Search engine friendly URLs
-
I'm going to create some new content for my site, I'm trying to decide on the best search engine friendly format. Namely, is it ok to use a subdirectory or should I keep all content on root level?
Is the SEO effect of either of these URLs superior to the other?
-
I like this analysis and recommendation.
The only other thing I would say (if it's a page) is drop the trailing slash on the recommended URL to this:
domain.com/cooking/lasagnaThat makes it clear it's a page as opposed to a directory, and it also looks cleaner to the human eye.
Here's some more complete discussion on the trailing slash topic:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2010/04/to-slash-or-not-to-slash.html -
Hi Limens,
It is certainly fine to use a subdirectory, and can really make sense to help organize your content. It's also helpful in your analytics if you want to see who went to the blog area of your site versus the product area of your site.
It would help to know a little more about your site, but I would choose neither of the above. I'd actually go with something like domain.com/cooking/lasagna/. Note that I'm not including the .php. If you later switch to a different language, you won't have to redirect from php to asp or html, etc.
I wouldn't stuff your subfolder in your URL with keywords like the tasty-food in your example below. It just makes your URL longer and look a little more spammy to the human eye.
-
The second one is the best, because sort URLs are more relevant than long ones, but the best practices are http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/url
Use - instead of _ to separate keywords
-
this is what the length of URL would be in reality:
www.domaindom.com/cooking-tasty-food/lasagna_with_cheese.php
but if there is a good SEO reason, I could just put it on the root:
-
If your URLs are sort, the best way is to use domain.com/cooking/lasagna.php, this is the best way to optimize for lasagna and target secondary keywords cooking related.
Bye.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Where can we see voice search impressions/searches?
Hi Guys, As voice search seems to be getting more popular, I would like to start accounting for these searches. I've tried looking for low impressions/long tail searches in the Search Console but feel like I am just guessing which queries are search. Does anybody have any clever way of finding these searches or could you list an example of how/if you search using voice? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | Xtend-Life0 -
Canonical URL, cornerstone page and categories
If I want to have a cornerstone "page", can I substitute an actual page with a category archive of posts "page" (that contains many posts containing the target key phrase)? This way, if I make blog posts about a certain topic/ key phrase (example "beach weddings") and add a canonical URL of the category archive page to the individual posts, am I right then to assume google will see the archive page as the cornerstone page (and thereby won't see the individual posts with the same key phrase as competing)?
On-Page Optimization | | stephanwb0 -
URL question
When we type in the URL of www.JustBunkBeds.com on firefox we end up with (S) in URL https://www.justbunkbeds.com/ When we type in the URL of www.JustBunkBeds.com on Explorer we end up with http://www.justbunkbeds.com/ Appreciate answer to this question Tony
On-Page Optimization | | OCFurniture0 -
Using Transcription Service For Videos - Have Question Around Search and Spiders
Hi All, So I have put together a weekly video series on security topics. I have read an SEOmoz post around how you can boost SEO by adding the transcription to the page, which makes perfectly good sense. My question is, can I include the first couple of paragraphs and then have a "read the full transcription" so when the user clicks, the rest of the content appears? Do the search engine spiders only crawl the first two paragraphs in this instance or do they crawl the whole thing even though the entire content is not on the page? I dont mind making the page longer and including the entire transcription if it is easier for SEO but if there is no difference, than I think the first option would be the best user experience. Thanks for the help Pat
On-Page Optimization | | PatBausemer0 -
Duplicate Content- Best Practise Usage of the canonical url
Canonical urls stop self competition - from duplicate content. So instead of a 2 pages with a rank of 5 out of 10, it is one page with a rank of 7 out of 10.
On-Page Optimization | | WMA
However what disadvantages come from using canonical urls. For example am I excluding some products like green widet, blue widget. I have a customer with 2 e-commerce websites(selling different manufacturers of a type jewellery). Both websites have massive duplicate content issues.
It is a hosted CMS system with very little SEO functionality, no plugins etc. The crawling report- comes back with 1000 of pages that are duplicates. It seems that almost every page on the website has a duplicate partner or more. The problem starts in that they have 2 categorys for each product type, instead of one category for each product type.
