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.
URL - Well Formed or Malformed
-
Hi Mozzers,
I've been mulling over whether my URLs could benefit a little SEO tweaking. I'd be grateful for your opinion.
For instance, we've a product, a vintage (second hand), red Chanel bag. At the moment the URL is:
www.vintageheirloom.com/vintage-chanel-bags/2.55-bags/red-2.55-classic-double-flap-bag-1362483150
Broken down...
vintage-chanel-bags = this is the main product category, i.e. vintage chanel bags
2.55-bags = is a sub category of the main category above. They are vintage Chanel 2.55 bags, but I've not included 'vintage' again. 2.55 bags are a type of Chanel bag.
red-2.55-classic-double-flap-bag = this is the product, the bag
**1362483150 **= this is a unique id, to prevent the possibility of duplicate URLs
As you no doubt can see we target, in particular, the phrase **vintage. **The actual bag / product title is: Vintage Chanel Red 2.55 classic double flap bag 10” / 25cm
With this in mind, would I be better off trying to match the product name with the end of the URL as closely as possible?
So a close match below would involve not repeating 'chanel' again:
www.vintageheirloom.com/chanel-bags/2.55-bags/vintage-red-2.55-classic-double-flap-bag
or an exact match below would involve repeating 'chanel':
www.vintageheirloom.com/chanel-bags/2.55-bags/vintage-chanel-red-2.55-classic-double-flap-bag
This may open up more flexibility to experiment with product terms like second hand, preowned etc.
Maybe this is a bad idea as I'm removing the phrase 'vintage' from the main category. But this logical extension of this looks like keyword stuffing !!
www.vintageheirloom.com/vintage-chanel-bags/vintage-2.55-bags/vintage-chanel-red-2.55-classic-double-flap-bag
Maybe this is over analyzing, but I doubt it?
Thanks for looking.
Kevin
-
Thanks Everett,
Strange, the product on the website appears in two places, on the homepage 'Featured' product, and in the Chanel > 2.55 bags category. When I check both I only see the product name after the .com/.
Thanks for the heads up about restructuring to match the rel canonical, makes perfect sense. I'll be moving over to Wordpress, Woocomerce at some point in the future. I'll look into making the linkable URL neat and tidy as suggested.
Much appreciated...
Kevin
-
The product I checked (see above) had rel canonical tags that used the first category (though not the second / sub-category). That is different than what you listed as "default" above.
Having the default rel canonical tag be .com/product-name-UniqueID/ is fine too. The important thing here is that you should be consistent. Also realize that using the rel canonical tag like this is sort of a temporary band-aid. Ideally you would be linking to the canonical URL and displaying the canonical URL instead of linking to and displaying the non-canonical URL on the site and relying on the rel canonical tag to "fix" it.
That should be fine for now. At some point in the future you probably want to make .com/product-name-UniqueID the version that gets linked to from elsewhere on the site (such as category pages) and for all other versions of that URL to 301 redirect to it.
-
Hi Everett,
Thank you for your considered response.
Choice wise, I feel fairly constrained by my shopping cart (Opencart, and lack of technical ability !
So am I correct in thinking that Google reads the rel canonical, not what appears in the URL? I've checked the generated rel canonical & by default it takes just the product name, probably as products, as you say, can be in more than 1 category. So I get: www.vintageheirloom.com/red-2.55-classic-double-flap-bag-1362483150
As you say this omits the term chanel & vintage.
With no understanding of how to implement your suggestion of putting all products into a 'products' category I think it might be safer for me to leave as is... for now. I'll certainly bear this in mind when I next rebuild the website, all good food for thought.
Thanks!
-
Hello Mr. Vintage Heirloom,
Takeshi has some great points about priorities, and avoiding keyword stuffing your URLs. I might add, however, that putting category directories in product URLs has two major disadvantages that, in my opinion, usually outweigh the advantage of having those keywords in the URL.
#1 - If the product exists in multiple categories you risk having more than one URL for the product. This can be mitigated with redirects or rel canonical tags, but is still a pain. Here's an example:
http://www.vintageheirloom.com/vintage-chanel-bags/red-2.55-classic-double-flap-bag-1362483150
http://www.vintageheirloom.com/vintage-chanel-bags/2.55-bags/red-2.55-classic-double-flap-bag-1362483150
The bag's URL can be accessed from at least two different URLs (some products could have many more versions) and the canonical tag says that the shorter of the two URLs above is the canonical version. If that is the case the keywords in your /2.55-bags/ directory are useless as a ranking factor for that particular product page since that directory is not in the rel canonical tag.Yes you can avoid the issues presented by multiple URL versions of the page, and some sites only ever put a product into a single category. However, that does nothing to account for this...
#2 - The deeper your category structure goes the further away from the root your product pages are. I have seen product pages five or six folders deep across entire eCommerce sites because of this. While I don't think the entire site architecture should be completely flat (some sort of taxonomy in the URLs is logical and useful) you don't want your most important pages to be several folders deep either.
