Should we use URL parameters or plain URL's=
-
Hi,
Me and the development team are having a heated discussion about one of the more important thing in life, i.e. URL structures on our site.
Let's say we are creating a AirBNB clone, and we want to be found when people search for
apartments new york.
As we have both have houses and apartments in all cities in the U.S it would make sense for our url to at least include these, so
clone.com/Appartments/New-York
but the user are also able to filter on price and size. This isn't really relevant for google, and we all agree on clone.com/Apartments/New-York should be canonical for all apartment/New York searches. But how should the url look like for people having a price for max 300$ and 100 sqft?
clone.com/Apartments/New-York?price=30&size=100
or (We are using Node.js so no problem)
clone.com/Apartments/New-York/Price/30/Size/100
The developers hate url parameters with a vengeance, and think the last version is the preferable one and most user readable, and says that as long we use canonical on everything to clone.com/Apartments/New-York it won't matter for god old google.
I think the url parameters are the way to go for two reasons. One is that google might by themselves figure out that the price parameter doesn't matter (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1235687?hl=en) and also it is possible in webmaster tools to actually tell google that you shouldn't worry about a parameter.
We have agreed to disagree on this point, and let the wisdom of Moz decide what we ought to do. What do you all think?
-
Personally, I would agree with you an opt for the following option:
clone.com/Apartments/New-York?price=30&size=100I don't think it matters whether that section of the URL is readable to everyone. I would actually say that anyone who has a technical background would find the URL above easier to change than the other one, as having /'s in the URL almost symbolised different directories rather than a parameter (that's how I would generally interpret it anyway).
I think in the grand scheme of things, It's going to make little different as you don't want the additional sections to actually be indexed in the search engines. Like Gary correctly pointed out, you can setup 'URL Parameters' in GWT and I think that's your best option. There's more information about that here - http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/improved-handling-of-urls-with.html
You could also use robots.txt to block the parameters in the URL but this depends on whether the search engine crawling your website chooses to use it.
Hope this helps!
Lewis -
Good example of a site that does show up in the SERPs for all things related
-
OK, not to sit on the fence here but both are good options.
However when it comes to "URL Parameters" there is a section in Webmaster Tools that you can set to ignore certsin parameters. So that's always an option.
I like to look at sites like oodle in cases like this.
Here is an example
they spent a lot of time working out the best process and they use the node type url.
However Google has been said to prefer shorter urls recently.
Hope my sitting on the fence did not make things worse LOL
-
Personally I would just $_POST price and size - and be done with it. ( as opposed to $_GET which shows the parameter in the URL ) - No need to over think creating more URLs and complicating life.
If anything - you can define in WMT what price is and what size is but just keep it clean. Also, remember # tags in the URL doesn't get followed by google. So, clone.com/Apartments/New-York#price=30&size=100 could work too.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Is there any set benefit in using a URL tracking engine on a domain for passing link juice?
Is there any set benefit in using a URL tracking engine on a domain for passing link juice? I.E. xxxx.com?$id=1111 to then redirect to shareasale? The client has an affiliate program and is thinking of running one in-house as well. Is there a benefit to a “redirect engine” that uses the website root domain?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KellyBrady1 -
301ing one site's links to another
Hi, I have one site with a well-established link profile, but no actual reason to exist (site A). I have another site that could use a better link profile (site B). In your experience, would 301 forwarding all of site A's pages to site B do anything positive for the link profile/organic search of the site B? Site A is about boating at a specific lake. Site B is about travel destinations across the U.S. Thanks! Best... Michael
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
When rebranding, what's the best thing to do with the new domain before rebranding?
A. Do nothing
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Maxaro.nl
B. Redirect to legacy site (current domain)
C. Create a placeholder with information about the rebranding
D. Other... What do you think is best?0 -
Webpage has bombed outside of Top 50 for search term in one week. What's the cause?
I've been monitoring the performance of some pages via the email Moz sends every week, and until this week two pages that I've managed to get ranking have ranked between 20 and 23 for the specific term. However, today on the email one of the pages for one search term has bombed out of the top 50 while the other page has remained unaffected. What could be the cause for this? I've looked at Google Webmasters for an indication of a penalty of some sort but there is nothing glaringly obvious. I've no messages on there, and I haven't bought a load of spam links at all. What else could I check?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mickburkesnr0 -
Does hiding responsive design elements on smaller media types impact Google's mobile crawler?
I have a responsive site and we hide elements on smaller media types. For example, we have an extensive sitemap in the footer on desktop, but when you shrink the viewport to mobile we don't show the footer. Does this practice make Google's mobile bot crawler much less efficient and therefore impact our mobile search rankings?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jcgoodrich1 -
What to do when you buy a Website without it's content which has a few thousand pages indexed?
I am currently considering buying a Website because I would like to use the domain name to build my project on. Currently that domain is in use and that site has a few thousand pages indexed and around 30 Root domains linking to it (mostly to the home page). The topic of the site is not related to what I am planing to use it for. If there is no other way, I can live with losing the link juice that the site is getting at the moment, however, I want to prevent Google from thinking that I am trying to use the power for another, non related topic and therefore run the risk of getting penalized. Are there any Google guidelines or best practices for such a case?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MikeAir0 -
E Commerce product page canonical and indexing + URL parameters
Hi, I'm having some issues on the best way to handle site structure. The technical side of SEO isn't my strong point so I thought I'd ask the question before I make the decision. Two examples for you to look at. This is a new site http://www.tester.co.uk/electrical/multimeters/digital. By selecting another page to see more products you get this url string where/p/2. This page also has the canonical tag relating to this page and not the original page. Now if say for example I exclude this parameter (where) in webmaster tools will I be stopping Google indexing the products on the other pages where/p/2, 3, 4 etc. and the same if I make the canonical point to multimeters/digital/ instead of multimeters/digital/where/p/2 etc.? I have the same question applied to the older site http://www.pat-services.co.uk/digital-multimeters-26.html. which no longer has an canonical tags at all. The only real difference is Google is indexing http://www.pat-services.co.uk/digital-multimeters-26.html?page=2 but not http://www.tester.co.uk/electrical/multimeters/digital/where/p/2 Thanks for help in advance
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PASSLtd0 -
400 errors and URL parameters in Google Webmaster Tools
On our website we do a lot of dynamic resizing of images by using a script which automatically re-sizes an image dependant on paramaters in the URL like: www.mysite.com/images/1234.jpg?width=100&height=200&cut=false In webmaster tools I have noticed there are a lot of 400 errors on these image Also when I click the URL's listed as causing the errors the URL's are URL Encoded and go to pages like this (this give a bad request): www.mysite.com/images/1234.jpg?%3Fwidth%3D100%26height%3D200%26cut%3Dfalse What are your thoughts on what I should do to stop this? I notice in my webmaster tools "URL Parameters" there are parameters for:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | James77
height
width
cut which must be from the Image URLs. These are currently set to "Let Google Decide", but should I change them manually to "Doesn't effect page content"? Thanks in advance0