(1)
Less than a week ago, we polled our readers asking should search updates be named? Well, we have over a hundred responses now, so I thought I share them with you.
Overall, 82% said we should name all or some of the updates. Only 17% said we should not name any of the updates. 59% said we should name only the important updates. Here is the break down of the results.
Question: Should We Name Search Updates?
:: Yes, But Only Major Updates said 61 respondents or 59%
:: Yes, All Updates said 24 respondents or 23%
:: No said 17 respondents or 17%
:: Other... said 1 respondents or 1%
The other response said:
Yes but just with normal update terms... 3.1 ... 4.5. otherwise it's confusing.
Personally, I agree here with the majority.
Forum discussion continued at Google Webmaster Help.
Comments:
Darrin Ward
07/21/2009 03:37 pm
Personally, I prefer the notion of numbered updates rather than named updates, for a couple of reasons: 1) It has an inherent chronological component (rather than struggling to remember which name came first... unless we use a Hurricane type naming convention), and; 2) I'm absolutely terrible at remembering names... I honestly forget the names of important things and people, even if I had numerous conversations with them (but I remember numbers almost indefinitely). Of course, the problem with a numbered system is determining a starting point... Why not start it on Jan 1st 2010? Also, another issue is that these numbers would really only denote the community's perceived updates (we know that Google do plenty of updates and tweaks that go unnoticed)... but in this regard a numbering convention is no more or less inaccurate than a naming convention.