Which URL structure is better?
-
Quick question - Have a real estate site focused on "apartments", but apartments in not part of my company name. That being said, should which of the following URL structures should I use?
http://website.com/city/neighborhood/property-name
OR
http://website.com/city-apartments/neighborhood/property-name
-
As I said theoretically having the keyword you are after in the leftmost position is better. So if you already analyzed which keywords are the most relevant for you, you should try to place them in the leftmost position. If for example you are fighting a battle to improve your serp position for the query "property-name", you could decide to choose the second url in your example.
But, as others have already mentioned, serp positions are influenced by many many many factors, and focusing too much one technicality can mislead you and shift your focus from the general picture.
In general you should structure your content in folders, because google algo expect to find content structured that way, but it doesn't mean you have to in your specific case or for all your pages, or all your products, etc...
You should structure your url, after analyzing your content, the keywords you are after and your visitors behavior (and I would give a look at your competitors as well).
At the end you will have to make decisions between different possible url structures; you will have to take a risk making you best educated guess based on the analysis you have done, that's why I said the best thing you can do is "test".
I can't tell which structure is best for you, because it depends on that lengthy analysis you should perform, there's not an answer which fit them all.
-
Thank you! Check out the additional question I just added below and let me know what you think.
-
Thanks for your response. I'm going to add to this question..
Is there any advantage to not using all the sub-folders in your URL? For example, if I go with this link structure:
http://website.com/city/neighborhood/property-name
would it make any sense to potentially use this URL instead:
-
When it comes to urls, short and sweet always wins - Cover the technical and UX aspects and you won't go far wrong. There is an undeniable trend away from strictly technical SEO and towards UX-driven ranking factors. If your brand is memorable and relate-able, you will likely be better off moving forward than if you focus on strict keyword-matching.
-
I totally agree with Ray.
Theoretically having the keyword to the leftmost position is better. But I prefer shorter.
If you have time and patience you can test it, use one structure for a group of urls, and the other for another group of urls and try to spot a possible influence.
-
You do want to have a good balance between keyword rich URLs and friendly URLs - shorter is more friendly.
I'm inclined to prefer the first choice. Usually apartment complexes have an 'apartments' in the name - e.g. Lakewood Apartments. You could keep that keyword to the property name itself and keep the more finely tuned structure of the first URL.
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
-
Is it worth re-structuring URLs if breadcrumbs are enabled?
Hi Moz Community, I am wondering if anyone can shed some light on this current predicament I am facing... For my website, which is the site for a magazine I work for, the current URL structure is www.website.com/article-title At first glance, I thought it must be that we would have to re-structure the URLs to include the category structure, for example... www.website.com/category/sub-category/article-title However, upon deeper investigation, I've seen that we do actually have breadcrumbs enabled therefore google is indexing and following the structure that we would re-activate for the URL structure i.e. www.website.com/category/sub-category/article-title With this in mind, is it actually worth re-structuring the URLs to include these categories as it will take a long time to organise and implement?! Obviously, thinking in terms of UX, it is a must-do, but I'm just trying to weigh up the pro's and cons with this.. Appreciate your help, Leigh
Technical SEO | | leighcounsell0 -
Some URLs in the sitemap not indexed
Our company site has hundreds of thousands of pages. Yet no matter how big or small the total page count, I have found that the "URLs Indexed" in GWMT has never matched "URLS in Sitemap". When we were small and now that we have a LOT more pages, there is always a discrepancy of ~10% or so missing from the index. It's difficult to know which pages are not indexed, but I have found some that I can verify are in the Sitemap.xml file but not at all in the index. When I go to GWMT I can "Fetch and Render" missing pages fine - it's not as though it's blocked or inaccessible. Any ideas on why this is? Is this type of discrepancy typical?
Technical SEO | | Mase0 -
What is the best practice to seperate different locations and languages in an URL? At the moment the URL is www.abc.com/ch/de. Is there a better way to structure the URL from an SEO perspective?
