I'm going to do something I normally don't do... and call out that guy's blog post as borderline ridiculous. If you were to peg one aspect of Google's algorithm that has strengthened in the past year, it has been the relevancy factor of keywords in the domain name.
This guy is saying keywords in the domain name and URL have basically no effect on rankings. I have based a large part of my living launching websites that's domains are extremely keyword rich for the very purpose of ranking #1 for fairly competitive (20k+/mo.) queries. I run a few websites that have "branding" URLs that contain no keywords... and they do no where near as good for their targeted keywords as others.
I don't disclose the websites I develop... but just as an example... I have one website I created that's URL is extremely desireable as far as keyword richness. For example... lets say people search "radio clocks"... well, I own "radioclocks.com" (I really don't, but I'm just making a comparitive example to a website that I do own)... I never did ANYTHING with the website other than create 1 page of copy.. and I got 1 backlink from a non-powerful website.
I rank #3 in Google for "radio clocks" which is searched 30k times a year (I really don't know how many times 'radio clocks' is searched btw). The other 9 websites on the first page are all powerful websites that have tons of backlinks. How the hell did my 1-page websites with 1 measly backlink rank #3? Well it sure wasn't my page copy!
Now I am not saying that folder/filenames after the hostname are as powerful... they are not. But they do share a factor in the ranking. First off, it is completely reasonable to agree with this. If you were google, would you increase the relevancy of a page if it had keywords in the filename, folder? Heck yea...
If you had an already existing website of 100's of pages that didn't have keywords in the filenames... would I suggest you go through and change them? No.. there are better things to do with your time. But it is a factor in the ranking, and no matter how small.. rankings are based on hundreds of factors... and getting to #1 most of the time is by snatching up enough points from all the categories.
Generally speaking, there are only a few places I take SEO advice from that I consider to be "gospel"... one of my favorites is:
Aaron Wall at
http://www.seobook.com
The reason I feel Aaron is one of the TOP authorities in SEO is because he is less science and more intuition and marketing. Too many people try to figure out the algorithms WAYYY TO HARD and try to make scientific or mathematical sense of it all. While that is how the algorithms are developed, it is futile to test on such evaluative terms due to the fact the algorithms can change on a daily basis. Aaron is well connected in the industry, but always takes a common sense approach to things and never attempts to "sell" people with his stances. It is so easy for non-SEO's to read articles and blogs constructed by SEO's that's only attempts are to write stuff that sounds so complicated and scientific that it must be right.
SEO is not a science... it is an art. Just like marketing. Everyone does it a little bit different, but at the end of the day, there are the same basic principles that make up success. And everything you do can probably be broken down to fit the mold of one of the key foundational principles. I believe some people will never be great at SEO, just as some people will never be great at marketing. You have to be wired in such a way to naturally have a good mind for it. Much like stock trading. It is a volatile market you can't control... but then again, you can't just ride the wave for the long run because no one ever makes quick cash that way.
Whether you want to subscribe to my belief about the importance of keywords in URLs or not, totally your call. If it was me, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I found out someone took the keywords out of my filenames on some of my AdSense sites. I got way too much money to lose.