Re: Google friendly URLs?
- From: "Denise" <dionyza@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:42:12 GMT
"Big Bill" <bill@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6tpha3pbmamheovmr18nl7aenemdd7c209@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:00:53 +0100, Roy SchestowitzHere it is:
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
____/ Big Bill on Wednesday 25 July 2007 14:57 : \____
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.
I think it was WebProNews where I read this. I believe it was announced in
some
conference. The source seemed credible.
I found several references, yup, real deal ok.
BB
--
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9748779-7.html
cheers ~
Denise
.
- References:
- Google friendly URLs?
- From: John
- Re: Google friendly URLs?
- From: Ignoramus27155
- Re: Google friendly URLs?
- From: Roy Schestowitz
- Re: Google friendly URLs?
- From: Big Bill
- Re: Google friendly URLs?
- From: Roy Schestowitz
- Re: Google friendly URLs?
- From: Big Bill
- Google friendly URLs?
- Prev by Date: Re: New free web directory
- Next by Date: Re: New free web directory
- Previous by thread: Re: Google friendly URLs?
- Next by thread: Re: Google friendly URLs?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|