Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Hyphens vs Underscores
-
I am optimizing a site which uses underscores rather than hyphens as word separators (such_as_this.php vs. such-as-this.php). Most of these pages have been around since 2007, and I am hesitant to just redirect to a new page because I am worried it will cause the rankings to slip.
Would you recommend changing the file names to be in hyphenated format and place 301 redirects on the pages with underscores, or stick with the existing pages? Is there anything else that would work better?
Thanks!
-
I'll give you that - it's true that the result highlighting alone doesn't prove Google is viewing "shop ipad" as 2 words for ranking purposes. The tough part is separating out why these pages rank - I've seen plenty of URLs with underscores rank perfectly well, but there's no way to prove it isn't on other factors.
I think we're generally agreeing, though, that the potential risks probably outweigh what would probably be a very small boost at best. I'm also a little hesitant on having some pages with dashes and some with underscores, but that's probably just the UX side of me - it feels messy.
-
Some time ago I've changed all my urls from underscores to hyphens and I've lost some of my ranking for a while. After about a year we are back to where we were originally. I think it is a good idea to have it hyphened, but if you have good ranking it's really just a question whether they bother you much enough to go through a possible rank drop for a little while.
It's worth to mention that I wasn't bothered with doing the 301 redirect due to the large number of pages being affected, but instead I've started blogging more and the new content was quickly picked by the engines and helped the site to recover.
-
All due respect Dr Pete, this does not show that shop_ipad in the url is seen as shop ipad, only that it bolds in the results. this would be 2 different bits of technology doing these jobs.
Doc, I think you missed this video.
Matt stated this only a few months ago, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQcSFsQyct8
He states for the forseeable future it wont be changing.
I agree its a small factor, and i suggested, only fix it on pages that dont have external links.
-
This is a great debate and some good comments all around, but I do think it's important to keep in mind that Matt's statements were from 2005 and 2009, and even the 2009 wording was a bit more nuanced. I strongly suspect Google has eased up on this early technical constraint. For example, try a search for "shop ipad" - you'll see this Apple.com URL in the Top 10:
store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_ipad/family/ipad/select
Google seems to have no trouble bolding "shop_ipad" as two words.
I still completely agree that, if you were starting fresh, I'd go with hyphens. A sitewide 301-redirect does carry some risk, though, so I think it boils down to this - are your pages ranking now for terms in the URL? If they seem to be ranking and it's just a matter of ranking better, I doubt the change would help much. If they seem to not be ranking at all and you suspect the URL terms are to blame, that's a different story.
Even in a perfect world, keywords in the URL are just one, relatively small factor. I'd want to see the data, but my gut reaction is to leave it alone until you need to make a sitewide URL change for other reasons.
-
Well it does, google has told us so.
Its quite simple, as matt cutts said thety treat blue_widget as a single term and do not seperate it into 2 words. They do seperate blue-widgets and even bluewidgets.
Unless you have some evidence that they have changed, then i will stick to what google has stated on the subject
-
No, I don't need to watch the videos I've seen and heard that stuff before. I'm just saying I don't buy the fact that blue-widgets vs. blue_widgets has any impact whatsoever on a sites ability to rank for "blue widgets".
Maybe a few years ago, but not today.
Hence I see no value in risking link equity to change from underscores to hyphens.
-
Hi Logan,I would like to tell you that the basic concept is to make the URL search engine friendly — and by friendly, we mean optimized to rank better.
The short answer is that you should use a hyphen for your SEO URLs. Google treats a hyphen as a word separator, but does _not _treat an underscore that way. Google treats and underscore as a word joiner — so red_sneakers is the same as redsneakers to Google. This has been confirmed directly by Google themselves, including the fact that using dashes over underscores will have a (minor) ranking benefit.
Again, SEO URLs should use hyphens to separate words. Do not use underscores, do not try to use spaces, and do not smash all the words together intoonebigword. As of 2011, dashes are still the best way to optimize your SEO URLs.
ccording to Matt Cutts - a senior software engineer at Google - he recommends using dashes for Google.
According to his article, "Dashes vs. underscores", if you have a URL like 'keyword1_keyword2' Google will only return that page if the user searches for 'keyword1_keyword2' (which almost never happens).
If you have a URL like 'keyword1-keyword2', that page can be returned for the searches for 'keyword1', 'keyword2', and even 'keyword1 keyword2'.