A wholesale category and a small pack category. So I have considered using a canonical url or de-optimizing the small pack category as I believe it receives less traffic than the whole category. On the original website I tried de- optimizing one of the pages that gets less traffic. I did this by changing the order of the meta title(keyword at the back, not front- by using small to start of with). I also removed content from the page. This helped a bit. Or I was thinking about just using a canonical url on the page that gets less traffic.
However what are the implications of this? What happens if some one searches for "small packs" of the product- will this no longer be indexed as a page. The next problem I have is the other 1000s of pages that are showing as duplicates. These are all the different products within the categories. The CMS does not have a front office that allows for canonical urls to be inserted. Instead it would have to be done going into the html of the pages. This would take ages. Another issue is that these product pages are not actually duplicate, but I think it is because they have such little content- that the rodger(seo moz crawler, and probably googles one too) cant tell the difference.
Also even if I did use the canonical url - what happened if people searched for the product by attributes(the variations of each product type)- like blue widget, black widget, brown widget. Would these all be excluded from Googles index.
On the one hand I want to get rid of the duplicate content, but I also want to have these pages included in the search. Perhaps I am taking too idealistic approach- trying to optimize a website for too many keywords. Should I just focus on the category keywords, and forget about product variations. Perhaps I look into Google Analytics, to determine the top landing pages, and which ones should be applied with a canonical. Also this website(hosted CMS) seems to have more duplicate content issues than I have seen with other e-commerce sites that I have applied SEO MOZ to On final related question. The first website has 2 landing pages- I think this is a techical issue. For example www.test.com and www.test.com/index. I realise I should use a canonical url on the page that gets less traffic. How do I determine this? (or should I just use the SEO MOZ Page rank tool?)0 -
If you were working on a wine site would you include the wine year in the URL?
I've come across a case where I'm asking myself what the best direction would be to go and while there is no right direction I would like to here some feedback from others. I'm working with some great content pages all about wine. As you probably know the difference between a 07 wine and a 95 is vastly different and up to this point I'm using the full year in the url much like this: grapesinyourtoesexample.com/2007-cellar-pod-viognier-adelaide-hills/. What I'm worried about is my use of the year in the URL. I feel it's very important for it to be used in the page title and on page but I'm concerned that it might be setting me back with my use of it in the url. My concern is that search engines might be interpretting it as a datestamp rather than as a informational piece of data describing the asset. Looking at my competitors, my content is one of the only sites using the year and in most searches for various wines my content is in the second half of the SERPs. If you were creating this content would you use the year? If you were working with current content would you drop the year across all of the site and implement to necessary redirects? Just to be clear this is a client related project so my use of "my site|my content" refers to the client's content.
On-Page Optimization | | DotCar0 -
Page URL Hiearchy
So I have read on here that page URL Hiearchy is important. My question is from a search engine standpoint which of the following methods would be the best to use (or another if not listed) COMPACT and naturally hierarchical MountainBiking.com MountainBiking.com/adventures ( a list of the pages below ) MountainBiking.com/adventures/in whistler (for each page) MountainBiking.com/adventures/in utah OR VERBOSE but reptetive MountainBiking.com MountainBiking.com/Mountain Biking adventures ( intro + a list of the pages below ) MountainBiking.com/Mountain Biking Adventures/Mounting Biking adventures in whistler MountainBiking.com/Mountain Biking Adventures/Mountain Biking Adventures in Utah It seemed like the blog I read suggested the compact form, but it seems to me that the verbose (though admittedly a bit clunky) seems better so far as exact keyword match etc. Experience and or advice on this?
On-Page Optimization | | bThere0 -
Re-write homepage url for non EMD for SEO
Hi, A lot of talk about EMD's lately not just here but all over SEO and affiliate forums. I've dabbled in emd's but have decided to go against the grain and use a non emd. I think I can optimise hard enough to rank and at the same time build a brand, which is where most emd's fail. But my question is this: If you are targeting lets say the term 'running trainers' and the domain is runyoursocksoff.com would it be more beneficial to rewrite the root domain to this: runyoursocksoff.com/running-trainers/ It does look messy to me and more then likely I would not use this but I have seen it a few times and was wondering if its a work around for non emd's.
On-Page Optimization | | activitysuper0