I always recommend going with this:
site.com/products/product-name/
Or in your case:site.com/products/product-name-uniqueID/
Putting the products into the /products/ directory is that level of useful taxonomy I mentioned above. This allows you, for instance, to do a search on Google like (site:domain.com inurl:products) to see how many of your product pages are indexed. The same type of logic is useful when segmenting analytics reports or WMT exports in Excel, among other uses.
Then you don't have to worry about keyword stuffing due to keywords already contained in the category directory portion of the URL.
This is just one person's opinion though. Some may disagree. I just don't find keywords in the URL to be all that important these days compared to other things. It has been spammed to death and thus the importance attributed to that factor has been steadily declining over the years, at least to my observation.
Regarding 301 redirects, they don't really cost you any appreciable amount of pagerank. It truly is negligible as long as you're not going through several redirect hops at once. The key is to make up your mind about your URLs with an eye to the future scalability and useability of the site - and stick with it. One round of redirects will temporarily set you back in the SERPs, but you should bounce back within a couple of weeks (good time of year to do them!) if done correctly.
Good luck!
-
Remember that every keyword you add to your URL decreases the value of every other keyword you have in the URL. You want to include a few keywords in your URL for SEO value, but not so many that it dilutes the value of the other keywords. Also, having an overly long URL is a poor user experience.
So in this case, I would not include the word "vintage" in your URL for a 3rd time, because the SEO value is marginal and it will dilute the value of your other keywords, as well as making an already long URL even longer. And like I said, changing your URL structure will result in a loss of PageRank.
-
Thanks Takeshi,
Good to know. Any harm in adding an additional 'vintage' here to match H2 product name?
www.vintageheirloom.com/vintage-chanel-bags/2.55-bags/vintage-chanel-red-2.55-classic-double-flap-bag...
Or does that look spammy?
-
If you've been running your site for a while, I would recommend against changing your URL structure as 301s do result in some loss of link value, and you will likely see your rankings drop. The URLs you have now aren't bad, so I would focus on higher value activities such as link building. Ultimately, Google weighs offsite factors more highly than a few on-site tweaks.
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
-
Redirect URLS with 301 twice
Hello, I had asked my client to ask her web developer to move to a more simplified URL structure. There was a folder called "home" after the root which served no purpose. I asked for the URLs to be redirected using 301 to the new URLs which did not have this structure. However, the web developer didn't agree and decided to just rename the "home" folder "p". I don't know why he did this. We argued the case and he then created the URL structure we wanted. Initially he had 301 redirected the old URLS (the one with "Home") to his new version (the one with the "p"). When we asked for the more simplified URL after arguing, he just redirected all the "p" URLS to the PAGE NOT FOUND. However, remember, all the original URLs are now being redirected to the PAGE NOT FOUND as a result. The problems I see are these unless he redirects again: The new simplified URLS have to start from scratch to rank 2)We have duplicated content - two URLs with the same content Customers clicking products in the SERPs will currently find that they are being redirect to the 404 page. I understand that redirection has to occur but my questions are these: Is it ok to redirect twice with 301 - so old URL to the "p" version then to final simplified version. Will link juice be lost doing this twice? If he redirects from the original URLS to the final version missing out the "p" version, what should happen to the "p" version - they are currently indexed. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
Technical SEO | | AL123al0 -
Optimal Structure for Forum Thread URL
For getting forum threads ranked, which is best and why? site.com**/topic/**thread-title-goes-here site.com**/t/**thread-title-goes-here site.com**/**thread-title-goes-here I'd take comfort in knowing that SEOmoz uses the middle version, except that "q" is more meaningful to a human than "t". The last option seems like the best bet overall, except that users could potentially steal urls that I may want to use in the future. My old structure was site.com/forum/topic/TOPIC_ID-thread-title-goes-here so obviously any of those would be a vast improvement, but I might as well make the best choice now so I only have to change once.
