7 replies to this topic

[idrive]

Does anyone have any proof that Google will or will not tolerate periods as part of an ID in a dynamically generated site?

For example: www.mysite.ca/html/packages/packages_master.cfm?pkg=BON.1.03

We are prepared to remove the periods from the package ids if necessary...I'd prefer to know for fact that this is an issue though :-)

[Jill]

Idrive, I've never heard of that being a problem. What makes you think it might be? I image it's simply ignored. I know that commas are.

Jill

[Ron Carnell]

The only way you're going to know "for fact" is if Google tells you. The only thing the rest of us can offer you is speculation.

As I indicated in this thread, there was a problem a few years ago where Google refused to index URLs with a period in the middle of the path. Chris Beasley was one of the first to report this (I think it was on Sitepoint?). The problem was subsequently fixed by Google, but once bitten is twice shy, and most experienced web programmers still avoid using periods in odd places.

Your periods are NOT in the middle of the path, but may represent a new variation of the old bug - one that, perhaps, was not fixed. I honestly don't think that's likely. But I also don't see any other reason your pages wouldn't be indexed and, frankly, even if Google told me I could use periods any old place, I would STILL avoid non-alphanumerical characters in my URLs.

Like I said ... once bitten, twice shy ...

[SanDiegoMedia]

I have to disagree with Jill about the commas. I had one comma in a clients URL and could not get any pages indexed. The comma was the only none standard character int he URL, once we removed it, within 2 months the site had over 500 URL's indexed.

A period is a standard character, however having it repeat so many times may be causing issues.

[idrive]

The verdict is in. Google dislikes periods IMHO. We removed the periods and the desired pages are now being indexed! Next comes optimization ;-)

[websage]

Not to play the devil's advocate, but Avanade used dots in its URLs and seems to be indexed by Google:

www.avanade.com/microsoft.intranet.solution

[Ron Carnell]

Avanade is an example of the OLD bug from several years ago, that has since been fixed. Periods in mid-path haven't been a problem for several years. My earlier guess was that the same or a similar bug exists when the period is found in a parameter query.

Both instances are almost certainly the result of assumptions being made by the Google programmers. When you see script.cgi somewhere in an URL, what assumptions do YOU make? In the past, the parsing routines assumed there wouldn't be a period in front of the .cgi and that caused a lot of problems. The assumption was changed and the problem was fixed. It now appears, I think, that the parsing routines are assuming there shouldn't be a period AFTER the .cgi, too. When it finds what it wasn't expecting, a period in the parameter query, it chokes.

[AlDugan]

so how about subdomains (mysite.subname.com) Does Google dislike those?