Capital Letters in URLS?
-
Remove
-
Having Capital letters in the URLs are not bad for SEO, Google consider this case as negative seo and it will not affect your ranking, but i recommend to use lower case in URL because it is User-friendly and SE friendly, and may be possible that you will have duplicate content issue if search engine see variations of upper and lower case among URLs that all evidently point to the same content. Read matt cutts's advices on URL http://www.seosean.com/blog/matt-cutts-advice-on-urls-page-names
-
I agree with Neil. It's not bad, just a good user practice to keep them lowercase so that's there's no confusion. The best bet for you would to be to use a consistent format and mimic that in your canonical URLs so only that variation gets crawled and indexed.
-
Whilst it's not necessarily "bad" per se, the implications are, so this kind of canonicalisation issue needs to be taken care of using URL rewrites/permanent 301 redirects.
Typically, on a Windows-based server (without any URL rewriting), a 200 (OK) status code will be returned for each version regardless of the combination of upper/lower-case letters used - giving search engines duplicate content to index, and others duplicate content to link to. This naturally dilutes rankings and link equity across the two (or more) identical pages.
There is an excellent section on solving canonicalisation issues on Windows IIS servers in this SEOmoz article by Dave Sottimano.
On a Linux server (without any URL rewriting) you will usually get a 200 for the lower-case version, and a 404 (Not Found) for versions with upper-case characters. Whilst search engines wont index the 404, you are potentially wasting link equity passed to non-existent pages, and it can be really confusing for users, too.
There is a lot of info around the web about solving Linux canonicalisation issues (here is an article from YouMoz). If your site uses a CMS like Joomla or Wordpress, most of these issues are solved using the default .htaccess file, and completely eliminated when you combine this with a well chosen extension or two.
You can help the search engines figure out which version of a page you regard as the original by using the rel="canonical" meta tag in the html . This passes link equity and rankings from duplicate versions to the main, absolute version.
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
-
Should one end URLs with or without a slash?
Moz, I am noticing that I need to go back and update my outbound links to your site. There are a lot of them because your content is so great and we love you guys. Could you explain your logic for making the change? Example on my Valid JSON-LD image sizes page: [https://moz.com/blog/state-of-searcher-behavior-revealed/](https://moz.com/blog/state-of-searcher-behavior-revealed/) redirected to: [https://moz.com/blog/state-of-searcher-behavior-revealed](https://moz.com/blog/state-of-searcher-behavior-revealed)
Algorithm Updates | | jessential0 -
Is having an identical title, h1 and url considered "over optimization"? Is it better to vary?
To get some new pages out without over-thinking things, I decided to line up the title tag, h1 tag and URLs of my pages exactly. They are dynamically generated based on the content the user is viewing (internal search results pages) They're not ranking very well at the moment, but there are a number of factors that are likely to blame. But, in particular, does anyone know if varying the text in these elements tends to perform better vs. having them all identical? Has there been any information from Google about this? Most if not all of the "over optimization" content I have seen online pertains to backlinks, not on-page content. It's easy to say, "test it!" And of course, that's just what I'm planning to do. But I thought I would leverage the combined knowledge of this forum to see what information I could obtain first, so I can do some informed testing, as tests can take a while to see results. Thanks 🙂
Algorithm Updates | | ntcma0 -
Check canonicalization work implemented on URL
Hi I was wondering how to check canonicalization when it's not working properly - I am getting redirect from http://www to www but not from non www version to www version of URL) - so, how do I check the type of redirect in place already in the URL? Is there a tool for testing this? Thanks, Luke
Algorithm Updates | | McTaggart0 -
Geo Target Location in your URL Structure
Hello everyone at SEOMOZ 😄 I have a question if you would be as kind as to inform me of which direction that I should take on this matter would be the more desirable approach for my seo strategy I have been using my location in my URL structure since I started doing SEO 5 years ago and I have always benefited from including my city in the URL. My question is, since the SEO landscape has change so drastically over the past 2 years and the Search Engines have become much more end user friendly and list suggestions for users as they type would it be more beneficial in 2013 to have the "Keyword" before or after the Geo Targeted Location in the URL structure? I own a computer repair business for the past 6 years now and I know that when i check to see where I am ranking for a particular keyword phrase such as "Computer Repair" GOOGLE detects my location and provides suggestions as I start typing out "Computer Repair" for the search query. One of the suggestions is "Computer Repair Wilmington NC" so I am starting to wonder if placing the Geo Targeted City after the Keyword would be the wiser choice instead of before it like a couple of years ago? Working Example: Here is a site that I am building out right now to re-brand my business. Currently I have one of the Silo Category Slugs set as seen below using the Location before the Keyword The First Example has the