I need help to define which is the best friendly url structure
-
Hi,
I need some help to define which is the best friendly url structure for my new project, I'm in doubt for some cases, anyone could help me define which would be the best way?
domain.com/buy-online/0-1,this-cool-model or
domain.com/buy-online/this-cool-model,0-1 or
domain.com/buy-online/0-1/this-cool-model or
domain.com/buy-online/this-cool-model/0-1 or
domain.com/buy-online/this-cool-model_0-1 or
domain.com/buy-online/this-cool-model?Model=0&OtherParam=1Thanks!
Best Regards,
Leonardo Lima -
Hi, just a quick question for Visiblics, because I'm kind in a similar situation as Leonardo who has posted this question.
I'm about to change the complete URL structure of a website. In your comments you posted that the URL structure should always be meaningfull (I was always in this mindset). But one of the webinars of this year (july 2012) from Everett Sizemore
http://www.seomoz.org/webinars/ecommerce-seo-fix-and-avoid-common-issues
is actually saying a bit the opposite of what you suggesting. see video approx after 34 min.
He's is saying, take out of the Category and subcategory from the products URL's. Could you please give more insights why you still think keep the Category and subcategory in the URL?
-
yes... this will be a big problem... but until now the fastest way to avoid is use the canonical tag...
this site is new, I published it yesterday this help´s something? rss -
either of those is a legitimate URL. However I'd focus on the potential duplicate content issue first.
-
I read on the web to avoid use "," or "_" to this is the reason that I separated my parameters in the final slash..
Is this true? That I need avoid "," or "_" on my url ? If I could use any of those characters my url would be like this:
www.vendasclarofixo.com.br/assine-por-telefone/huawei-2555,0-2
or
www.vendasclarofixo.com.br/assine-por-telefone/huawei-2555_0-2what do you think?
-
That sounds sensible, yes.
It might take a while for Google to take notice of the canonical. It can take a long time sometimes, but that approach does sound sensible.
-
-
It might be useful to have those terms in the URL of a page, but if those pages are duplicate then you could face penalties.
Each URL needs to point to a distinct page. If you are serving very similar pages with different URLs you will undoubtably run in to trouble. The impact of such a penalty will often far outweigh the small benefit of an extra keyword in the URL
-
yes, the option to post the information for this page can be considered, but it is not as simple as I have several options and would have to add several separate forms for each option
-
Hi,
Now I'm worried, with the case "assine-por-telefone/fale-a-vontade" and "assine-por-telefone/huawei-2555" could generate duplicated content ? Because its the same form.. there is any way to avoid this?
Its interesting for me have the words "fale-a-vontade" and "huawei-2555" on my URL... so I need avoid be penalised... but I don´t know how...
-
Can you send your parameters as POST data? I think this might be preferred if you do not want to index a URL with the parameters tacked onto the end.
-
Hi,
I replied in the previous answer my real url structure, but 0-2 is any parameter that I need to my application this parameters I treat the application..
So for SEO is safe I pass all my parameters in the end of the URL? like anyurl/any/any/param-param-param-param ? -
I think I understand. You actually don't want a search friendly url for this! The danger here is that you are going to create lots of URLs with essentially the same content. That will result in duplicate content problems, which could see you penalised.
Instead you want just a single version of that page indexed.
I would do something like :
http://www.vendasclarofixo.com.br/assine-por-telefone/fale-a-vontade?select=Aparelho
&
http://www.vendasclarofixo.com.br/assine-por-telefone/fale-a-vontade?select=Plano
I would then block search engines from indexing the different select values (there are several ways to do this - for instance in robots.txt or using a rel=canonical)
-
To answer you query I need to understand the significance of 0-1.
Though as per my understanding/experience
URL structure should always be meaningful, like:
domain.com/ Products/ main category / sub category / product name / model number
OR
domain.com/ service/ category/ service name.html
OR
domain.com/ Manufacturers/ Products/ product category/ sub category/ product name/ model number
Hope this helps
-
My actual url is: http://www.vendasclarofixo.com.br/assine-por-telefone
this page have an dynamic form that is filled by the parameters passed..
if http://www.vendasclarofixo.com.br/assine-por-telefone/0-2,huawei-2555 then the field "Aparelho" will be filled,
no in 0-2 the "2" is the code to fill "Aparelho" and "0" is just to keep the parameter place (this is needed for "Planos")
and if http://www.vendasclarofixo.com.br/assine-por-telefone/27-0,fale-a-vontade then the field "Planos" will be filled
can you understand?
So I could not understand your answer, one other way that I could do this is like:
http://www.vendasclarofixo.com.br/assine-por-telefone/fale-a-vontade?IdAparelho=X
http://www.vendasclarofixo.com.br/assine-por-telefone/fale-a-vontade?IdPlano=yThis is this good to SEO? And google organic ?
-
This is a hard question to answer without knowing what 0-1 means. Is this a model number of a model car for example?
I can definitely say that you should not include the directory /buy-online/ it's spammy and unnecessary
If this is a model number then putting it as a folder name doesn't make any sense because that car will be the only model page in that folder.
