I saw your article [Google Caffeine: A Detailed Test of the New Google] on Mashable with almost 100 comments, and wasn't sure if you were still responding there, so I thought I'd ask a question here, if you don't mind…
In the article about the new Google (Caffeine) you wrote:
“It has more reliance on keyword strings to produce better results.”

What do you mean by “keyword strings” and how does it handle them differently? Are you talking about “strings” on the webpage or in the links to the page? I thought google already focused on keywords, and already counted “strings” more than unconnected words on a page. Can you give an example? Thanks! Steve BTW, great article.

I saw your article [Google Caffeine: A Detailed Test of the New Google] on Mashable with almost 100 comments, and wasn’t sure if you were still responding there, so I thought I’d ask a question here, if you don’t mind…
In the article about the new Google (Caffeine) you wrote:
“It has more reliance on keyword strings to produce better results.”

What do you mean by “keyword strings” and how does it handle them differently? Are you talking about “strings” on the webpage or in the links to the page? I thought google already focused on keywords, and already counted “strings” more than unconnected words on a page. Can you give an example? Thanks! Steve BTW, great article.

I saw your article [Google Caffeine: A Detailed Test of the New Google] on Mashable with almost 100 comments, and wasn't sure if you were still responding there, so I thought I'd ask a question here, if you don't mind…
In the article about the new Google (Caffeine) you wrote:
“It has more reliance on keyword strings to produce better results.”

What do you mean by “keyword strings” and how does it handle them differently? Are you talking about “strings” on the webpage or in the links to the page? I thought google already focused on keywords, and already counted “strings” more than unconnected words on a page. Can you give an example? Thanks! Steve BTW, great article.