Hello:

Could be some problem with the name of files, to index in Google or
Yahoo, if I put, for example like an image files, something similar to
xxxx-xxxx.xxxx.gif or xxxx.xxxx-xxxx.jpeg

--
Miguel M. Yalán
http://mmyv.com
--

Miguel wrote:

> Hello:
>
> Could be some problem with the name of files, to index in Google or
> Yahoo, if I put, for example like an image files, something similar to
> xxxx-xxxx.xxxx.gif or xxxx.xxxx-xxxx.jpeg

If your question is about the use of hyphens - in URLs,
I think it was a time when it was better to use underscores _ instead,
and also it seems a good idea to build the URL with
words (not many) in the file name that are important to the content,
for example http://www.domain.com/blue_car.jpg

"cristina" <EMAIL REMOVED> wrote:

> Miguel wrote:
>
>> Hello:
>>
>> Could be some problem with the name of files, to index in Google or
>> Yahoo, if I put, for example like an image files, something similar to
>> xxxx-xxxx.xxxx.gif or xxxx.xxxx-xxxx.jpeg
>
> If your question is about the use of hyphens - in URLs,
> I think it was a time when it was better to use underscores _ instead,
> and also it seems a good idea to build the URL with
> words (not many) in the file name that are important to the content,
> for example http://www.domain.com/blue_car.jpg

From what I recall, - was preferred over _.

But notice also the . in both filenames (not counting the extension
separator). I doubt it does matter though.

I use - separated words in filenames a lot, both for HTML and images.

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

cristina wrote:

> If your question is about the use of hyphens - in URLs,
> I think it was a time when it was better to use underscores _ instead,

It is difficult to spot underscores in underlined URLs (e.g. in print
media), so I'd avoid them.

David Dorward wrote

> It is difficult to spot underscores in underlined URLs (e.g. in print
> media), so I'd avoid them.

That's true, but I wouldn't use them for something that had to be read and
typed in, so it isn't a factor for me.

I do use underscores. For some reason I had the idea that it was the
correct way to do it, and that has stuck. For me, a hyphen or any other
separator just doesn't look right.

--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com

cristina wrote:
>
> If your question is about the use of hyphens - in URLs,
> I think it was a time when it was better to use underscores _ instead

AIUI, search engines tend to treat words separated by hyphens as
separate words, and words separated by underscores as a single compound
word.

Developers probably tend to favor underscores because most programming
languages don't allow hyphens as a word separator for variable or
function names. It's just a habit to use underscores.

--
Berg

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:29:59 -0600, Bergamot put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>cristina wrote:
>>
>> If your question is about the use of hyphens - in URLs,
>> I think it was a time when it was better to use underscores _ instead
>
>AIUI, search engines tend to treat words separated by hyphens as
>separate words, and words separated by underscores as a single compound
>word.

That's a side-effect of search engines being originally programmed
using standard regular expressions, in which the underscore is a word
character (along with all the letters and numerals), while all other
punctuation (including a hyphen) are non-word characters. So anything
that searches for word boundaries will find one in between the
sections of "foo-bar", but won't find a boundary in "foo_bar".

I tend to use plus signs as separators in URLs (particularly when
using mod_rewrite to read parseable URLs rather than using GET
variables). That's partly because a plus sign is a valid and correct
URL replacement for a space anyway, but it also avoids confusion with
words that are genuinely hyphenated and need to remain hyphenated in
the URL (such as double-barrelled names, and hypenated words like
"double-barrelled"!).

>Developers probably tend to favor underscores because most programming
>languages don't allow hyphens as a word separator for variable or
>function names. It's just a habit to use underscores.

More to the point, hyphens *are* a word separator in most programming
languages (just as they are in regular expressions, and for the same
reason), but variable names usually have to be a single word. So
programmers use underscores to create the visual appearance of
multiple words in a string that is actually only one word as far as
the language compiler/interpreter is concerned.

Mark
--
Visit: http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Well it's true today"

> AIUI, search engines tend to treat words separated by hyphens as
> separate words, and words separated by underscores as a single compound
> word.

That may be simplistic. I've observed Google parsing compound words
recently and returning results with the components separate as well as
compound.

Bergamot wrote:

> Developers probably tend to favor underscores because most programming
> languages don't allow hyphens as a word separator for variable or
> function names. It's just a habit to use underscores.

I ***ume that search engines might use sometimes some
programming languages when they crawl and store URLs, etc.
and I think this is why when they have an
update or something they might have for a short time problems
with other characters than alpha-numeric characters or
underscores (as word separators).

Also more search engines are accepting sitemaps in XML format
(after Google there is now Yahoo and soon MSN)
and it is better I think not to worry about the encoding of characters
in URLs in sitemaps, and there is no problem
with alphanumeric characters and underscores.

I am still not sure what the question in the original posting was.

Phil Payne wrote

>> AIUI, search engines tend to treat words separated by hyphens as
>> separate words, and words separated by underscores as a single compound
>> word.
>
> That may be simplistic. I've observed Google parsing compound words
> recently and returning results with the components separate as well as
> compound.

Indeed. It has always appeared so to me.

--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com