|
|
Posted by El Kabong on 06/07/07 13:05
"Sherm Pendley" <spamtrap@dot-app.org> wrote in message
news:m2myzcryyz.fsf@local.wv-www.com...
> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> writes:
(snip)
> 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.
However, the misspelled string _does_ cause Google's algorithm to produce a
slightly different found set. That's not to say that those results are
influenced by the presence or absence of keywords... I've never looked at
the source code of the top sites to see what they were actually doing in
that situation. Nevertheless, the misspelled words do bring back a different
set of results so there must be some variation in causation.
I think, maybe. Being a married man, I'm often wrong.
El
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|