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
-
Numerous duplicate destination URLs from within one menu - potential impact for on-page SEO?
Hello all What is your evaluation in regards to a number of links (different anchors) targeting the same destination URL from within one and the same menu (on the same website)? Keeping it brief: Think of a top menu drop down entry, that needs to feature the alphabet (each letter has it's own sub-entries). However, the actual letter itself is not represented by a page (it has no URL either). So far so good. However, when testing the menu on a mobile device, the letter entries are still treated, as if they were non-existent pages - thus throwing a 404 when clicked. In order to avoid people getting a 404 when clicking on any letter, it would be ideal, if they were directed to any main page (the same destination URL though). However, that would mean 26 times the same destination URL from within that menu. Is this approach potentially bad for SEO, hence there would be numerous duplicate destination URLs in place? Please mind, I am not inquiring for help on how to arrange the actual menu. I am concerned about the impact, identical destination URLs could have on the on-page SEO. Many thanks in advance for your help and input!
On-Page Optimization | | Hermski0 -
Wordpress sitemap url problem causing WMT errors
The following types of links are appearing in my webmaster tools crawl errors report under 'other'. I've noticed they are in my sitemaps ( I run wordpress and use a plugin called Google XML sitemaps). How do I get rid of this error? http://www.musicliveuk.com/bands/postname%/
On-Page Optimization | | SamCUK0 -
URL / Meta info for Author bio pages
When you create a biography page for authors that point back to their G+ account, do you include any other signals in the URL other than the authors name? For example, would you use www.domain.com/sam-spade or www.domain.com/sam-spade-biography, etc? Similar question for the meta description. Do you add any signals there? Or, is rel=author strong enough. Best,
On-Page Optimization | | ChristopherGlaeser
Christopher0 -
Url structure
Hi Guys, Wondering what is better for url structure say for example a key word "slow cooker" example.com/slowcooker or example.com/slow-cooker ? Thank you 🙂
On-Page Optimization | | GetApp0 -
Modify URL, how to re-index
hello, I have just modified URL, do I need to re-submit sitemap or something else to search engines?
On-Page Optimization | | JohnHuynh0 -
Custom Landing Page URLs
I will begin creating custom landing pages optimized for long-tail keywords. Placing the keywords in the URL is obviously important -- Question: would it be detrimental to rankings to have extra characters extending past the keyword? I'm not able to use tracking code, but need to put an identifier in the URL (clp = custom landing page). For example, is "www.domain.com/silver-fish.html" going to perform meaningfully better than "www.domain.com/silver-fish-clp.html" for the kw phrase "silver fish"? There will obviously be a lot of on-page optimization in addition to just structuring the URLs. Thank you. SIMbiz
On-Page Optimization | | SIMbiz0 -
Replacing "_" with "-" in url, results in new url?
We ran SEOmoz's "On-Page Optimization" tool on a url which contains the character "_". According to the tool: "Characters which are less commonly used in URLs may cause problems with accessibility, interpretation and ranking in search engines. It is considered a best practice to stick to standard URL structures to avoid potential problems." "Rewrite the URL to contain only standard characters." Therefore we will rewrite the url, replacing "_" with "-". Will search engines consider the "-" url a different one? Do we need to 301 the old url to the new one? Thanks for your help!
On-Page Optimization | | gerardoH0 -
301 redirect OK for a newer version of a page that is a different url?
I have about 500 products with multiple urls for the same product, but different versions. I sell wine and have a different page for each vintage. I've decided that is not the best way to go, and want to point the older vintage pages to the latest version page, and make that the only page for the product as time goes on. Do I have to put a link in the text from each older page to the newer, or can I use a 301 to redirect them to the new page? I don't want google to think I'm pulling something funny.
On-Page Optimization | | JeanYates0