Absolute URLs
-
Hi, this is a very basic question but I want to confirm, as I remembered it was consider a good practice to use the absolute version of your links when linking to other pages of your site, not for any issue related to passing authority or PageRank, but because if someone scraps your content then they would take the links as well (as if they didn't remove them).
Have the practices for internal linking with absolute or realtive URLs changed in any way? Which is the best way? absolute or relative? is there any harm for using the relative version?
Absolute: [](<strong><em>http://www.cheapdomain.com/myfolder/mypage.html)[](<strong><em>http://www.cheapdomain.com/myfolder/mypage.html)
[Thanks!](<strong><em>http://www.cheapdomain.com/myfolder/mypage.html)
-
Thanks Nemek and Alan, I actually have some issues with between the mobile version of our site and the absolute links, so yes Alfredo is right about being the best practice, but there is a big technical issue for our dev department.
-
Thanks Alfredo! Preciate it!
-
I think your correct, it is rare that it will actualy help
i like to use relative urls for portability, I think this advatage outweights any slight chance i get scaped, have my links left in, not no-followed and being a link worthwhile
-
Hi Andre,
Basically you're right - it's still a "best practice" but the main (or even only) advantage of using absolute URLs is when your content gets scraped and published "as is". The problem is that most of the time the scrapers will remove your URLs anyway or at least nofollow them. Even if they don't do that the quality of the links to your site you get from the "transaction" is very poor.
I've had a few situations where I got a couple of good links from authority sites that have quoted parts of my content and have included the links that were there. Even so, I've lately changed to using relative URLs because it makes development for me much easier, and I don't think the few scraper links I would get are really worth the hassle.
Cheers
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
-
SEO, 301s & backslashes at end of URL
Wordpess started adding "/" (slashes) at the end of my urls and I've left them up for some time. Will removing them hurt search rankings or do I need to do a 301 redirect? For example - www.site.com/page1/ changed to www.site.com/page1 Are there any other ramifications I may not be thinking about besides just search rankings.
On-Page Optimization | | MSpencer1 -
URL, Breadcrumb/Site Hierarchy Display, User (and Bot) Expectations
TL;DR: Do parts of URLs that are used throughout the web quite consistently have any influence on robots (or users)? Are there any studies? What would you use for pages that are something between a tag-page and a wiki-like article? Long version: On a site with a lot of content, I decided to go for tags to present articles on that topic together. My first thought was to simply list those under the URL /tag/{Tag_Name}. Short. Simple. Grabs the core meaning - on this page you'll find stuff about the tag. But: those tag-pages will be more than just lists of the tagged pages (let's say they are articles on various topics and products with certain attributes and the same tag can apply to a product and an article). The tag pages themselves will often talk a lot about the use of said tag - extensively, without blabbering. It is aimed at being a landing page and hub for the tag/keyword. Having this in mind, I pondered using /wiki/. It does fit in some respects, but it really is not a wiki. /info/, /lexicon/, /knowledge/ and other ideas came to mind but the more I thought the weirder I did find most ideas. What I am now wondering: Do these parts of URLs (/tag/, or /product/, or /wiki/) that are not really keywords in most cases have any influence on search engines? They are used quite consistently across the web and therefore could be used as signals. I suspect, though, that they might have more influence on shaping user expectation. (If I see /wiki/ in an URL or site hierarchy display (breadcrumb), I expect ... well, a wiki-style page; if I see /tag/ I expect a collection of stuff with that tag.) What would you chose if it is not quite a tag, nor quite a wiki but something in-between? Or do you think it does not matter at all? (Breadcrumbs will be used and google has used them for display in just about all SERPs.) Are there perchance any studies concerning these parts of URLS? Regards Nico
On-Page Optimization | | netzkern_AG0 -
URL SEO: Better directory structure vs. exact keyword phrase
I am trying to understand how to best optimise a url for a page to rank high for specific keywords. Example: a top keyword search is "rental properties in new york". Question is does this keyword need to appear as this exact phrase in the url or should it be broken up into different directories for a better structure e.g.: www.abc.com/en/properties/new-york/rental OR www.abc.com/en/rental-properties-in-new-york Which will help the page rank higher (given all other things on the page are exactly the same)? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | MH190 -
What are the benefits of the URL meta tag?
We have too many meta tags and want to get rid of all the outdated ones. However, we don't want to eliminate valuable meta tags by mistake. So, before we say goodbye to the URL meta tag, we want to make sure we understand the pros and cons, if any. By the way, we are not referring to canonical URL tags, just URL as in:
On-Page Optimization | | GRIP-SEO0 -
New CMS system - 100,000 old urls - use robots.txt to block?
Hello. My website has recently switched to a new CMS system. Over the last 10 years or so, we've used 3 different CMS systems on our current domain. As expected, this has resulted in lots of urls. Up until this most recent iteration, we were unable to 301 redirect or use any page-level indexation techniques like rel 'canonical' Using SEOmoz's tools and GWMT, I've been able to locate and redirect all pertinent, page-rank bearing, "older" urls to their new counterparts..however, according to Google Webmaster tools 'Not Found' report, there are literally over 100,000 additional urls out there it's trying to find. My question is, is there an advantage to using robots.txt to stop search engines from looking for some of these older directories? Currently, we allow everything - only using page level robots tags to disallow where necessary. Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | Blenny0 -
Canonical URL problem
On page analysis wanted me to add a canonical url tag. However I added then re ran the on page analysis and it came up with an error. What is the proper way to add a canonical url tag in the head of an index page? ie. add a canonical tag to www.hompeage.com/index.html would it be ? Or should I ignore this for a home page? Because I add it then run the analysis again and get this? Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical Moderate fix <dl> <dt>Canonical URL</dt> <dd>"http://www.ensoplastics.com/index.html"</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>If the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. Make sure you're targeting the right page (if this isn't it, you can reset the target above) and then change the canonical tag to reference that URL.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>We check to make sure that IF you use canonical URL tags, it points to the right page. If the canonical tag points to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. If you've not made this page the rel=canonical target, change the reference to this URL. NOTE: For pages not employing canonical URL tags, this factor does not apply.</dd> <dd>So do I add it or not? If I don't I get a lower page rating if I take it off I get a higher page rating with room for improvement. </dd> </dl>
On-Page Optimization | | ENSO0 -
Does a page's url have any weight in Google rankings?
I'm sure this question must have been asked before but I can't find it. I'm assuming that the title tag is far more important than the page's url. Is that correct? Does the url have any relevance to Google?
On-Page Optimization | | rdreich490 -
Is having the word catalog in an ecommerce site url detrimental to seo.
IS: www.example.com/catalog/category%/product% better than www.example.com/category%/product% category and product are dynamic values that change with the diff. categ. and products displayed while catalog is constant.
On-Page Optimization | | no6thgear0