I am looking for a solution for using a new URL structure without using www.abc.com**/ch/de** in the URL to deliver the right languages in specific countries where more than one language are spoken commonly. I am looking forward to your ideas!
Technical SEO | | eviom0 -
Question/Concern about URL structure
Hey! I have some doubts concerning structuring a websites URL’s and what would be the best practise for this case. The site has 4 (main) categories with a maximum of 4 products in each category. For example: domain -> category (natural-stones) -> product (flooring) Which I would give the follow url: www.companysite.com//natural-stones/flooring Nothing odd so far, but here is the tricky part: the category isn’t an actual page a user wouldn’t be able to visit. The category is just an item in the mainmenu. If a user hovers over the category in the main menu they will get a dropdown in which they can select a product. E.g. flooring, wall strips etc. My question is: Is the url structure as I suggested: www.companysite.com//natural-stones/flooring the best practise. Even though the category isn’t an actually page. Or would it be better to structure the site: www.companysite.com/flooring My concern with this type of structure would be that the site would seem ‘flat’ with in-depth structure. Or would a third (and maybe best?) option be to create an actual page for the category itself. Thanks for taking the time to help me with my question/concern. If you need more information let me know.
Technical SEO | | RvG0 -
URL paths and keywords
I'm recommending some on-page optimization for a home builder building in several new home communities. The site has been through some changes in the past few months and we're almost starting over. The current URL structure is http://homebuilder.com/oakwood/features where homebuilder = builder name Oakwood Estates= name of community features = one of several sub-paths including site plan, elevations, floor plans, etc. The most attainable keyword phrases include the word 'home' and 'townname' I want to change the URL path to: http://homebuilder.com/oakwood-estates-townname-homes/features Is there any problem with doing this? It just seems to make a lot of sense. Any input would be appreciated.
Technical SEO | | mikescotty0 -
We changed the URL structure 10 weeks ago and Google hasn't indexed it yet...
We recently modified the whole URL structure on our website, which resulted in huge amount of 404 pages changing them to nice human readable urls. We did this in the middle of March - about 10 weeks ago... We used to have around 5000 404 pages in the beginning, but this number is decreasing slowly. (We have around 3000 now). On some parts of the website we have also set up a 301 redirect from the old URLs to the new ones, to avoid showing a 404 page thus making the “indexing transmission”, but it doesn’t seem to have made any difference. We've lost a significant amount of traffic, because of the URL changes, as Google removed the old URLs, but hasn’t indexed our new URLs yet. Is there anything else we can do to get our website indexed with the new URL structure quicker? It might also be useful to know that we are a page rank 4 and have over 30,000 unique users a month so I am sure Google often comes to the site quite often and pages we have made since then that only have the new url structure are indexed within hours sometimes they appear in search the next day!
Technical SEO | | jack860 -
URL rewrite question
I have adjusted a setting in my CMS and the URL's have changed from http://www.ensorbuilding.com/section.php/43/1/firestone-epdm-rubbercover-flat-roofing to http://www.ensorbuilding.com/section/43/1/firestone-epdm-rubbercover-flat-roofing This has changed all the URL's on the website not just this example. As you can see , the .php extension has now been removed but people can still access the .php version of the page. What I want is a site-wide 301 redirect but can not figure out how to implement it? Any help is appreciated 🙂 Thanks
Technical SEO | | danielmckay70 -
When URL rewrite can lead to un pretty URLs
Hi Mozzers. I've a client that has done a little bit of mess rewriting the URLs of its site. In fact, also the data base driven URLs are rewritten, but the dev forgot to change the space with "-", so that now the 95% of the URLs are like this one: http://www.portalesardegna.com/search/Appartamenti e Residence/ Obviously not really a pretty URL. I am not so sure if this issue has an SEO consecuences (in fact, the site ranks pretty well also with those kind of url), but I am thinking more on usability issue. Could you suggest me any easy fix to this rewrite problem?
Technical SEO | | gfiorelli12