Dynadot

advice Google’s John Mueller Cautions Against Keyword-Rich Domains

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

News

Hand-picked NewsTop Member
Impact
3,427
Keyword-rich domains may harm a website's long-term success, warns Google Search Advocate John Mueller. Here are five reasons why.
Keyword-rich domain names were once thought to be an effective way to increase a website’s visibility and improve search engine rankings.
However, there are several reasons why keyword-rich domain names can be detrimental to a website’s success.
Read More
 
6
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Hmmmm. Yep. Old news. But you can try and change this old news. Try and see what happens. Not as easy as you think.
 
0
•••
Uhm... Isn't this old news? I mean, it's common knowledge emds don't help your ranking from a SEO point of view.

The reason this question, and these stupid answers I may add, keep popping up is because in the past you could use any shitty 5 word dashed emd and you would have a lot of ranking benefits. Times have changed. People are quite stubborn when they were taught something which has now become outdated knowledge.

The gist of his statement is: this is no longer the case. Content is king. Everything else is just discussing semantics.
Mueller's revelations are fairly new, roughly a year old.

But a lot of domainers have issues with it. Which makes sense, because if you own a lot of EMD:s and you want to sell them in the near future you need to be able to convince your clients that EMD:s are valuable, and main selling-point of an EMD:s is that it will generate free traffic by giving an SEO bonus, which functions a bit like free advertisement.

It's important to understand that Google (or any other search engine) have no interest in promoting your portfolio of domains, their goal is to provide the end-user with relevant sites.

Take carinsurance.com which sold for $49.7 million in 2010 (one of the most expensive domains ever sold). Its site doesn't even rank on the first page of Google for the search [car insurance]. You could always make the argument that the owner is an idiot that hasn't done proper SEO structuring, but I can't find any blatant SEO errors, and you'd think someone who could blow $50 million on a domain would be able to spare a bit of money to keep his business site relevant.

You could of course always make the argument that boats.com ranks first for boats. But the question is: Is that because of the domain, or is it because the site-owner has spent a lot of money on ads and SEO to keep the site relevant? After all, if they had the money to buy boats.com then they should have money to invest in ads and SEO. As outsiders to the site we don't really know, which muddies the waters quite a bit, and it allows domainers to propagate this idea that using EMD:s give you preferential treatment in the Search Engines, without knowing if it really does.

But if what Mueller says is true:

There’s no secret (or public) SEO-bonus for having your keywords in the domain name.
searchenginejournal.com/google-no-seo-bonus-for-keyword-based-domains/438324/

Then it's clear that it doesn't.
 
9
•••
Sure. I am lying. With every sentence I write.
Why are you being facetious?

You made the claim that John Mueller, in the above article, is paralleling Mathew Cutts' Tweet from 2012. This is wrong.

Mueller made it clear that there’s no secret (or public) SEO-bonus for having your keywords in the domain name, he said it verbatim. He further brings up the example with web-design.com and sabertoothed-hedgehog.com ranking the same for web-design, leaving no room for speculation.

The 2012 Tweet, by Cutts, you're referring to says this:

Minor weather report: small update upcoming. Google algo change will reduce low-quality "exact-match" domains in search results.

This is admittedly vague, and off that alone I'd agree with your speculation that it was more of a tune-down than a turning-off. But again, that's speculation, because it's not clear from the Tweet alone what was actually done.

On top of that, this was over 10 years ago, so aside from being vague, the information is no longer particularly relevant because Google's Search Engine algorithm has gone through a slew of updates since.

Mueller's statement, on the other hand, is recent, unambiguous, and it makes perfect sense for a Search Engine.

I understand why you, and some other domainers may not like it, but it's important to separate feelings from facts when giving financial- or business related advice.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Last edited:
5
•••
I think you mean sarcastic. Facetious is making light/amusement.
No, I meant that he's making light of the situation. We're discussing a rather serious topic when it comes to financial advice concerning domaining, and he's providing misleading speculation and making light of the situation to deflect criticism of it.

We had a similar debate in another thread two days ago, where he eventually had a racist meltdown. These post were posted back-to-back with no responses in-between.

Heehee. Look buddy. I'm not looking to propagate any nonsense. You must be from America where this garbage is being sold on a daily basis, air-tight and ad nauseum.

In any case, I wish you well. Words are only words. Convince some ignoramus
that they are worth something.

Ciao, Hefe.
Ok. I can only speak from personal experience with Google ads, Microsoft ads and about 2 smaller ones.

You must be from the States, because only they will try shit like that.

Good luck buddy. Take your caravan elsewhere.
Just another American bore. Try some other swank who believes it. Like most every worried sot in the last 2 hundred years.
Nope. You have your own projections in mind.

Heehee. You are projecting what you hope to be true.

