In ages past (as the internet goes) Google didn't parse file name and folder names with words separated by an underscore. Now I am reading that Google will parse most names with an underscore, but I am also reading that Google may be penalizing file names with more than three dashes in them. What's the best method for separating words in file names? Yes, it doesn't really matter. I tend to use hyphens purely out of habit (and that I think it looks better and is easier to type). Quote: Originally Posted by Physical Therapy http://www.v7n.com/forums/seo-forum/186934-underscore-dash-your-file-names.html#post1384059
Where they are actually saying if your URL is a query string, don't have more than two or three arguments if you can help it. I often hear that it doesn't matter and that either is parsed, but until I see underscores in the results when performing an allinurl: or inurl: search, I'll continue to use hyphens.
Quote: Originally Posted by facebookguru 
It doesn't matter. If you are going to respond to a question, please explain why you feel that way. Dashes are preferred, though underscores are now permissible from an SEO point of view, I still think that dashes are best. Dashes/hyphens are better also from the usability point of view:
If you publish somewhere your long url with underscores like site.com/bla_somemore_bla_here_bla.htm, then at least in IE it will impose layout widening problem on the published webpage, since IE is not able to make "next line" operation from such url.
With hyphens there will be no such issues. From SEO perspectives, they are really very much alike but dashes are definitely more user friendly. Most blogs and SE friendly pages URLs are nowadays powered by dashes but you can also take a look the pages of Wikipedia since they contain underscores. Generally speaking, when you take a look at the percents of each technique used by the global webmasters, you would find dashes to be the winners but again, they are not very much different. It's like saying using Strong or Bold text effects which are the same.
Where they are actually saying if your URL is a query string, don't have more than two or three arguments if you can help it. I often hear that it doesn't matter and that either is parsed, but until I see underscores in the results when performing an allinurl: or inurl: search, I'll continue to use hyphens.
It doesn't matter. If you are going to respond to a question, please explain why you feel that way. Dashes are preferred, though underscores are now permissible from an SEO point of view, I still think that dashes are best. Dashes/hyphens are better also from the usability point of view: If you publish somewhere your long url with underscores like site.com/bla_somemore_bla_here_bla.htm, then at least in IE it will impose layout widening problem on the published webpage, since IE is not able to make "next line" operation from such url.
With hyphens there will be no such issues. From SEO perspectives, they are really very much alike but dashes are definitely more user friendly. Most blogs and SE friendly pages URLs are nowadays powered by dashes but you can also take a look the pages of Wikipedia since they contain underscores. Generally speaking, when you take a look at the percents of each technique used by the global webmasters, you would find dashes to be the winners but again, they are not very much different. It's like saying using Strong or Bold text effects which are the same.