Google, What the Hell Does it Take to Become a Word?

Rae Hoffman

by Rae Hoffman on June 1, 2007 | Rants in Bitchland

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my feed or subscribe to me on Twitter, which is updated on a more frequent - and more meaningless - basis.

I’m going to write about something completely trivial because it is and has been annoying the hell out of me. I am wondering what the hell the qualifications are for a word to “become” a word by Google’s standards. What the hell am I babbling about?

If you do a search on google for sugarrae you will see that Google responds with results, but a query at the top saying, “Did you mean: chsugar”. Now, I had never heard of chsugar, but apparently, it is a company that develops everyday cane sugar. And for several reasons, this annoys the shit out of me…

- A search for the term chsugar returns 1900 results. Even a search for “ch sugar” returns only a little over 5,000 results. Yet a search for sugarrae returns over 130,000 results. Well, let’s look at some other things that may or may not be factors.

- If you go to the overture keyword tool and query chsugar you get a result of 80. Do a query ch sugar with a space and you get a result of 69. Do a search for sugarrae and you get a result of 45. Now, they have a bit more volume than sugarrae, but sugarrae is still “enough of a word” to be on the inventory tool’s radar.

- I can’t believe I am even going to mention toolbar PR, but I am trying to be thorough here. According to the toolbar that means nothing, chsugar.com is a toolbar pagerank of 4. The main page of sugarrae.com is a toolbar pagerank of 5 and the blog is a toolbar pagerank of 6.

- Taking a look at allintitle and allinanchor doesn’t do much more to help google’s chsugar cause. Allintitle for chsugar returns 22 results and the allintitle for “ch sugar” returns 164 vs. the allintitle for sugarrae showing 382 results. The allinanchor for chsugar produces about 1800 results and the allinanchor for “ch sugar” produces about 4,700 results vs. the allinanchor search for sugarrae showing about 25,000 results.

- Next, we can look at backlinks in Google. Not that they’re accurate, but for the sake of argument. Google shows less than ten backlinks for chsugar.com and shows over a thousand for sugarrae.com. But, we know Google’s backlink command doesn’t show you near what they know about, so to be fair, we’ll check Yahoo too. Yahoo says that chsugar.com has a bit over 1300 backlinks while reporting that sugarrae.com has about 43,000.

- Another item harder to quantify would be trust. With links from Yahoo, General Mills and wikipedia, chsugar.com has definitely established some authority for themselves. But, sugarrae.com is no untrusted soul either, with multiple links from some of this industries top and most trusted sources. Whether or not sugarrae.com is more trusted than chsugar.com, the fact remains that it is indeed by all apearances a trusted site.

So, to review… the term sugarrae has more general mentions on the web than the term “chsugar”, it has enough volume to show up on the overture keyword query tool and is not far behind chsugar, the sugarrae.com site has a higher toolbar PR (seriously, I am gagging here), more people use their word sugarrae in their page titles than they do chsugar, more people use the word sugarrae when linking out than they do to chsugar and sugarrae.com stomps chsugar.com in backlinks and is trusted (whether or not *as* trusted shouldn’t be an issue).

How the hell does it make sense that “sugarrae” is not a word in Google’s mind if a word like “chsugar” is? How are they deciding on what is a word and what isn’t? I’m not so much annoyed that sugarrae isn’t a word, but annoyed at how chsugar is.

And how the hell are they are connecting sugarrae to chsugar. Did you mean sugar, ok. Did you mean Sugar Ray the horrid band, ok. But “chsugar”? How does that even make sense?

Edited to add: Of course, five seconds after I publish this, I realize the official wikipedia entry has it listed with an ampersand. So, I do a quick look…. a search for C&H sugar produces about 54,000 listings, an overture query produces about 700 results combined, an allintitle for “c&h sugar” shows about 1100 listings and an allinanchor search for “c&h sugar” shows about 11,000 results. So, they are beating the term sugarrae, with the ampersand on allintitle queries and overture search volume. So, it would seem one of those must be the culprit, right? Well…

Let’s take the overture search volume into play… a search on google for Todd’s term stuntdubl shows that Google does not correct what you’re searching for. Stuntdubl is a word by Google’s standards. A quick check on the overture tool though shows no searches for the term as one word or two. Aaron’s term seobook is also considered a real word - Google does not ask you if you meant the two word version. A search on the overture tool shows about 100 requests for it as a singular word. So, it would appear that they search volume may not be the obvious answer it looked like.

Next we’ll take a look at allintitle queries. An allintitle query for stuntdubl shows about 500 results and an allintitle query for seobook shows about 1,100 results. I’m a bit behind Aaron, but not trailing far behind Todd at all.

