|
|
Posted by Sherm Pendley on 06/07/07 07:43
dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> writes:
> In article <m2vee0s3dh.fsf@local.wv-www.com>,
> Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org> wrote:
>
>> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> writes:
>>
>> > In article <m23b14tjs9.fsf@local.wv-www.com>,
>> > Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Adrienne Boswell <arbpen@yahoo.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > I suggested use is misspellings of common words. For a long time, I
>> >> > could not spell affidavit correctly (heck who's kidding who, I still
>> >> > have
>> >> > to look it up), so one could put common misspellings for keywords.
>> >>
>> >> Google's "Did you mean: ..." feature makes that a more or less moot point.
>> >>
>> >
>> > er...
>>
>> I take that to mean that I didn't make it clear just *how* that makes this
>> point moot. :-)
>>
>> If you search Google
>
> It was that I thought it odd to suppose the point was to use meta
> tags as a spellcheck.
It wasn't "the" point, but it certainly was *a* point.
In the absense of Google's spellchecking, and assuming that meta elements
were used, then it's quite reasonable to include popular misspellings in
the meta elements so that one's pages could be found by searching for the
misspelled terms. It was a very popular use of meta elements, back when
Google et al actually cared about them to begin with.
As I said though, it's moot now, because Google's spell check addresses the
problem of incorrectly-spelled search terms by correcting them at the source.
That makes such a workaround unnecessary.
sherm--
--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|