Slash at the end of a url
-
I keep reading contradicting information, so I figured I'll ask here.
What's the best practice for slash '/' at the end of a URL?
Should it be idealchooser.com/search/laptop/ or idealchooser.com/search/laptop (no trailing slash)?
The options:
1. Accept both equally
2. Accept 1 and redirect the other with 301
3. Accept 1 and treat the other as a wrong URL returning 404
Which would be the best for SEO?
Thank you.
-
Thank you very much Matt.
Now I get it
-
Just to be clear that when you decide which version you want to be your main url structure you need to make sure that all your internal should point at the preferred format.
So if you are putting preference on the trailing slash as in your 301 redirect is from none trailing slash to trailing slash then your internal link structure should match.
-
Thank you Matt,
From the article: "The takeaway here is that whenever possible, it is better to internally link to the version with the backslash."
Just to be clear, does this mean that all my internal links should not contain a trailing slash and I should make sure links with a trailing slash are internally redirected to the same page?
If I remember correctly, when I did this SEOmoz marked it as duplicate content, but Google seemed to be fine with it.
I know I'm being very picky here, I just want to make sure I don't loose ranking because of something that seems so minor.
Thanks.
-
I would look at going down the canonical route - have a look at canonicalization guide from SEOMoz here - http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/canonicalization
I would add a canonical tag pointing at your preferred format url and I would also do a 301 redirect between the two. Using both won't cause issues and obviously your link juice will keep flowing.
It specifically talks about trailing slashes and redirecting from none trailing to trailing towards the end of the article.
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
-
URL Structure Category Pages -Current Moz Friday-
Hello,
On-Page Optimization | | _Heiko_
regarding #15 of the last moz friday I have a question: http://moz.com/blog/15-seo-best-practices-for-structuring-urls What would you prefer if the lenght of the URL will be still under 60 characters and you have an example like this: Let's call it a specific page in a category. As I like the old shoe examples: You have a page about red shoes in your shoe category. Which URL would you prefer: a) www.mydomain.com/shoes/red-shoe b) www.mydomain.com/shoes/red Personally I would prefer a) or would you already consider this as spammy? My real example is not that trivial like the shoe example and the categories will be in plural and the specific pages always in singular (like in the example shoes vs shoe). c) would be to put it independently from the side structure on www.mydomain.com/red-shoe - but personally I have the experience that a) or b) will help the rankings of the category page if you have the specific pages in the same subfolder. What's your opinion on this?1 -
Better to hyphenate URL or no?
Sea Glass Jewelry or Sea-Glass-Jewelry My domain name does not have my keyword in it, so I have been using the category as a means to get the keyword in the URL. My site would say www.abcdefghijk.com/sea-glass-jewelry/sterling-starfish-necklace When I run the review, it tells me that I have too many parameters. Is it too long? Should I remove hyphens? Which is better?
On-Page Optimization | | tiffany11030 -
Do parameters in a URL make a difference from an SEO point of view
We us a number of different parameters in a number of our URLs to track how the user has navigated to the page. So for example we will have a page www.example.com/product/?banner to show that the user has navigated to the page from the banner as opposed to www.example.com/product/?footer to show that the user has navigated to the page from the footer. Do search engines treat these pages as the same page or different pages? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | cbarron0 -
Blog URL
I know that this question has been asked in the past, and that website.com/blog is better for seo purposes than blog.website.com. We want to setup a custom blog on our site, using Wordpress. Our designers/host are telling us that buy using website.com/blog can causes issues b/c Wordpress is open source, and our site could be hacked? Is there anything we should do about this? Any suggestions? Any Advice appreciated!!! Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | TP_Marketing0 -
Creating Authority and choosing URL's
Creating Domain Authority and choosing URL's: A: What is better if you want to get higher Domain Authority? Choose keyword.domain.com or www.domain.com/keyword when other sites link to it? B: And for Page Authority? Choose keyword.domain.com or www.domain.com/keyword? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | HMK-NL0 -
ECommerce URL's
This is based on a clothing retailer, eCommerce site. In an effort to reduce the length of our product names, we are considering removing terms like long-sleeve, short-sleeve, etc., but leaving that information in the URL. Now, the concern is that we would lose some traction in the SERP's if those descriptive words are left out as the product name is also our page title. Then I think keywords as broad as long-sleeve shirt wouldn't serve us well anyways. One idea we have is that the alt tag on the product image could still display the longer product name that would include long-sleeve, etc. thus having the keyword on the product page. Any ideas or suggestions? Hope this is clear. Seems redundant from a user standpoint to state long-sleeve, etc. in every product name. Thanks - your answers are always so helpful!
On-Page Optimization | | kennyrowe0 -
New CMS system - 100,000 old urls - use robots.txt to block?
Hello. My website has recently switched to a new CMS system. Over the last 10 years or so, we've used 3 different CMS systems on our current domain. As expected, this has resulted in lots of urls. Up until this most recent iteration, we were unable to 301 redirect or use any page-level indexation techniques like rel 'canonical' Using SEOmoz's tools and GWMT, I've been able to locate and redirect all pertinent, page-rank bearing, "older" urls to their new counterparts..however, according to Google Webmaster tools 'Not Found' report, there are literally over 100,000 additional urls out there it's trying to find. My question is, is there an advantage to using robots.txt to stop search engines from looking for some of these older directories? Currently, we allow everything - only using page level robots tags to disallow where necessary. Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | Blenny0