Does Google count the domain name in its 115-character "ideal" URL length?
-
I've been following various threads having to do with URL length and Google's happiness therewith and have yet to find an answer to the question posed in the title. Some answers and discussions have come close, but none I've found have addressed this with any specificity.
Here are four hypothetical URLs of varying lengths and configurations:
-
EXAMPLE ONE:
my-big-widgets-are-the-best-widgets-in-the-world-and-come-in-many-vibrant-and-unique-colors-and-configurations.html (115 characters) -
EXAMPLE TWO:
sample.com/my-big-widgets-are-the-best-widgets-in-the-world-and-come-in-many-vibrant-and-unique-colors-and-configurations.html (126 characters)
- EXAMPLE THREE:
www.sample.com/my-big-widgets-are-the-best-widgets-in-the-world-and-come-in-many-vibrant-and-unique-colors-and-configurations.html (130 characters)
- EXAMPLE FOUR:
http://www.sample.com/my-big-widgets-are-the-best-widgets-in-the-world-and-come-in-many-vibrant-and-unique-colors-and-configurations.html (137 characters)
Assuming the examples contain appropriate keywords and are linked to appropriate anchor text (etc.,) how would Google look upon each? All I've been able to garner thus far is that URLs should be as short as possible while still containing and contextualizing keywords.
I have 500+ URLs to review for the company I work for and could use some guidance; yes, I know I should test, but testing is problematical to the extreme; I look to the collective/accumulated wisdom of the MOZVerse for help.
Thanks.
-
-
I have understood the length of the URL to be calculated post http:// unless it's https://.
Just the way it is displayed in the results.
-
Here is Matt Cutts talking about this topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRzMhlFZz9I
The idea is to avoid spammy looking urls (which all of those do) and focus on URLs that are easy for users to remember and link to while also keeping some sort organizational structure for the site.
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 this is Wow HIT ME IN THE Face Google bug or am I missing something?
We have a page on our site https://www.spurshelving.co.uk/shop/bigimage.aspx?m=353&i=3436 which enders happily on all browsers as far as I am aware and is reasonably well optimised. So when google sent me a link to a new test tool I just had to check it out. https://testmysite.withgoogle.com/intl/en-gb/?utm_source=awareness&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tmsv1awareness&utm_content=header Well the result was shocking...... The page that renders in the results is a default missing product page and not the page that the link renders on a web page. I played a little and simply used the I=3436 attribute and the page appeared no problem I then reversed the attributes so that they were i=3436&m=353 and the page again resolved totally as expected. This indicates to me that Google have an issue with aspx attributes. Now I know what to do but is this same issue an issue in spidering and indexing pages. If is is wow that is a big smack in the face. Does it also harm search results in other engines. Keen for comments here
Web Design | | Eff-Commerce0 -
Responsive Site has "Not Found" Errors for mobile/ and m/ in Google Search Console
We have recently launched a new responsive website for a client and have noticed 2 "Not Found" errors within Google Search Console for /mobile and /m Both these URLs are not linked from anywhere within the site. However Google is reporting them as being linked from the homepage. This is not the first site we have seen in which Google has reported this error, however the other site was not a mobile friendly site. My thoughts are to 301 them back to the Homepage. Anybody else have any thoughts on this? or have recently received the same errors?
Web Design | | JustinTaylor881 -
Existing URL structure and how to handle new pages before migration
Hi there! Currently, our site uses underscores "_" within the url structure. We are moving to Wordpress soon (the site is currently static html) but it will be a couple of months before the migration. Here is an example of the current structure: www.oldsitestructure.com/about_us/success_stories/custom_vinyl_banners When we do change, our url structure will have hyphen's "-" to separate terms, so the preferred new structure will be: www.oldsitestructure.com/about-us/success-stories/custom-vinyl-banners The entire site (with the exception of our Wordpress blog) currently uses the old structure. We have about 10 - 15 pages we will add before our migration, my question is: Should we use the preferred url structure starting NOW or stick with the old one? And set up 301 redirects are part of the migration process? Many thanks!
Web Design | | SEOSponge
Jon0 -
301 forwarding during site migration problem - several url versions of the same page....
Hello, I'm migrating from an old site to a new site, and 301 forwarding many of the pages... My key problem is this I'm seeing www.website.com/ indexed in SE and www.website.com/default.aspx in showing as URL when I'm on homepage - should I simply 301 forward both of these? Then for several internal pages there are 2/3 versions of each page indexed. Canonicalization issues. Again, I'm wondering whether I should 301 forward each URL even if there are several different indexed URLs for the same page? Your advice will be welcome! Thanks in advance - Luke
Web Design | | McTaggart0 -
Image URL's and naming
We're re-platforming on Magento and wondering about our images. 1. Should I be concerned about 301 redirects for my images. 2. Is there a "best practice" path for images? or is just the name important? Right now, all our images are in /meta/images/sm or /lg or /xlg. Since we're re-platforming, we're wondering if we should change the urls. But, I'm assuming this would require all of them to have 301 redirects and with all the other redirects, I'm not sure this is really feasible. thanks for any suggestions on this.
Web Design | | centralvacuumstores0 -
Tips on website redesign on site with messy URLs?
So I've inherited quite a messy website. It was in drupal and the owner wants it in wordpress. One of the problems is the link paths. Should I try to recreate them exactly? i.e. something/somethingelse/page/ or use redirects (which I'm not confident in doing). Also, some of the pages end in .html, others in a back slash and others without slahes, there's no consistency. Do you have any tips in general? I remember an older seomoz blogpost about successful website relaunches (with press releases and mass emails and stuff being sent out on launch to boot). Thanks!
Web Design | | seonubblet0 -
.me.uk or .com domain with hyphen?
Hi Mozzers Just after some opinions really. Basically a client wants a restaurant website developing and had already chosen a name for it as (example) "englishroserestaurant.co.uk". They wanted to register it themselves but unfortunately before they had time to someone else did. Now they have come back to me and said about using the name (example) "englishrose.me.uk". I know these .me.uk names are supposedly for personal websites and not businesses but I assume that, by itself, shouldn't be an issue as there are many commercial sites that do use them. However as all the combinations have been taken I have suggested that they use a "domain-domain.com as an alternative so just wanted to know which option you guys would go for out of: 1. englishrose.me.uk 2. english-rose.com Although I avoid hyphens whenever I can in this instance 100% I would go for number 2 as it's only one hyphen and it's a business and looks more professional......having said that I would welcome any comments or opinions. Thanks in advance.
Web Design | | TrevorJones0 -
What is the new Google SERP highlighting?
My question is with the new Google SERP. I posted a pic of it at http://www.hortonwebdesign.com/images/new-google-page.gif. If you mouse over the arrows to the right of a result on the SERP, it pops up a preview of the page. On some results it also highlights a section of the page with a red box. What does this represent? Does it represent a key area that they are looking at in determining the positioning? I have some clients that are asking me and it doesn't make a lot of sense. In my example above I searched for "seo expert in georgia" and on my result (I'm #2), it shows a preview, but the part it has chosen to highlight with a red box is just, um, ...useless. It's highlighting a Recent Post sidebar on the right halfway down the page. Surely this can't be what they're looking at as what they view as "useful" to that search. This simply can't be what they're using to determine positioning. Or is it? Just please explain what I'm seeing here. new-google-page.gif.
Web Design | | GeorgiaSEOServices0