“I am curious to get additional input on the imortance of file names
(i.e. keyword.html) as it relates to SEO. Some experts advise to name
website files using keywords, and others are silent on the subject.
Given the formula for page density, # of inbound links and the actual
text of the inbound links, I don’t know where the name of the file can
fit into the equation.”

No changes were made to the page so it seems to have risen on its own
accord. AFAIK know, no additional links have been added, so this is all
on-page. On Google.com it is already ranked 6th. With just one page and
4 links all originating from a dmoz listing. there are over 70,000
pages competing for the exact phrase “webmaster community”.

There is plenty of disagreement about whether exact keywords as domain
name helps or not. I think this is highlighting that it might just be
an important factor and the sole reason is not just about link text in
keyword domains.

I think the question of keywords in file names is one of the very good
examples of how dynamic algorithms works in search engines. You can
find valid examples where a keyword in the file name seems to be the
dertermining factor and other examples that show it’s clearly not –
competitive or non-competitive. It makes analysis very confusing. Not
only do we have to understand what role a parameter like this (out of
hundreds) influence on rankings but also when it does so – in which

In my personal experience keywords in file names are one of the less
significant ranking factors. For most searches it dosen’t seem to me to
be a very important factor and for the few where it is I most often
find it very easy to compete against – even with file names without the
keyword. So, in other words, I have personally found it to mostly be a
determening factor for less competitive searches.

I believe it used to matter more. Expecially in Google.
Mikkel deMib Svendsen

The real question is not if keywords help in file names [they do] but if they help more or less than a shorter url.

Imagine you are a search engine;



Which is likely to contain the “best” content?
> Which is likely to contain the “best” content?

This is a very interesting question. Many of you probably remember the
analysis Yahoo did, I think it was last year, where they tested the
quality of pages with various number of hyphens in them. As I remember
they said the quality dramatically went down after two!

I am pretty sure they make similar analysis of URL-length, complexity
and other such things all the time. And you are right NFFC, such
testings may very well show that, generally, shorter URLs contain
better content. If the analysis show that, in general, be asured it
will be used. However, I have no solid proof that is in fact the case
today. I do not that very long URL’s hurt your but I am actually not
certain about the exact cutt off.

What is certain is that on Google search result listing, though not in
all, keywords in file names are EMPAHSIZED. That’s why I know it is

You can’t draw that conclusion based on what Google chose to show. What
they show and highlight in a listing is not the same as how they rank
pages. Ranking algo’s is a million times more complex than what they
show (and thats probably wise if they want to keep the majority of
average users! )

why not just wwf.ca/saveourclimate?