SEO for words with '@' instead of an 'a'!
March 25, 2008 7:29 AM Subscribe
Special characters in Search Engine Optimisation - anyone know what the deal is there - specifically '@' for an 'a'?
Not going to mention the company I am doing the SEO for but basically one of their product's names has an '@' in it instead of an 'a' - e.g bambi would be just spelt b@mbi for marketing reasons. Was wondering how google, yahoo and msn deal with this and if it is just better to put in the meta data the name with an 'a' or just with an '@' or put in both to cover both angles. Any ideas anyone - sorry if this is a confusing explanation!
The band !!! have real troubles on google - you can't find them if you put that in - you have to put in Chk Chk Chk (which is how you pronounce their name) to bring up anything - was guessin @ would be the same or no?
Not going to mention the company I am doing the SEO for but basically one of their product's names has an '@' in it instead of an 'a' - e.g bambi would be just spelt b@mbi for marketing reasons. Was wondering how google, yahoo and msn deal with this and if it is just better to put in the meta data the name with an 'a' or just with an '@' or put in both to cover both angles. Any ideas anyone - sorry if this is a confusing explanation!
The band !!! have real troubles on google - you can't find them if you put that in - you have to put in Chk Chk Chk (which is how you pronounce their name) to bring up anything - was guessin @ would be the same or no?
The artist @my ruppel seems to have no problems in Google and Yahoo (but she is very well linked by bloggers).
posted by ceri richard at 7:42 AM on March 25, 2008
posted by ceri richard at 7:42 AM on March 25, 2008
Response by poster: yup as i predicted - was hoping more of how you can work around it tho?
posted by swisspotter at 7:42 AM on March 25, 2008
posted by swisspotter at 7:42 AM on March 25, 2008
Change the product name to something searchable?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:32 AM on March 25, 2008
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:32 AM on March 25, 2008
Response by poster: ha, no chance!never going to happen. I totally agree but there is no way.
posted by swisspotter at 8:46 AM on March 25, 2008
posted by swisspotter at 8:46 AM on March 25, 2008
Use whatever people are most likely to search for and augment with Adwords.
posted by acoutu at 8:59 AM on March 25, 2008
posted by acoutu at 8:59 AM on March 25, 2008
Googling b@mbi currently gets you pages containing b@mbi or b'mbi or b!mbi or b-mbi or b)mbi or.....
If you can get your page highly ranked among that set, you'll be doing pretty well.
posted by nebulawindphone at 10:01 AM on March 25, 2008
If you can get your page highly ranked among that set, you'll be doing pretty well.
posted by nebulawindphone at 10:01 AM on March 25, 2008
Google isn't going to much care what's in the meta data. How it appears within the body, and in others' links to the site, is going to matter more. The options that come to mind, none of them great:
3) Dynamic replacement using JavaScript. Scripting off = 'Bambi', scripting on = 'B@ambi'
4) Image replacement. Image/Flash= 'B@mbi', Text='bambi'
None of these scenarios helps the site benefit fully from 3rd party linkage. And search results will show page excerpts with the 'wrong' brand name.
I'd be surprised if there's a winning solution available. Make sure that the client understands that their clever brand name is impeding their goal of making the brand stand out. Otherwise they're just going to blame you for "failing" to deliver on the SEO.
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 10:08 AM on March 25, 2008
1) B@mbi
<>
2) B@mbi
3) Dynamic replacement using JavaScript. Scripting off = 'Bambi', scripting on = 'B@ambi'
4) Image replacement. Image/Flash= 'B@mbi', Text='bambi'
None of these scenarios helps the site benefit fully from 3rd party linkage. And search results will show page excerpts with the 'wrong' brand name.
I'd be surprised if there's a winning solution available. Make sure that the client understands that their clever brand name is impeding their goal of making the brand stand out. Otherwise they're just going to blame you for "failing" to deliver on the SEO.
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 10:08 AM on March 25, 2008
Sorry, those first two should be:
1) <span title="Bambi">B@mbi</span>
<!--debateable-->
2) <abbr title="Bambi">B@mbi</span>
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 10:09 AM on March 25, 2008
1) <span title="Bambi">B@mbi</span>
<!--debateable-->
2) <abbr title="Bambi">B@mbi</span>
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 10:09 AM on March 25, 2008
the reason @my ruppel can get away with it and you can't is because of how the search engines tokenize words when indexing.
"@my ruppel" > "@" "my" "ruppel" > "my" "ruppel"
Try searching with and without the at-sign. Identical result sets. Which suggests that there's wiggle room if the search engine can treat the unwanted symbol as a separate word.
Could the client be convinced to make their product's name @uniqueword or uniqueword@uniqueotherword? The search engines drop that @ in a predictable and reasonable fashion.
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 10:20 AM on March 25, 2008
"@my ruppel" > "@" "my" "ruppel" > "my" "ruppel"
Try searching with and without the at-sign. Identical result sets. Which suggests that there's wiggle room if the search engine can treat the unwanted symbol as a separate word.
Could the client be convinced to make their product's name @uniqueword or uniqueword@uniqueotherword? The search engines drop that @ in a predictable and reasonable fashion.
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 10:20 AM on March 25, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by flabdablet at 7:32 AM on March 25, 2008