Geo Target Location before the Keyword and looks more natural to visitors on the site (at least to me) however I'm afraid that I may be shooting myself in the foot not placing the keyword before the Target Location? But if I do that, It does not read or flow fluently to the average looker so kinda confused and torn on how to deal with this>! FIRST EXAMPLE: Location Before Keyword Silo Parent Category = "Computer Repair" http://www.pcmedicsoncall.com/wilmington-nc-computer-repair/ Silo Child Category = "Laptop" http://www.pcmedicsoncall.com/wilmington-nc-computer-repair/laptop-repair/ Silo Grand Child Category = "LCD Replacement" http://www.pcmedicsoncall.com/wilmington-nc-computer-repair/laptop/lcd-screen-replacement/ **SECOND EXAMPLE: ** Keyword Before Location Silo Parent Category = "Computer Repair" http://www.pcmedicsoncall.com/computer-repair-wilmington-nc/ Silo Child Category = "Laptop" http://www.pcmedicsoncall.com/computer-repair-wilmington-nc/laptop-repair/ Silo Grand Child Category = "LCD Replacement" http://www.pcmedicsoncall.com/computer-repair-wilmington-nc/laptop-repair/lcd-screen-replacement/ Which would be the more favorable of the 2 examples that I have given please? Keyword before or After the Geo Targeted Location? thank you
Algorithm Updates | | MarshallThompson310 -
Google is forcing a 301 by truncating our URLs
Just recently we noticed that google has indexed truncated urls for many of our pages that get 301'd to the correct page. For example, we have:
Algorithm Updates | | mmac
http://www.eventective.com/USA/Massachusetts/Bedford/107/Doubletree-Hotel-Boston-Bedford-Glen.html as the url linked everywhere and that's the only version of that page that we use. Google somehow figured out that it would still go to the right place via 301 if they removed the html filename from the end, so they indexed just: http://www.eventective.com/USA/Massachusetts/Bedford/107/ The 301 is not new. It used to 404, but (probably 5 years ago) we saw a few links come in with the html file missing on similar urls so we decided to 301 them instead thinking it would be helpful. We've preferred the longer version because it has the name in it and users that pay attention to the url can feel more confident they are going to the right place. We've always used the full (longer) url and google used to index them all that way, but just recently we noticed about 1/2 of our urls have been converted to the shorter version in the SERPs. These shortened urls take the user to the right page via 301, so it isn't a case of the user landing in the wrong place, but over 100,000 301s may not be so good. You can look at: site:www.eventective.com/usa/massachusetts/bedford/ and you'll noticed all of the urls to businesses at the top of the listings go to the truncated version, but toward the bottom they have the full url. Can you explain to me why google would index a page that is 301'd to the right page and has been for years? I have a lot of thoughts on why they would do this and even more ideas on how we could build our urls better, but I'd really like to hear from some people that aren't quite as close to it as I am. One small detail that shouldn't affect this, but I'll mention it anyway, is that we have a mobile site with the same url pattern. http://m.eventective.com/USA/Massachusetts/Bedford/107/Doubletree-Hotel-Boston-Bedford-Glen.html We did not have the proper 301 in place on the m. site until the end of last week. I'm pretty sure it will be asked, so I'll also mention we have the rel=alternate/canonical set up between the www and m sites. I'm also interested in any thoughts on how this may affect rankings since we seem to have been hit by something toward the end of last week. Don't hesitate to mention anything else you see that may have triggered whatever may have hit us. Thank you,
Michael0 -
Is URL appearance defined by crawling or by XML sitemap
I am having a problem developing a sitemap because I have long URLs that are made by zend. They go like this: http://myagingfolks.com/professionals/20661/social-workers/pennsylvania-civi-stanger Because these URL's are long and are fed by Zend when I try to call them all up, to put on the sitemap, the system runs out of memory and crashes. Do you know what part of a search result, in google, say, comes from the URL? Would it be fine for me to submit to google only www.myagingfolks.com/professionals/20661. Does the crawler find that the URL is indeed http://myagingfolks.com/professionals/20661/social-workers/pennsylvania-civi-stanger or does it go with just what the sitemap tells it?
Algorithm Updates | | Jordanrg0 -
Any ideas on how Google +1 handles URLs and canonicals?
If your URL string shows up in a search and they +1 the URL with the coding in it will the +1 transfer to the canonical page? Example: site.com/locations/arizona/?utm_source=go gets a Google +1 from a user. The page itself has a canonical for site.com/locations/arizona/ Does google credit the canonical with the +1 or do they then have dup pages with separate +1 scores?
Algorithm Updates | | Thos0030 -
Google changing case of URLs in SERPs?
Noticed some strange behavior over the last week or so regarding our SERPs and I haven't been able to find anything on the web about what might be happening. Over the past two weeks, I've been seeing our URLs slowly change from upper case to lower case in the SERPs. Our URLs are usually /Blue-Fuzzy-Widgets.htm but Google has slowly been switching them to /blue-fuzzy-widgets.htm. There has been no change in our actual rankings nor has it happened to anyone else in the space. We're quite dumbfounded as to why Google would choose to serve the lower case URL. To be clear, we do not build links to these lower case URLs, only the upper. Any ideas what might be happening here?
Algorithm Updates | | Natitude0