RE: [DNS] thread.119

RE: [DNS] thread.119

From: Peter <peter§instra.com.au>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:35:33 +1100
Hi

I don't usually get involved in these discussions - but - if you use a 
"google" search for Australian Shelf Company you get the first two on the 
list being my company and I can assure you I haven't paid for it. In most 
search engines us or Shelfcom come first and second

If you want to get to the top of a search engine list ... study the other 
pages found first, find a common denominators

Then build them into your pages.

We did this years and years ago and we still surface at, or near, the top 
in most search engines,

Try it - don't debate it

Peter Dean
Chairman - The Instra Group
(including www.incorporate.com.au)



At 12:29 PM 1/17/02 +1100, you wrote:
>Saliya
>
>This is not proof, but it may help you.
>
>Go to alltheweb search engine and search for "valottery"
>
>The first 2 results will be from the valottery.com website.  The 1st has no
>reference in the html to valottery.  The 3rd result has valottery in its
>title, metatag title and a javascript.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Saliya Wimalaratne [mailto:saliya&#167;hinet.net.au]
>Sent: Thursday, 17 January 2002 11:59 AM
>To: dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
>Subject: Re: [DNS] thread.119
>
>
>On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Kim Davies wrote:
>
> > | Anybody else think they know a search engine where sites get a
> > | better ranking purely because they have a domain name which
> > | matches the search query (and not because they paid money)?
> > | Bonus points if its a search engine people actually use.
> >
> > I don't think you are going to get a definitive answer to this. I would
> > think it reasonable that a search engine could use the URL as some
> > criteria in evaluating the page.
>
>I think it's reasonable too. But the question is not whether it is
>reasonable; it is whether it *happens*. None of the documentation I have
>looked at lists domain name as a criterion for any of the major search
>engines. The documentation *does* list other criteria; so if the domain
>name is used, it is not important enough to be mentioned in the
>information pages.
>
>Hence the theorem that it is not used. Perhaps the theorem should be
>amended to 'it is not used in any significant capacity': for the purposes
>of annulling the 'generic names are intrinsically valuable' argument, the
>second theorem is as good as the first.
>
> > Of course, if everyone is being literal in saying that domain names
> > are not used by search engines, you'll be pleased to know if you go
> > to Google and type in "cars.com" the first hit is www.cars.com,
> > similarly for "home.com", "science.com", "television.com" etc.
> >
> > I guess to really prove that search engines consider domain names in
> > queries, if I type in "cs.curtin.edu" into Altavista the top matches are
>
>I expect that this is a specific function of altavista: it has recognised
>that you put in a domain name or part thereof, so restricted itself to
>that domain. To apply to the current discussion, just use 'cs', or
>'curtin', or 'edu' or some other word not recognisable as a domain name.
>
> > As for the the more general question of generics having no success
> > compared to other domains, as I said a month ago: There are a number
> > of generics that have succeeded, and given that generics are in such a
> > small minority, I think it is unreasonable to assert they are failures
> > with no value.
>
>Yes, that assertion is just as unreasonable as the assertion that a
>generic domain is a guarantee of success.
>
> > The fact is, many people think they are valuable. If anyone here wants
> > to convince them that they are not then I think you are probably wasting
> > your time. Let them find out for themselves.
>
>In some senses you're right: the people I'm aiming at are those that are
>actually going to shell out the bucks; not those trying to sell the
>domains. The sellers are always going to try to sell; but the buyers
>should be armed with *some* information :P
>
>Regards,
>
>Saliya
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
>Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
>author, further information at the above URL.  (331 subscribers.)
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
>Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
>author, further information at the above URL.  (331 subscribers.)
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Apr 27 2015 - 00:00:10 UTC