On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Kim Davies wrote:

> | Anybody else think they know a search engine where sites get a
> | better ranking purely because they have a domain name which
> | matches the search query (and not because they paid money)?
> | Bonus points if its a search engine people actually use.
> 
> I don't think you are going to get a definitive answer to this. I would
> think it reasonable that a search engine could use the URL as some
> criteria in evaluating the page.

I think it's reasonable too. But the question is not whether it is
reasonable; it is whether it *happens*. None of the documentation I have
looked at lists domain name as a criterion for any of the major search
engines. The documentation *does* list other criteria; so if the domain
name is used, it is not important enough to be mentioned in the
information pages.

Hence the theorem that it is not used. Perhaps the theorem should be
amended to 'it is not used in any significant capacity': for the purposes
of annulling the 'generic names are intrinsically valuable' argument, the
second theorem is as good as the first.

> Of course, if everyone is being literal in saying that domain names
> are not used by search engines, you'll be pleased to know if you go
> to Google and type in "cars.com" the first hit is www.cars.com,
> similarly for "home.com", "science.com", "television.com" etc.
> 
> I guess to really prove that search engines consider domain names in
> queries, if I type in "cs.curtin.edu" into Altavista the top matches are

I expect that this is a specific function of altavista: it has recognised
that you put in a domain name or part thereof, so restricted itself to
that domain. To apply to the current discussion, just use 'cs', or
'curtin', or 'edu' or some other word not recognisable as a domain name.

> As for the the more general question of generics having no success
> compared to other domains, as I said a month ago: There are a number
> of generics that have succeeded, and given that generics are in such a
> small minority, I think it is unreasonable to assert they are failures
> with no value.

Yes, that assertion is just as unreasonable as the assertion that a
generic domain is a guarantee of success.

> The fact is, many people think they are valuable. If anyone here wants
> to convince them that they are not then I think you are probably wasting
> your time. Let them find out for themselves.

In some senses you're right: the people I'm aiming at are those that are
actually going to shell out the bucks; not those trying to sell the
domains. The sellers are always going to try to sell; but the buyers
should be armed with *some* information :P

Regards,

Saliya