Don't forget to inform Googlebot and other search engine crawlers that a page has moved to a permanent location by adding 301 redirects to your web site's '.htaccess' file.
301 Redirect
For example:
Redirect 301 /old_directory http://www.example.com/new-directory
Redirect 301 /old_page.html http://www.example.com/new-page.html
Redirect 301 /old_directory/old_page.html http://www.example.com/new-directory/new-page.html
Note that the first URL only includes the directories (if any) and file name. The second URL must include the domain, in addition to the directory (if any) and file name. This is because the redirect may point to a file on another domain - it doesn't have to be on the same domain.
I hope that you will found the solution.
-
Gosh guys way to heat up the seemingly boring I like it.
Everyone makes interesting points. Alan, as always knows the code back and forth. Ben makes a good point as well (moderation, nothing wrong with that in SEO). I would have to say that when it comes to 301 redirects, as an agency that does a few site redesigns, client purchases of sites, etc. we do a few redirects. We also have clients who end up with multiple sites for one reason or another and we convince them to "merge." Here is what I know of 301 redirects. The common belief is that you lose up to 10% of the juice with a 301. My experience has been that it is not even close. When 301's are done appropriately (url to url in .htaccess say for apache) we do not see more than a 1 to 2% loss. That is from experience and not theory.
That said, I like what Alan says regarding Matt Cutts...If it was his $$ on the line. Understand that Matt has to be Googles non committal answerer of things SEO. How many times do you here him say Google absolutely does this and you should absolutely do that?
Using the one keyword _ versus the two keyword - , for me it would come down to if my _ were ranking really well and making me money, there would have to be some component of that ranking that is based on the keyword. Therefore, in spite of what I know about a 301, I would not change it. If it is there and not making me $$ I am going to go with a best practice in my opinion of hyphen vs. Underscore and make the 301.
you guys are fun, hope I added something.
Best to all,
-
I think what maybe getting overlooked is the fact that Google will or can separate words in a url. I have no official proof of that except if you go to Google and type something like "Bike Shop" the words "bike" and "shop" will be bolded in domains that contain the characters bikeshop.
This if nothing else suggest that Google can at least bold 2 words they are being treated as 1 word. Maybe Matt Cutts couldn't say this directly since it hints at something in Google's algorithm. Giving non-descriptive advice like "if it is well indexed I'd leave it alone" is better then saying don't worry we are breaking domains apart alphabetically to ascertain words.
It almost seems trivial to worry about something like that when there are so many other things that can be done SEO'wise. I've been on both sides of the fence and have taken solace in the words of Matt Cutts if it is already well indexed leave it alone, if it is a new page or one that is preforming crappy then use / change to dashes.
-
did you watch the video?
We know that keywords in a url are a ranking factor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRzMhlFZz9I
We know thay underscores do not seperate keywords http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3SFVfDIS5k , so if you want to rank for blue widgets rather then blue_widgets then using undersscores would have a negative impact on rankings. -
Show me some examples where you think it impacts rankings....
**sorry didn't mean to sound arsey there I just don't think one variation its necessarily better than the other when it comes to rankings. I really do think it purely boils down to preference of how it looks.
Ben
-
i have to correct you,
google sees this as one word some_keyword
but sees this as 2 words some-keyword
See link Donford posted
-
I was considering doing the same thing a couple of weeks back and decided the change wasn't worth it.
-
Hyphenated URLs do generally speaking just look nicer, but how likely is that to impact things like UX or CTR rates? (unlikely). It certainly doesn't impact rankings - just do some generic searches and you'll find a real mixed bag of hyphens and underscored URLs in the listings.
-
If your underscored URLs have been around for a long time then chances are you have some link equity built up into at least some of those URLs. 301 redirecting from underscored to hyphenated versions of the same content is an unnecessary risk to some of that link equity.
If I had a relatively new site, low traffic from organic search and no real link equity then I probably would take the plunge and update from underscores to hyphens, but it would be an almost cosmetic move based on my own personal preferences. In your case I would advise against updating the URLs unless the domain has no pre-existing equity to give up.
Ben
-
-
Donford is correct in that is what matt cutts said, but i bet you if matts cutts main souce of income came from his web site he would change them.
