 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
____/ Ignoramus27155 on Tuesday 24 July 2007 14:19 : \____
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:13:19 +0100, John <johng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have a colleague who believes using
http://www.mystore.com/blah/product-name.html
will give an SEO advantage over using
http://www.mystore.com/page.asp?productid=3D1234
when someone searches for "product name" - Are they right?
Absolutely.
i
I've just reead (based on something that Cutts announced) that underscores will
now be treated as word separators. That changes the game slightly.
Where was this please? First I heard and it sounds like someone
interpreting something someone else said so I'd like a firsthand look.
BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-marketing-small-business.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/close-ended-questions.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/giving/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Google friendly URLs?
- From: Roy Schestowitz
- Re: Google friendly URLs?
- References:
- Google friendly URLs?
- From: John
- Re: Google friendly URLs?
- From: Ignoramus27155
- Re: Google friendly URLs?
- From: Roy Schestowitz
- Google friendly URLs?
- Prev by Date: Re: Re-Spidering Time-Frames?
- Next by Date: Re: Looking for a SEO partner to give work to
- Previous by thread: Re: Google friendly URLs?
- Next by thread: Re: Google friendly URLs?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
