[pmwiki-users] WikiWords and Google
kirpi at kirpi.it
kirpi at kirpi.it
Sun Mar 5 03:49:27 CST 2006
Just let's put thing in other words: wiki software has an engine which
let RollingStones and Rolling Stones be recognizes as the same thing
(and then links are generated and so on...).
Google could not have that sort of engine; this implies that, let's
say "EditVariables" and "ROSPatterns" will be to Google's eyes just
like "editvariables" and "rospatterns". And *not* "edit variables" and
"ros patterns" or whatever.
This argument is somehow "reduced" (is this good English?) by the fact
that (as far as I know) Google reads the html page, so that if we
choose to show WikiWords separated like "Wiki Words", then the problem
is maybe levelled to zero.
a) It is *not* sure to me (us?) at present whether Google separates WikiWords.
b) It would be a safe choice for us to show WikiWords as Wiki Words.
c) It is anyway the best choice, in order to let search engines find
our text, to use [].
Am I wrong?
On 3/5/06, Patrick R. Michaud <pmichaud at pobox.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 07:17:41PM -0700, H. Fox wrote:
> > On 3/4/06, Patrick R. Michaud <pmichaud at pobox.com> wrote:
> > > > Results 1 - 10 of about 442,000 for rollingstones. (0.11 seconds)
> > > > Results 1 - 10 of about 25,300,000 for "rolling stones". (0.12 seconds)
> > >
> > > This doesn't really answer the question -- the question isn't
> > > whether the search results are the same (we know they won't be),
> > > but rather if a search for "rolling stones" would find a page
> > > named "Rolling Stones".
> > Typo?
> Yes, typo.
> > > The above results don't tell us anything
> > > about whether the 442,000 pages found by "rollingstones" also
> > > appear in the 25,300,000 results for "rolling stones".
> > It was only intended to show that the two are not interchangeable.
> > To find out if rollingstones gets /indexed/ as "rolling stones" you'd
> > do something like this
> > Results 1 - 10 of about 13,400,000 for "rolling stones" AND
> > rollingstones. (0.29 seconds)
> > Results 1 - 10 of about 13,600,000 for "rolling stones" OR
> > rollingstones. (0.31 seconds)
> > and the two would be the same, no?
> Those two *do* look about the same to me -- there certainly isn't
> a significant difference between them ( < 2% ). But perhaps
> what we're seeing there is that most pages describing
> "Rolling Stones" are going to have links in them to rollingstones.com.
> > Hey... Doesn't it seem like that bottom one should be greater than 25,300,000?
> > <tries previous searches again>
> > Results 1 - 10 of about 15,100,000 for "rolling stones". (0.13 seconds)
> > Results 1 - 10 of about 249,000 for rollingstones. (0.12 seconds)
> > The math seems to be getting a bit fuzzy over at Google...
> It's always a bit fuzzy. I don't think that Google actually counts
> pages to determine the "about" figure -- I think it's a statistical
> estimate. I've noticed this even within a single query -- for
> some queries, clicking on the "next" button to get the next set
> of pages seems to reduce the number substantially.
> > p.s.: The fact that one of the sites I found when searching for SEO
> > information runs PmWiki must mean something. :-)
> Really? Which one? (I suspect it may be a biased sample. :-)
More information about the pmwiki-users