Should we use URL parameters or plain URL's=
-
Hi,
Me and the development team are having a heated discussion about one of the more important thing in life, i.e. URL structures on our site.
Let's say we are creating a AirBNB clone, and we want to be found when people search for
apartments new york.
As we have both have houses and apartments in all cities in the U.S it would make sense for our url to at least include these, so
clone.com/Appartments/New-York
but the user are also able to filter on price and size. This isn't really relevant for google, and we all agree on clone.com/Apartments/New-York should be canonical for all apartment/New York searches. But how should the url look like for people having a price for max 300$ and 100 sqft?
clone.com/Apartments/New-York?price=30&size=100
or (We are using Node.js so no problem)
clone.com/Apartments/New-York/Price/30/Size/100
The developers hate url parameters with a vengeance, and think the last version is the preferable one and most user readable, and says that as long we use canonical on everything to clone.com/Apartments/New-York it won't matter for god old google.
I think the url parameters are the way to go for two reasons. One is that google might by themselves figure out that the price parameter doesn't matter (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1235687?hl=en) and also it is possible in webmaster tools to actually tell google that you shouldn't worry about a parameter.
We have agreed to disagree on this point, and let the wisdom of Moz decide what we ought to do. What do you all think?
-
Personally, I would agree with you an opt for the following option:
clone.com/Apartments/New-York?price=30&size=100I don't think it matters whether that section of the URL is readable to everyone. I would actually say that anyone who has a technical background would find the URL above easier to change than the other one, as having /'s in the URL almost symbolised different directories rather than a parameter (that's how I would generally interpret it anyway).
I think in the grand scheme of things, It's going to make little different as you don't want the additional sections to actually be indexed in the search engines. Like Gary correctly pointed out, you can setup 'URL Parameters' in GWT and I think that's your best option. There's more information about that here - http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/improved-handling-of-urls-with.html
You could also use robots.txt to block the parameters in the URL but this depends on whether the search engine crawling your website chooses to use it.
Hope this helps!
Lewis -
Good example of a site that does show up in the SERPs for all things related
-
OK, not to sit on the fence here but both are good options.
However when it comes to "URL Parameters" there is a section in Webmaster Tools that you can set to ignore certsin parameters. So that's always an option.
I like to look at sites like oodle in cases like this.
Here is an example
they spent a lot of time working out the best process and they use the node type url.
However Google has been said to prefer shorter urls recently.
Hope my sitting on the fence did not make things worse LOL
-
Personally I would just $_POST price and size - and be done with it. ( as opposed to $_GET which shows the parameter in the URL ) - No need to over think creating more URLs and complicating life.
If anything - you can define in WMT what price is and what size is but just keep it clean. Also, remember # tags in the URL doesn't get followed by google. So, clone.com/Apartments/New-York#price=30&size=100 could work too.
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
-
Pages excluded from Google's index due to "different canonicalization than user"
Hi MOZ community, A few weeks ago we noticed a complete collapse in traffic on some of our pages (7 out of around 150 blog posts in question). We were able to confirm that those pages disappeared for good from Google's index at the end of January '18, they were still findable via all other major search engines. Using Google's Search Console (previously Webmastertools) we found the unindexed URLs in the list of pages being excluded because "Google chose different canonical than user". Content-wise, the page that Google falsely determines as canonical instead has little to no similarity to the pages it thereby excludes from the index. False canonicalization About our setup: We are a SPA, delivering our pages pre-rendered, each with an (empty) rel=canonical tag in the HTTP header that's then dynamically filled with a self-referential link to the pages own URL via Javascript. This seemed and seems to work fine for 99% of our pages but happens to fail for one of our top performing ones (which is why the hassle 😉 ). What we tried so far: going through every step of this handy guide: https://moz.com/blog/panic-stations-how-to-handle-an-important-page-disappearing-from-google-case-study --> inconclusive (healthy pages, no penalties etc.) manually requesting re-indexation via Search Console --> immediately brought back some pages, others shortly re-appeared in the index then got kicked again for the aforementioned reasons checking other search engines --> pages are only gone from Google, can still be found via Bing, DuckDuckGo and other search engines Questions to you: How does the Googlebot operate with Javascript and does anybody know if their setup has changed in that respect around the end of January? Could you think of any other reason to cause the behavior described above? Eternally thankful for any help! ldWB9
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SvenRi1 -
Has Anyone Encountered This Old Meta Tag and Know It's Past Function?
name="url" content="http://www.mysite.com/"> I've never personally seen it used until I saw a site using it this past weekend...I cannot find any old documentation on the purpose if this tag either.Any insights or direction would truly appreciated!Many thanks, T 😎
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | talexanderyano0 -
Is there a difference between 'Mø' and 'Mo'?
The brand name is Mø but users are searching online for Mo. Should I changed all instances of Mø to be Mo on my clients website?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ben_mozbot010 -
Facets Being Indexed - What's the Impact?
Hi Our facets are from what I can see crawled by search engines, I think they use javascript - see here http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/lockers I want to get this fixed for SEO with an ajax solution - I'm not sure how big this job is for developers, but they will want to know the positive impact this could have & whether it's worth doing. Does anyone have any opinions on this? I haven't encountered this before so any help is welcome 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
How important is the user experience for SEO in google's eyes?
So far I've gathered that backlinks are really king, however you can't get good backlinks without well written content that serves a purpose. As well you can't do a great job with that content and not keep a good user experience, since why would anyone want to backlink to content that can be helpful if you squint an eye and suffer a few scrolling cramps. So how would you rank user experience in the everlasting war of SEO for Google? With this in mind, why would using bootstrap resources pose a problem? I've seen it could add issue to pageload times, however seems minifying could easily solve that. I personally enjoy the use of Bootstrap since it's very easy on the eyes and can have real positive effects when a user looks at content on such a framework.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Deacyde0 -
Using abbreviations in URL - Matching Keyword
We have a website that uses /us/, /ca/, /va/, etc for URLs of the different U.S. states. How much better is it (or is it at all better) to use /california/ or /virginia/ instead in our URLs to rank for searches that include the name of those states?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Heydarian0 -
What's the best theme for seo if you are going to use yoast anyway
I am going to edit my theme myself so I don't need something like thesis for that. But people say that the thesis framework is amazing for seo, and it's hard to edit it manually. Does using the thesis theme do anything for you if you are going to use yoast anyway? Thanks William
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | willie790 -
Rel canonical element for different URL's
Hello, We have a new client that has several sites with the exact same content. They do this for tracking purposes. We are facing political objections to combine and track differently. Basically, we have no choice but to deal with the situation given. We want to avoid duplicate content issues, and want to SEO only one of the sites. The other sites don't really matter for SEO (they have off-line campaigns pointing to them) we just want one of the sites to get all the credit for the content. My questions: 1. Can we use the rel canonical element on the irrelevent pages/URL's to point to the site we care about? I think I remember Matt Cutts saying this can't be done across URL's. Am I right or wrong? 2. If we can't, what options do I have (without making the client change their entire tracking strategy) to make the site we are SEO'ing the relevant content? Thanks a million! Todd
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GravitateOnline0