Even more annoying is that Google also tries to correct a sugarrae.com domain query, even though by all accounts I have a stronger domain in terms of pure seo value than chsugar.com.


--   Subscribe to the Sugarrae feed


{ 1 trackback }

Google Puts the Smackdown on Sugarrae - Sugarrae
12.19.07 at 1:22 pm

{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }

1
weaselyone 06.01.07 at 5:41 pm

Never heard of C&H Sugar company?

Jeff breaks into song,

“C and H - pure cane sugar - from hawaii (sweet hawaii) growing in the sun (growing in the sun)

When you cook, when you bake,
for goodness sake use C & H — pure grain sugar –that’s the one!”

Must be a New Jersey thing, I’ve had that song memorized since I was 4 or 5 years old - hehe.

2
kid disco 06.01.07 at 6:42 pm

I hear ya Rae… SEOdisco returns:

Did you mean: sodisco

What the hell is sodisco? :P

3
Bentley007 06.02.07 at 12:07 am

That is strange, Rae. You definitely have enough authority to qualify for your own term. I guess the other site just outweighs you in their niche, and the typo filter suggest thing kicks in in the serps. I just went and checked my made up name (lifeinsearch) and i pwn that mufuckin shit. I was seeding it in social media for a little while…just go social media spamming with your own name…lmao…it might taint the sugarrae brand though :)

4
Rae Hoffman
Rae Hoffman 06.02.07 at 12:11 am

>>>What the hell is sodisco

Why, the Sodisco-Howden Group, Inc. of course :P

5
Anita 06.04.07 at 6:49 am

That is a mistery Rae. It makes no sense…
My site’s only been live a couple of days and the word reviewlicious seems to be concidered a word - granted there are only 26 results for it overall - huh…

6
wheel 06.04.07 at 6:08 pm

Also, sugarrae is far, far sweeter than just any ole cane sugar. No possibly way the two could be confused!

7
Tom H 06.04.07 at 7:52 pm

Rae -

I believe you have officially lost it. Speaking as an oldster (you know, over 30), I am sure you know what I mean. Dementia starts setting in.

Tmo, er, moT, er Tom

8
Jane 06.07.07 at 2:34 pm

Booyah

I half expected it to say, “did you mean sea moss?”

9
pat 06.08.07 at 4:40 am

feedthebot > feedthehabit
feedthebot.com >feedthehabit.com

SEOish? > jewish
SEOish.com > fetish.com

How the hell do I go from jewish to fetish when i add a “.com”?

10
Andre 06.08.07 at 6:04 am

Let’s be honest here Rae… you just aren’t impotent enough, girl. ;-)

Andre “also not freakin’ impotent to G” Chaperon

11
Andre 06.08.07 at 8:51 am

Oops - I “meant” to write “important”… err… not “impotent”.

That bloody dyslexia!

Andre

12
Scottb 06.09.07 at 12:34 am

Someone needs to slap the singing weasel. ;) Your not making her feel better.

I could see “ch sugar” over “chsugar”. Maybe if we research another language it would make a word then.

Interesting topic, OK Google make “sugarrae” a word.

13
Rae Hoffman
Dave Davis 06.11.07 at 11:11 pm

Well, try working in the industry THIS side of the pond. We have to rank for “Search Engine Optimisation” AND “Search Engine Optimization”.

“Did you mean Search Engine Optimization?”
Ehhhh, Nope.

We get hit pretty hard because Google thinks that the US spelling is the correct spelling…. even in the local results.

So don’t feel too bad. :)

Fantastic blog by the way.

14
Matt Stoddart 06.12.07 at 6:37 pm

wow…that’s really interesting. so interesting that I feel like a dumbass because I’ve never even considered that before! good times.

I’ll talk to Cutts….we’re buds now…

15
Thomas Fjordside 06.27.07 at 12:33 pm

I don’t see it, so it might be gone now. Congrats if that’s the case. I have been having the same annoyance for a while too.

16
Rae Hoffman
Rae Hoffman 06.27.07 at 12:36 pm

Well, I’ll be damned - seems I’ve become a word.

17
Catherine Potts 07.25.07 at 5:24 pm

Rae,

I know I’m behind in reading this post, but…

When I did an intentional wrong spelling of sugarrae in Google (I typed in sigarrae, srgarrae nad sygarrae) I was corrected:

Did you mean: sugarrae

:) Good job@

Catherine

18
Glen 07.29.07 at 5:04 pm

I got pretty P*ssed about this recently but it looks like google is starting to make some headway on the issue. Optimisation is now accepted which wasnt before and when i search for ViperChill (our company name) google no longer asks if we meant ‘VapoChill’

Be patient is the best i can suggest