Comments on: Sorry Google Webmaster Team, But I Gotta Call Bullshit On This One

By: Lindsay Gaines

Lindsay Gaines — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 05:32:55 +0000

Hey guys, just wanted to point something out as to Google’s philosophy on “easy to read” URLs. First of all, when was the last time you actually typed in a URL past the .com or .net? Most often nowadays people get to deep URLs through either a) bookmarks, b) links from other pages, or most commonly c) Google.

I’m sure you’ve read the articles about people who just type “hotmail.com” into google instead of the address bar. For those users it allows them to type sloppily and still get where they want to go, and the same is true for many web pages. It’s easier to remember the two or three words you used to initially search for a page than its full URL. So what I’m getting at here is that Google benefits from every website having impossible to remember URLs. It means that more people will use Google as their first point of contact for any browsing session, which means more ad revenue for the big guy.

Just something to think about.

By: Dominating SEO

Dominating SEO — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:01:51 +0000

Contradictory statement is specialist of G. I am not sure but their main intention doing these is confusing people about their algo and strategies.

Also, negative has more importance then positive things does.

-DS

By: Michael VanDeMar

Michael VanDeMar — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:21:05 +0000

JJ, actually, that’s what URL rewritting solves… it turns parameterized urls into friendly ones. The post that the Google Webmaster Team made told people that they were better off not rewriting their urls.

By: JJ Walker

JJ Walker — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:16:03 +0000

It’s funny, we had this same issue on our site as well. The problem is that the variations of the URL string get indexed because of link popularity. Or at least it’s that way in our case…

Luckily Yahoo has a dynamic parameters tool where you can suggest to yahoo what parameters you use for your query string. I would hope that some day the other two SE’s get the same or similar tool.

We found a work around though that might work for you guys in the meantime… Just hide your variables and pass a plain href to any simple html pass by the bots.

function navigateToGoodLink1()
{
window.location = “http://www.hostilelink1.com/default.aspx?isc=gdppg101&ci=1234
return 0;
}

Good Link

By: MoodySEO

MoodySEO — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:37:32 +0000

I am near live on a monster URL re-write project. I explained yesterday to the pointy-hairs and they asked if I could ‘add some gobbledegook parameters back to my nice clean URLs’. LOL.. Maybe Google thinks I should? Thanks Mike for nailing the lunacy of Googles daft pronouncement.

By: Real Cost Domains

Real Cost Domains — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:45:14 +0000

I thought I was seeing things yesterday when I read the story. I agree with Mike in not leaving it up to Google bot because for years we were told to do the exact opposite.

Mike you are a brave soul….

By: Matt Ridout

Matt Ridout — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:55:42 +0000

I like your post mate. To be honest I’m just confused that Google would choose a series of meaningless characters for the average web user over clear identifiable descriptions on dynamic URL’s – blows my mind!

By: Data Entry Lady

Data Entry Lady — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:01:48 +0000

Oops! Looks like somebody made a faux pas.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:31:10 +0000

Dude, you can’t talk like that about Google! Google sees everything. You should be afraid,… very afraid.

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:13:06 +0000

My initial impression when reading the Dynamic URLs vs. static URLs post was WTF!

This post is evidence that I was not the only one thinking this.

Great article!