Well, tell your American parents because they have done the same. Wreaked really weird things on people for material gain, all over the world.

Set a time. I would love to talk with these people.
 
Last edited:
5
•••
Google is no longer the King. There are many places to advertise on right now.
I have to admit Google seems to me not effective as it was in the past... let's say you want to buy an house, you end up in SERPs packed with those aggregators ranked both by ADS and organic, instead of a local website with real people selling houses on a daily basis... This is a 'vision' that has made the www poor and flat, since business owners do not put any effort on building their websites... because they won't rank and don't have any chance , unless they invest a lot and most startups cannot hire very expensive agencies to do the job... For what it concerns 'quality', a php generated script that mass create can obtain better results than manually written unique articles... If ADS is all they think is internet, AI could make them the new 'altavista' or a spam search engine.
 
1
•••
While Google may be considered less effective, it still holds roughly 93% of the market, Bing being #2 with 3%.

gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share

I don't think SEO-friendly AI articles will be much of an issue in the long run. The biggest concern people have with Google seems to be security. Which in retrospect is rather ironic considering Bing is #2, but I'm guessing that's because some people use Edge with its default browser.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Interestingly there was a recent leak for Yandex's algorithm 2 weeks ago.

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pD_wVng88_jg-jYgfypnLb3BK5jrYyu_luSDmLZgnCU/edit#gid=0

The only mention of the SLD I can find is on line 1596, but that refers to a differentiation of the subdomain and SLD (both of which are set to 1 so they're weighted equally).
 
1
•••
0
•••
0
•••
1. Microsoft - no longer doing things that are only related to software. So, having "soft" in the name is OK.
2. FaceBook - became too big to just be branded with somethig that's related to "faces" of people. They are rebranding to "meta". So rebranding after growing too big is not an issue. Even "google" has rebranded to "alphabet" for the larger target industry.
3. Too much money is needed to market brand names without related keywords. So a good keyword name can save you millions in marketing budget. Google bought YouTube, I don't see them being rebranded and marged with the "Google" name, do you? The terms "you" and "tube" helped them, so it can help us too.
4. Is spaceX a bad name? Why use the keyword "space" for a rocket company? :unsure:

Enough said.
 
0
•••
1. Microsoft - no longer doing things that are only related to software. So, having "soft" in the name is OK.
That's correct, but Microsoft predates search engines, and "soft" is a different keyword from "software" so microsoft.com isn't a partial match domain, let alone an exact match.

2. FaceBook - became too big to just be branded with somethig that's related to "faces" of people. They are rebranding to "meta". So rebranding after growing too big is not an issue. Even "google" has rebranded to "alphabet" for the larger target industry.
Facebook is a brand, not a keyword, and Alphabet isn't an exact match either because it's not related to a product or service people search for.

3. Too much money is needed to market brand names without related keywords. So a good keyword name can save you millions in marketing budget. Google bought YouTube, I don't see them being rebranded and marged with the "Google" name, do you? The terms "you" and "tube" helped them, so it can help us too.
But you do not get a bonus for having keywords in your domain anymore. And similarly Youtube is a brand, not an exact match search for a product or service.

4. Is spaceX a bad name? Why use the keyword "space" for a rocket company? :unsure:
To signal what the business is doing. It's like a clinic integrating the word "clinic" in its name, or a security company containing the word "security," and that would technically make something like drjanesclinic.com a partial match, but space isn't related to a product or a service, so spacex.com isn't a partial match.

Enough said.
If you believe this then just buy SLD:s in unpopular extensions or add a bunch of hyphens.

Back in the day people registered all available gTLD:s and even used hyphens and double hyphens (e.g. chicago--shoes.org) to capitalize on the exact match bonus of search engines, you can still do that if you believe that there's some secret bonus.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
"space isn't related to a product or a service, so spacex.com isn't a partial match"
A business agenda.
 
1
•••
"space isn't related to a product or a service, so spacex.com isn't a partial match"
A business agenda.
Admittedly this example is in a gray-area.

You can technically say that SpaceX would want to rank high for space-related searches. But in my opinion it's not that strong of an argument, because that would apply to any brand. Amazon wants to rank high for amazon-related searches, and Discord wants to rank high for discord-related searches. But neither Amazon or Discord are considered EMD:s.

When I think PMD:s and EMD:s, I think domains containing commercial keywords.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
That's correct, but Microsoft predates search engines, and "soft" is a different keyword from "software" so microsoft.com isn't a partial match domain, let alone an exact match.
Anyone who knows anything about software, would recognize a company to be a software company if the term "soft" is in the name. Any search engine company that has minimum brainpower in their company would implement that.