Since the name of the model is what people will be search for mostly, it should go in the filename not the folder since keywords in filenames are stronger
no commas in filenames
Therefore I would recommend assuming that i understand this correctly (it's a bit too vague)
www..domain.com/manufacturer/name-of-model-modelnumber or
www..domain.com/manufacturer/modelnumber-name-of-model or
www..domain.com/type-of-model/modelnumber-name-of-model
would look something like
www..paintablemodels.com/corgi/dodge-charger-071566
www..paintablemodels.com/corgi/071566-dodge-charger
www..paintablemodels.com/sports-cars/071566-dodge-charger
-
Elements that represent the same entity should be kept together. So name_model makes sense (personally I'd preder namewithspacesstripped-model). One word of caution there: if you are relying on the model number being passed then be sure that you are testing for the correct URL and either showing a canonical or 301ing to the correct domain so that you don't end up with duplicates like namespelledwrong-model and namedSpelledwrong-model.
What is the mystery other parameter? If it is tied to the model then group it in the same way ( name-model-other). If it doesn't change content I would use a url param (name-model?var=other)
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
-
Removed URLs
Hi all, We have recently removed 200+ articles from our blog. However, those links are still being shown on Google weeks after their removal. In there a way to speed up the process? What effect will this have on our SEO ranking?
Technical SEO | | businessowner0 -
URL Understanding -
Hello everyone! Can anyone help me understanding this url? Product.asp?PID=1236 cheers
Technical SEO | | PremioOscar0 -
I need help compiling solid documentation and data (if possible) that having tons of orphaned pages is bad for SEO - Can you help?
I spent an hour this afternoon trying to convince my CEO that having thousands of orphaned pages is bad for SEO. His argument was "If they aren't indexed, then I don't see how it can be a problem." Despite my best efforts to convince him that thousands of them ARE indexed, he simply said "Unless you can prove it's bad and prove what benefit the site would get out of cleaning them up, I don't see it as a priority." So, I am turning to all you brilliant folks here in Q & A and asking for help...and some words of encouragement would be nice today too 🙂 Dana
Technical SEO | | danatanseo0 -
Content and url duplication?
One of the campaign tools flags one of my clients sites as having lots of duplicates. This is true in the sense the content is sort of boiler plate but with the different countries wording changed. The is same with the urls but they are different in the sense a couple of words have changed in the url`s. So its not the case of a cms or server issue as this seomoz advises. It doesnt need 301`s! Thing is in the niche, freight, transport operators, shipping, I can see many other sites doing the same thing and those sites have lots of similar pages ranking very well. In fact one site has over 300 keywords ranked on page 1-2, but it is a large site with an 12yo domain, which clearly helps. Of course having every page content unique is important, however, i suppose it is better than copy n paste from other sites. So its unique in that sense. Im hoping to convince the site owner to change the content over time for every country. A long process. My biggest problem for understanding duplication issues is that every tabloid or broadsheet media website would be canned from google as quite often they scrape Reuters or re-publish standard press releases on their sites as newsworthy content. So i have great doubt that there is a penalty for it. You only have to look and you can see media sites duplication everywhere, everyday, but they get ranked. I just think that google dont rank the worst cases of spammy duplication. They still index though I notice. So considering the business niche has very much the same content layout replicated content, which rank well, is this duplicate flag such a great worry? Many businesses sell the same service to many locations and its virtually impossible to re write the services in a dozen or so different ways.
Technical SEO | | xtopher660 -
Canonical URL
I previously set the canonical Url in google web masters to the non www version, when I check my on page opt, it tells me that I have a critical issue with this. Should I change it in google web masters back to the www version? if so is there the possibility of negative results? Or is there a better way to deal with this? Note, I have inbound links pointing to both types.
Technical SEO | | bronxpad0 -
How to find original URLS after Hosting Company added canonical URLs, URL rewrites and duplicate content.
We recently changed hosting companies for our ecommerce website. The hosting company added some functionality such that duplicate content and/or mirrored pages appear in the search engines. To fix this problem, the hosting company created both canonical URLs and URL rewrites. Now, we have page A (which is the original page with all the link juice) and page B (which is the new page with no link juice or SEO value). Both pages have the same content, with different URLs. I understand that a canonical URL is the way to tell the search engines which page is the preferred page in cases of duplicate content and mirrored pages. I also understand that canonical URLs tell the search engine that page B is a copy of page A, but page A is the preferred page to index. The problem we now face is that the hosting company made page A a copy of page B, rather than the other way around. But page A is the original page with the seo value and link juice, while page B is the new page with no value. As a result, the search engines are now prioritizing the newly created page over the original one. I believe the solution is to reverse this and make it so that page B (the new page) is a copy of page A (the original page). Now, I would simply need to put the original URL as the canonical URL for the duplicate pages. The problem is, with all the rewrites and changes in functionality, I no longer know which URLs have the backlinks that are creating this SEO value. I figure if I can find the back links to the original page, then I can find out the original web address of the original pages. My question is, how can I search for back links on the web in such a way that I can figure out the URL that all of these back links are pointing to in order to make that URL the canonical URL for all the new, duplicate pages.
Technical SEO | | CABLES0 -
Which is best of narrow by search URLs? Canonical or NOINDEX
I have set canonical to all narrow by search URLs. I think, it's not working well. You can get more idea by following URLs. http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps?material_search=1328 http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps?finish_search=146 These kind of page have canonical tag which is pointing to following one. http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps Because, it's actual page which I want to out rank. But, all narrow by search URLs have very different products compare to base URLs. So, How can we say it duplicate one? Which is best solution for it. Canonical or NOINDEX it by Robots?
Technical SEO | | CommercePundit0 -
URL Rewrite
Using the .htaccess file how do I rewrite a url from www.exampleurl.com/index.php?page=example to www.exampleurl.com/example removing index.php?page= Any help is muchly appreciated
Technical SEO | | CraigAddyman0