You will lose a some link juice if you 301 redirect, i would look at the in-comming links, if the pages in question have little in links then i would change them. If you do, make sure you change all youyr internal links to point to the new format, dont allow internal links to go thought a redirect when you have controle of them.
-
Hi Logan,
I was faced with the similar question a couple years ago when I started with my current company.
The short answer is no, do not change a url that is currently using underscores to hyphens if it is well indexed.
If you're making a new page, then you should probably use hyphens instead of underscores.
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
-
On page vs Off page vs Technical SEO: Priority, easy to handle, easy to measure.
Hi community, I am just trying to figure out which can be priority in on page, off page and technical SEO. Which one you prefer to go first? Which one is easy to handle? Which one is easy to measure? Your opinions and suggestions please. Expecting more realistic answers rather than usual check list. Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Fresh backlinks vs old backlinks: A solid ranking factor?
Hi Moz community, Backlinks being a major ranking factor, do they must be very recent or fresh to make a ranking difference compared to the backlinks which are years old? We know usually fresh content ranks well, but I wonder how much the fresh/recent backlinks impact in rankings. Do the years old backlinks from related and reputed website have same impact on rankings? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Google ranking impact: Returning visitor vs New visitor
Hi all, If a website's traffic increase in "New visitors"; will this impact rankings? Do the website overall traffic affect rankings? How much this is related with ranking improvement for main keywords? Just because thousands of visits increased for website, will it count as a strong ranking improvement signal? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Numbers vs #'s For Blog Titles
For your blog post titles, is it "better" to use numbers or write them out? For example, 3 Things I love About People Answering My Constant Questions or Three Things I Love About People Answering My Constant Questions? I could see this being like the attorney/lawyer, ecommerce/e-commerce and therefore not a big deal. But, I also thought you should avoid using #'s in your url's. Any thoughts, Ruben
Algorithm Updates | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
Does the use of an underscore in filenames adversely affect SEO
We have had a page which until recently was ranked first or second by Google UK and also worldwide for the term "Snowbee". It is now no longer in the top 50. I ran a page optimization report on the url and had a very good score. The only criticism was that I had used an atypical character in the url. The only unusual character was an underscore "_" We use the underscore in most file names without apparent problems with search engines. In fact they are automatically created in html files by our ecommerce software, and other pages do not seem to have been so adversely affected. Should we discontinue this practice? It will be difficult but I'm sure we can overcome this if this is the reason why Google has marked us down. I attach images of the SEO Report pages 8fDPi.jpg AdLIn.jpg
Algorithm Updates | | FFTCOUK0 -
Plural vs non-plural domain name
I'm sure this question has been answered and asked a 1,000 different ways but what would be the best domain name to use in the long term (2 years +)? The plural versions (examples.com) which has a decent domain authority and is ranking 1st in Google search results yet has less search volume or the singular version (example.com) that has no current SEO value for the search term that we'd like to target however the singular version of the keyword has a much higher search volume? so basically will it be better to have the exact match that has more volume or the plural form that has better rankings after 2 years of doing SEO for each domain? My guess is that using (examples.com) with the better domain authority and tightening the grip on its dominance in Google will still be more effective than having the exact match domain with more search volume for that keyword while performing the same amount of SEO even after two years. Any suggestions?
Algorithm Updates | | ydop0 -
What's better .NET or a hyphenated.COM domain
What's better .NET or a hyphenated .COM domain I know this is simple but in selecting a domain for my current project and I only have two options. firstname-lastname.COM or
Algorithm Updates | | RonSparks
firstnamelastname.NET I'm leaning to the .COM as after reading the how to choose a domain name post. http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-to-choose-the-right-domain-name Thanks1 -
Is a slash just as good as buying a country specific domain? .com/de vs .de
I guess this question comes in a few parts: 1. Would Google read a 2-letter country code that is after the domain name (after the slash) and recognize it as a location (targeting that country)? Or does is just read it as it would a word. eg. www.marketing.com/de for a microsite for the Germans www.marketing.com/fr for a microsite for the French Or would it read the de and fr as words (not locations) in the url. In which case, would it have worse SEO (as people would tend to search "marketing france" not "marketing fr")? 2. Which is better for SEO and rankings? Separate country specific domains: www.marketing.de and www.marketing.fr OR the use of subfolders in the url: www.marketing.com/de and www.marketing.com/fr
Algorithm Updates | | richardstrange0