Facebook is a brand, not a keyword, and Alphabet isn't an exact match either because it's not related to a product or service people search for.
Facebook gave the name to represent exactly as the name suggests - book of faces. In fact, facebook originally launched with tha name FaceMash on October 28, 2003, before changing its name to TheFacebook on February 4, 2004. Later it bacame Facebook - i.e. never removing the word face from it. It became a brand much later.

Sure, it doesn't say ACollectionOfPeopleWithTheirProfilePictures.com. But that's just being claver, that's not avoiding the keyword.

But you do not get a bonus for having keywords in your domain anymore. And similarly Youtube is a brand, not an exact match search for a product or service.

To signal what the business is doing. It's like a clinic integrating the word "clinic" in its name, or a security company containing the word "security," and that would technically make something like drjanesclinic.com a partial match, but space isn't related to a product or a service, so spacex.com isn't a partial match.

If you believe this then just buy SLD:s in unpopular extensions or add a bunch of hyphens.

Back in the day people registered all available gTLD:s and even used hyphens and double hyphens (e.g. chicago--shoes.org) to capitalize on the exact match bonus of search engines, you can still do that if you believe that there's some secret bonus.
SpaceX, YouTube - all have keywords in the name. Sure, they are not long keyword stuffed idiotic names. But I never said keyword stuffed names are good. Perhaps you've assumed that for some reason. I said what I said regardless of what's in the artile, nothing more, nothing less.

BTW, the article is from a website named SearchEngineJournal. Compute that.
 
Last edited:
5
•••
Anyone who knows anything about software, would recognize a company to be a software company if the term "soft" is in the name. Any search engine company that has minimum brainpower in their company would implement that.
Softlan is a fabric softener brand.

Anyway, that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about keywords and search engine-use.

And again, microsoft.com is a brandable domain, not an EMD or PMD.

Facebook gave the name to represent exactly as the name suggests - book of faces. In fact, facebook originally launched with tha name FaceMash on October 28, 2003, before changing its name to TheFacebook on February 4, 2004. Later it bacame Facebook - i.e. never removing the word face from it. It became a brand much later.
Yes, but it could've been friendmap.com, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a brandable domain, which is not relevant to the topic.

Sure, it doesn't say ACollectionOfPeopleWithTheirProfilePictures.com. But that's just being claver, that's not avoiding the keyword.
That's not en EMD either because it's not what people naturally search for.

SpaceX, YouTube - all have keywords in the name. Sure, they are not long keyword stuffed idiotic names. But I never said keyword stuffed names are good. Perhaps you've assumed that for some reason. I said what I said regardless of what's in the artile, nothing more, nothing less.
A keyword isn't "any word," it's a word your business tries to rank for in search engines.

BTW, the article is from a website named SearchEngineJournal. Compute that.
Right, and searchenginejournal.com is an EMD.

But Search Engine Journal is a small news site founded in 2003, when keywords in the domain name did affect rankings.

Large business or enterprises like Walmart, Google, YouTube, Disney, etc. pretty much all use brandable domains.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
I've stayed away from EMD, I personally liked short brandables more. However, as a domainer, it is more about what the end user thinks.
 
1
•••
Last edited:
0
•••
Well than, Google for
7 Space Companies to Make You An Astronaut
Space tourism
What point are you trying to make here? And giving you the benefit of a doubt:

BrandDomainFoundedPMDEMD
Virgin Galacticvirgingalactic.com2004NoNo
SpaceXspacex.com2002YesNo
Blue Originblueorigin.com2000NoNo
Origin Span----
Boeing Spaceboeing.com/space2015NoNo
Space Adventuresspaceadventures.com1998-Yes
Zero 2 Infinityzero2infinity.space2009NoNo

Where's explorespace.com? Where's spacetourism.com? Where's spacetrip.com? Where's spacetravel.com? They're not in use...and I don't think they ever will be.

There are as many PMD:s and EMD:s as there are .space domains with numbers in them on this list.

And considering how Space Adventures was founded the same year as Google, I don't think they chose their brand for its Search Engine potential.

and the Amazon as brand, is based on tradition of the largest trade route in/out S.America.
From what I could find:

While looking through the "A" section of the dictionary, Bezos discovered the word "Amazon," which seemed fitting because it was earth's largest river and he was building the world's largest bookstore.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
The keyword in domain actually works e.g. I do not have any related content for big idea. But google brings traffic to my website with searches big idea.

So it's better have hotels.com rather than airbnb or trivago.
Btw what the hell is trivago and airbnb means ?
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Softlan is a fabric softener brand.

Anyway, that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about keywords and search engine-use.

And again, microsoft.com is a brandable domain, not an EMD or PMD.


Yes, but it could've been friendmap.com, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a brandable domain, which is not relevant to the topic.


That's not en EMD either because it's not what people naturally search for.