Technical SEO | | PatrickGriffith0 -
404 errors on non-existent URLs
Hey guys and gals, First Moz Q&A for me and really looking forward to being part of the community. I hope as my first question this isn't a stupid one but I was just struggling to find any resource that dealt with the issue and am just looking for some general advice. Basically a client has raised a problem with 404 error pages - or the lack thereof- on non-existent URLs on their site; let's say for example: 'greatbeachtowels.com/beach-towels/asdfas' Obviously content never existed on this page so its not like you're saying 'hey, sorry this isn't here anymore'; its more like- 'there was never anything here in the first place'. Currently in this fictitious example typing in 'greatbeachtowels.com/beach-towels/asdfas**'** returns the same content as the 'greatbeachtowels.com/beach-towels' page which I appreciate isn't ideal. What I was wondering is how far do you take this issue- I've seen examples here on the seomoz site where you can edit the URI in a similar manner and it returns the same content as the parent page but with the alternate address. Should 404's be added across all folders on a site in a similar way? How often would this scenario be and issue particularly for internal pages two or three clicks down? I suppose unless someone linked to a page with a misspelled URL... Also would it be worth placing 301 redirects on a small number of common mis-spellings or typos e.g. 'greatbeachtowels.com/beach-towles' to the correct URLs as opposed to just 404s? Many thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | AJ2340 -
URL rewriting from subcategory to category
Hello everybody! I have quite simple question about URL rewriting from subcategory to category, yet I can't find any solution to this problem (due to lack of my deeper apache programming knowledge). Here is my problem/question: we have two website url structures that causes dublicate problems: www.website.lt/language/category/ www.website.lt/language/category/1/ 1 and 2 pages are absolutely same (both also returns 200 OK). What we need is 301 redirect from 2 to 1 without any other deeper categories redirects (like www.website.com/language/category/1/169/ redirecting to .../category/1/ or .../category/). Here goes .htaccess URL rewrite rules: RewriteRule ^([^/]{1,3})/([^/]+)/([^/]+)/([^/]+)/([^/]+)/([^/]+)/$ /index.php?lang=$1&idr=$2&par1=$3&par2=$4&par3=$5&par4=$6&%{QUERY_STRING} [L] RewriteRule ^([^/]{1,3})/([^/]+)/([^/]+)/([^/]+)/([^/]+)/$ /index.php?lang=$1&idr=$2&par1=$3&par2=$4&par3=$5&%{QUERY_STRING} [L] RewriteRule ^([^/]{1,3})/([^/]+)/([^/]+)/([^/]+)/$ /index.php?lang=$1&idr=$2&par1=$3&par2=$4&%{QUERY_STRING} [L] RewriteRule ^([^/]{1,3})/([^/]+)/([^/]+)/$ /index.php?lang=$1&idr=$2&par1=$3&%{QUERY_STRING} [L] RewriteRule ^([^/]{1,3})/([^/]+)/$ /index.php?lang=$1&idr=$2&%{QUERY_STRING} [L] RewriteRule ^([^/]{1,3})/$ /index.php?lang=$1&%{QUERY_STRING} [L] There are other redirects that handles non-www to www and related issues: RedirectMatch 301 ^/lt/$ http://www.domain.lt/ RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^domain.lt RewriteRule (.*) http://www.domain.lt/$1 [R=301,L] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !(.)/$RewriteRule ^(.)$ http://www.domain.lt/$1/ [R=301,L] At this moment we cannot solve this problem with rel canonical (due to our CMS limits). Thanks for your help guys! If You need any other details on our coding, just let me know.
Technical SEO | | jkundrotas0 -
Singular vs plural in urls
In keyword research for an ecommerce site, I've found that widget, singular gets a lot more searches than widgets, plural AND is much less competitive. Is it better for SEO purposes to have the URLs (and matching title tags) in the catalog as /brass-widget.html, /steel-widget.html, etc., or /brass-widgets.html, etc.? I'm worried that a) searches for widgets will pass by the singular urls but not vice versa, and b) the singular form will strike visitors as bad grammar. Any advice?
Technical SEO | | AmericanOutlets0 -
Use of + in url good or bad?
Hi, I am working on a SEO project for a client.
Technical SEO | | MaartenvandenBos
Some of the urls have a + between the keyword.
like www.example.com/make+me+happy/ Is this good or bad for seo?
Or is it maybe better to use - ? Thanks!0 -
Duplicate canonical URLs in WordPress
Hi everyone, I'm driving myself insane trying to figure this one out and am hoping someone has more technical chops than I do. Here's the situation... I'm getting duplicate canonical tags on my pages and posts, one is inside of the WordPress SEO (plugin) commented section, and the other is elsewhere in the header. I am running the latest version of WordPress 3.1.3 and the Genesis framework. After doing some testing and adding the following filters to my functions.php: <code>remove_action('wp_head', 'genesis_canonical'); remove_action('wp_head', 'rel_canonical');</code> ... what I get is this: With the plugin active + NO "remove action" - duplicate canonical tags
Technical SEO | | robertdempsey
With the plugin disabled + NO "remove action" - a single canonical tag
With the plugin disabled + A "remove action" - no canonical tag I have tried using only one of these remove_actions at a time, and then combining them both. Regardless, as long as I have the plugin active I get duplicate canonical tags. Is this a bug in the plugin, perhaps somehow enabling the canonical functionality of WordPress? Thanks for your help everyone. Robert Dempsey0 -
If a redirecting URL has more value than the website should I move it?
Client has two website addresses: Website A is a redirect to Website B. It has one indexed page. But this is the URL being used in collateral. It has the majority of back links, and citations everywhere list Website A as the URL. Website B is where the actual website lives. Google recognizes and indexes the 80+ pages. This website has very few backlinks going to it. This setup does not seem good for SEO. Moreover, the analytics data is completely messed up because Website B shows that the biggest referral source is... you guessed it Website A. I'm thinking going forward, I should: Move all the content from Website B to Website A. Setup Website B to permanently 301 Redirect to Website A. Is that the best course of action?
Technical SEO | | flowsimple0