Is a Z almost as good as an S?
-
Possibly seems a strange question, but let me clarify...
I have a new site in mind and all the domain names I was considering for it have been taken (I want a .com or a .net if at all possible). However, I can get the domain with a z at the end rather than an s
Example: www.keyword-guides.com is taken, but www.keyword-guidez.com is available.
Am I completely wrong in thinking that it will still match well for anyone searching Keyword Guide, and should match fairly well (even though it is a partial match) for people searching Keyword Guides.
As the keyword is the most relevant bit of the domain, and as the first word on the domain is given the most weight, will having Z instead of S at the end make any difference at all?
Personally, I don't really like the Z option, but if it would have no (or little) impact on my SEO efforts, I could live with it.
-
Thanks for your input guys. I will definitely forget the Z option and carry on looking for a non-hyphenated alternative. Since reading your replies and taking on board your advice, I have found a couple of possibile alternatives and I am even considering a domain without the keyword in at all.
Sadly, EGOL, buying www.keywordguides.com is probably not an option. The budget for this project is tiny... I guess I am just going to have to be a bit more creative
-
www.keyword-guidez.com
You will lose traffic to keywordguidez.com, keywordguides.com, and keyword-guides.com
Not a good idea.
I would try to buy keywordguides.com. The price might be high and it might stretch my budget... but I would splurge on it. And only retreat if the price was insane.
-
You are already at a disadvantage using a hyphenated domain name. It's just another challenge using the "z" replacement.
Think about the user experience. How many people looking at your site will go to keywordguides.com when they are actually looking for keyword-guides.com? The same idea with the "z" replacement.
From a search perspective, you will not be an exact match. You will be "one off" which will put you in the same category as other mis-spelled words.
It is definitely preferable to get a .com, but if push comes to shove the options I would consider are:
-
search for other TLDs such as .org, .info, .biz, etc. From a search engine standpoint, the TLD doesn't matter. Your focus would be ensuring those who look for your site are aware of your extension.
-
create a brand. Twitter, Google, Myspace are all brands whose name has no indication as to the type of content is offered on their site.
-
www.keyword-guidez.com is a bad option. It's bad for users who are looking for your site, it's bad for creating a keyword phrase match, and it appears a bit spammy so even when users find your results in search engines they may be less likely to click on it.
-
-
While Google might account for spelling errors, and possibly the understanding that a "z" is sometimes used as an "s", I dislike it when the "z" is used, speaking as a consumer and business owner.
While not use an "a" at the front of the domain, or "my", or "your"? www.mykeyword-guides.com. Or even better, without the hyphen, mykeywordguides.com?
Going back to the spelling aspect of things, I have always disliked it when a business uses a "k" for a "c", e.g. Johnny's Used Kar Lot, and the same goes with the z.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Strange SERP's descriptions
Hey, when I googled one of our products i came up with this strange result, see attachment. I searched for: kurs praktische psychologie on google germany. These words also come up in the meta description of this page:** Praktische Psychologie** Fernkurs mit professioneller Betreuung. Testen Sie den praxisorientierten Kurs über die Grundlagen der Psychologie 4 Wochen kostenlos. and in the body: _Sie glauben der Mensch lässt sich trotz all seiner Facetten durchschauen, wenn man sich nur Mühe gibt ihn zu verstehen? Da liegen Sie vollkommen richtig! Der Kurs "Praktische Psychologie" vermittelt Ihnen hierfür alle Kenntnisse und Fähigkeiten, sodass Sie schon bald das Mysterium Mensch ergründen. _ Why is Google still showing this description which i obviously don't want to be shown, and why does it state _spring naar (jump to) Kursgeburh _and how can i avoid this? yd1DStW
On-Page Optimization | | NHA_DistanceLearning0 -
Google Treating these URL's as diff, but they are same. please help
Google is treating, below URL's as two different URL's when they are same. How to solve this. Please help. Case 1:/2570/Venture-Capital-and-Capital-Markets/2570/venture-capital-and-capital-marketsCase 2: /xxx/Java-Programming//xxx/Java-ProgrammingPlease help, how to solve this. Thanks in advance
On-Page Optimization | | AnkammaRao0 -
What's better for SEO a page per review or a page with all reviews?
Was wondering what's better for SEO. We have a platform where consumers can read and write reviews. But the question is: is it better to give one page per company with all the reviews on it? Or should we have different pages for the specific company? Example: Itunes has a company page with all reviews on the page, but not the whole review. You have to click further to view the whole review (new page), at the moment this the current situation. What if we place the whole reviews on the company page, so you don't have specific pages for the reviews? Hopefully can someone help us out. Contact me if it's not clear or you want more extended information. Kind regards
On-Page Optimization | | MozzieJr0 -
Competitor's 'hidden' links harming my site?