A keyword isn't "any word," it's a word your business tries to rank for in search engines.


Right, and searchenginejournal.com is an EMD.

But Search Engine Journal is a small news site founded in 2003, when keywords in the domain name did affect rankings.

Large business or enterprises like Walmart, Google, YouTube, Disney, etc. pretty much all use brandable domains.
Disney is not brandable .Disney is a last name. It's more like history rather than a brand.
 
0
•••
The keyword in domain actually works e.g. I do not have any related content for big idea. But google brings traffic to my website with searches big idea.
I couldn't find your page searching for [big idea] but a did find it for [really big idea], and considering how there isn't a lot of competition for that phrase, and that's the name you selected for your site, and your site has plenty of back-links...I don't think it has to do with your SLD.

So it's better have hotels.com rather than airbnb or trivago.
Btw what the hell is trivago and airbnb means ?
AirBnB is a lot more valuable than Expedia, who owns hotel.com. So airbnb.com has done a lot better than hotels.com in a shorter period of time.

But a more relevant example is shoes.com, which redirects to dsw.com. Why would DSW do this if all they sell shoes, and they don't receive any SERP bonus for a redirect? Well, it's because DSW is a brand identity (not a brandable domain, technically, but still a brand).

Disney is not brandable .Disney is a last name. It's more like history rather than a brand.
Here you're correct. I used "brandable" loosely here. But disney.com clearly not a brandable domain, even though it's technically their brand.
 
0
•••
What point are you trying to make here? And giving you the benefit of a doubt:

BrandDomainFoundedPMDEMD
Virgin Galacticvirgingalactic.com2004NoNo
SpaceXspacex.com2002YesNo
Blue Originblueorigin.com2000NoNo
Origin Span----
Boeing Spaceboeing.com/space2015NoNo
Space Adventuresspaceadventures.com1998-Yes
Zero 2 Infinityzero2infinity.space2009NoNo

Where's explorespace.com? Where's spacetourism.com? Where's spacetrip.com? Where's spacetravel.com? They're not in use...and I don't think they ever will be.

There are as many PMD:s and EMD:s as there are .space domains with numbers in them on this list.

And considering how Space Adventures was founded the same year as Google, I don't think they chose their brand for its Search Engine potential.


From what I could find:

Your data for PMD column is inaccurate.

Thank you for more thorough information, yet the point is as also the message of this thread that, while trends changed the companies already knew of it and took the advantage of the partial matching domain keywords for their business despite EMD opportunities - as is also well established pratice in traditional business naming (example, 'Eat at Joe's' and not fully descriptive as 'Eat a Snack'). And that doesn't necessary was/should standing for the internet marketers where EMD was a fair chance to get into competition - for a market share(redistribution). Regards
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Your data for PMD column is inaccurate.
No it's not. But if you think it is, then it's a good idea to explain why you think it. Because I can't read your mind.

It could be that you consider the word "galactic" to be a partial match for space travel, it could be that you consider the directory "/space" to make the domain a partial match, or it could be that you think the extension ".space" makes it a partial match. Either way it's wrong, but you need to clarify your position.

Thank you for more thorough information, yet the point is as also the message of this thread that, while trends changed the companies already knew of it and took the advantage of the partial matching domain keywords for their business despite EMD opportunities - as is also well established pratice in traditional business naming (example, 'Eat at Joe's' and not fully descriptive as 'Eat a Snack'). And that doesn't necessary was/should standing for the internet marketers where EMD was a fair chance to get into competition - for a market share(redistribution). Regards
You're confusing correlation for causation.

Businesses like "Joe's Diner" have been around for longer than the Internet, let alone search engines. So even though joesdiner.com is technically a PMD, it likely wasn't chosen for SERP bonus.

This is why people tend to stick to EMD:s in these arguments, because it's very difficult to discern the intent and purpose of a PMD. Even with spaceadventures.com you could argue that it isn't an exact match in the same sense as spacetrip.com. Because people looking to travel to space are more likely to look for [trip to space] or [space trip] than they are for something seemingly arbitrary like [space adventures].

At the end of the day this thread is about Mueller's comments, and these aren't new. He's been communicating these ideas to developers for years.


Some domainers are resistant to it because they've invested money into these kind of domains, and in this case they rather not have the truth getting in the way of future deals. But as the old saying goes, "the truth doesn't mind being questioned, a lie doesn't like being challenged."
 
Last edited:
3
•••
Facebook gave the name to represent exactly as the name suggests - book of faces.
Those words don't add up to what might be classed as a keyword rich domain in my eyes. I'm pretty sure it's a brand name that's a play on the term "yearbook".

The main reason being that "face book" wasn't a common phrase to begin with. People aren't searching it to find books of faces, they're typing it in to find that specific business with that name.
 
1
•••
Back