Naming files for Google

[SaranacLake 4]

Not sure where to post.

For my temporary website, I am trying to figure out the best way to name HTML files.

I read that Google gives you points for naming image files after what they are (e.g. "dinosaur.jpeg").

Does the same apply to HTML (and PHP) files?

For instance, would there be any benefit as far as SEO goes if a file was named this...

a.)     "table-20-005-unemployed-workers-by-state.html"

     
b.)     "table-20-005.html"
    

c.)     "123456.html"

 

Edited Thursday at 06:35 AM by SaranacLake

[requinix 960]

5 minutes ago, SaranacLake said:

I read that Google gives you points for naming image files after what they are (e.g. "dinosaur.jpeg").

Urban myth. Google does not care.

People care. People like it when they see a picture of a dinosaur and there's the word "dinosaur" somewhere in that magic box on top of the screen where they type stuff and Google searches for it.

[SaranacLake 4]

8 hours ago, requinix said:

Urban myth. Google does not care.

People care. People like it when they see a picture of a dinosaur and there's the word "dinosaur" somewhere in that magic box on top of the screen where they type stuff and Google searches for it.

So then I guess it is best to name my PHP and HTML files what works best for me then, right?

(On this temporary site, for speed, I am just doing manual pages - with no PHP or database-driven content - to create things, and I have come up with a naming convention to more easily organize things.  For instance, I am publishing a lot of tables with data, so having a naming convention will make it easier for me to find and update stuff while I , in parallel, finish my real site.)

 

[requinix 960]

Yes. The content and structure of the page matters far more than its URL.

[SaranacLake 4]

25 minutes ago, requinix said:

Yes. The content and structure of the page matters far more than its URL.

Ok, thanks.

[guymclarenza 2]

It may be an urban myth but over the years I have found that I get better results with keyword rich URLs.  1.html will never be as good as keyword.html. Also very long URLs don't work as well as concise ones. a_keyword_rich_phrase_with_a_description.html will under perform keyword_rich.html.  This is in my experience and has no scientific data to support it. Content is way more important than this, Good content will always perform better than poor content no matter what naming convention you use.

Edited Sunday at 10:51 AM by guymclarenza

[benanamen 130]

As far as file names, what DOES make a difference is underscore and dash to separate words. As simple search proves this out.

On google search fast_cars and see returned result count, then try fast-cars. I get 13,000,000 results and 1,600,000,000 respectively

Bottom line, use dashes as the separator.