|Amazon Web Services||WidmarkRob||3/28/13 11:38 AM|
I've read the FAQs and searched the help center.
My URL is:
I've asked this at Amazon developer forum as well.
In their best practices and guidelines, they tell us when we name our buckets.
To try to follow the DNS naming conventions. (If you don't know what a bucket is, think of it as a virtual hard drive)
if we store the bucket in the United States, no more than 63 characters only (hyphens, underscores, and periods).
so my question is:
when we as webmasters/developers use their route 53 service and simple storage service.
will Google take into account, what we name our buckets for search engine optimization?
Let's pretend I'm at a registrar choosing a name for my domain.
I find the name I like.
I purchased it and point those DNS servers to Amazon route 53 service which in turn points to the simple storage buckets.
Now, is Google going to take into account into its ranking algorithm using both my domain name and the buckets name?
Am I going to have to be careful on what I name my buckets?
|Re: Amazon Web Services||Ashley||3/28/13 1:27 PM|
If you're just naming back-end mapping/server/etc. then no - I wouldn't think it to be a real consideration toward any sort of SEO. Name it logically in a way that makes sense to you.
Does the user, like me, ever see the 'buckets' name?
|Re: Amazon Web Services||WidmarkRob||3/28/13 2:14 PM|
I haven't actually "used" their services yet.
My best guess is, no… The user wouldn't see the name of the bucket.
Because of the "Route 53" service they provide.
I asked them this same question in their developer forum, no response so far.
I'm going to ask if their Route 53 service uses some sort of 301 redirect.
If that route 53 service does use 301 redirect, wouldn't that have some sort of effect on search engine optimization?
Then I would need to carefully name my bucket using keywords and phrases?
|Re: Amazon Web Services||Barry Schwartz||3/29/13 10:59 AM|
I really don't think R53 is any different than any other DNS provider, outside of being more redundant. I use it for my sites, all my sites are in the cloud, including using S3, R53, RDS, etc.