SEO Fiascoes: The Trouble with Search Engine Optimization

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

SEO Fiascoes: The Trouble with Search Engine Optimization

pageoneresults

4:30 pm on Feb 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

Here we go, that Dvorak guy is ruffling some feathers...

SEO Fiascoes: The Trouble with Search Engine Optimization
[pcmag.com...]

I think it's because these long URLs are just crap and stupid. They are impossible to post anywhere or send in an e-mail because they get concatenated. You have to know to snip them with tinyURL or snurl. This stinks. I am going to turn them off and mock anyone using them and anyone who tells me to use them. And if you look around today, that means just about everyone!

I kind of like this guy. ;)

buckworks

4:38 pm on Feb 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

In my book, long URLs like the examples he gives are evidence that the supposed SEO is in fact pretty clueless.

Receptional Andy

4:47 pm on Feb 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

I dunno, it seems like another all-to-easy "SEO is a scam because I listened to imperfect advice" rant to me:

SEO[']s proponents are modern snake-oil salesmen

And lazy opinions are still lazy opinions.

A bad URL is a bad URL. But URLs with words in them are for humans - URLs with numbers in them are for machines. It just requires a "happy medium". I'm not a fan of URLs like "/article2/0,2817,2340694,00.asp" either ;)

For me, one of the best aspects of a good URL is the users can know what to expect before they click through.

Shaddows

4:55 pm on Feb 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

I like (and use) a happy medium such as
/search_engine_promotion/3846461.htm
(actually, I would avoid the .htm, but who am I to argue?)

And would hate to see a move to more bloggy
/search_engine_promotion/3846461-SEO+Fiascoes

Or worse
/search_engine_promotion/3846461-SEO_Fiascoes_The_Trouble_with_Search_Engine_Optimization.htm