Hi everyone, I'm new to both Moz & seo, and am attempting to tackle our site's issues after being hit by panda / penguin, so would be grateful for any advice offered. I bought a website 3 years ago after the previous company that ran it went into administration. Having bought the website, it became apparent that the employees of the previous company had copied the entire site content, and relaunched it with a new look / brand. Over the last 3 years they've rewritten much of the content, but there remains a lot of links from their site back to ours which have had the anchor text stripped out, and point to images on our site which have since been removed, example below... <a href="http://www.MyCompany.com/catalog/images/filename.pdf" target="<a class="attribute-value">_blank</a>"><strong>strong>a> What I'm trying to understand is whether the 404 errors being returned by the broken links, and the presence of 'hidden' links on their site, is likely to reflect badly on our site or theirs? I'm not interested in outing anyone here, and I realise the standard recommendation for these kinds of situations is to write to the company telling them to remove the offending content, but if at all possible I'd prefer to fix our site by improving content & links etc, rather than 'force' them to take action and inadvertently improve their own site's content / rankings. As I say, all advice gratefully received 🙂
On-Page Optimization | | Sandy_M0 -
Keyword repeats/presence in url's & over-optimisation
Hi I'm about to launch a redesigned site and worried about overdoing kw presence on-page, primarily using in url's since will already be using kw in titles as well as page content. What's current thinking re over optimisation: If kw is in titles and page content is it best not to repeat again in url structure i.e. less is more, even though this will cause things like SeoMoz on-page grade score to fall, or better to keep them/add them ? Personally i think it makes sense to include kw in url again since helps make the page relevant, and so long as matches the content should help as opposed to hinder rankings for the pages target keyword. However when i look into this some say don't do this since is over-optimisation The sites generally ranking quite well for its target kw which i obviously don't want to lose after re-launch & hopefully improve further, in the case of this example they are 'Sports Centre Services' & 'Sports Centre Equipment Rental'). The sites current url structure is similar to this below example: frankssportscentres.com/services/sports-centre-equipment-rental Would it be better to keep following existing/above format or to go with either of the below options i.e. more kw rich urls or less: frankssportscentres.com/sports-centre-services/sports-centre-equipment-rental Or frankssportscentres.com/sports-centre-services/equipment-rental Or even less frankssportscentres.com/services/equipment-rental Many Thanks in advance for any helpful comments Cheers Dan
On-Page Optimization | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
Image URL's have knocked my sub-pages down (WP)
I had most of my keywords within the top 10 for this site, some were even ranking in the top 5. For a possible minor boost, more-so to cover all the bases, I decided to add images to all of the pages, and they were uploaded as a gallery with most of the image file names being the same as the keyword. Thus, url's were created with our targeted phrases, extending off of the corresponding sub-page. After that, Google quickly picked up the url's to the images and began indexing them, when that occurred the sub-page which was to be the landing page, quickly tanked. Nothing else on-site changed besides the uploading of the images, so I'm sure they're conflicting and for whatever reason Google can't decide which page to index. The page that contains the images used, or the actual intended landing page. With WP I didn't see a way to not have them link to anything at all, and just be static when using a gallery, stock at least. So, my question is how can I quickly alleviate this problem and what should I do in the future to avoid this? I believe if I change link thumbnails to image file instead of attachment page, that should fix the issue... Then, I'll have dead URL's which I suppose I should 301 to the sub-page. Alternatively, is there a better solution that will work, I was also thinking about no-indexing the attachment URL's, but that doesn't seem to be an option.
On-Page Optimization | | JayAdams320 -
Keyword cannabilization ... I just cant face 301'ing good, well aged pages
Hi Mozzers Ive read a little about your views on cannabilization and would like to run my situation by you. I have 2 pages lets say (a) and (b) that rank ok for a main keyword. However (a) desite being nice and old is not ageing well and is starting to slip a little - its getting harder to spread the link juice so Ive been thinking should I ditch page (a) and focus solely on page (b) for this keyword. Page (b) seems to be getting better serp value right now. What I find hard is that page (a) has been around a while (6 years) and I cant bring myself to 301 it assuming thats what you would normally do to avoid cannabilization. But at the end of the day its a business page and if its failing - yet could inject even more bounce into page (b) it must be worth considering. What is the best way forward here..? Im not sure how quick any transition of link juice would take ? Also what to do with the unique content on page (a)? Seems such a shame to just ditch it. Cheers fella's Morch
On-Page Optimization | | Morch0