Is this spamming keywords into a url?
-
My company has previously added on extensions to a url like the example below
http://www.test.com/product-name/extra-keywords
My question is since there is no difference between the pages
http://www.test.com/product-name and http://www.test.com/product-name/extra-keywords and you don't leave the product page to reach the extra-keyword page is this really necessary? I feel like this is probably not a best practice. Thanks for any suggestions.
-
Hey guys thanks again for the help but I am still looking for some data to prove this point. I have gone ahead and determined that the keywords we are currently using are placing us page 4 and below while our title tags are placing us higher. If there are any other articles are hard facts on how this doesn't help in this scenario it would be greatly appreciate.
-
do you know where I can find data showing this? will it actually hurt rankings? I'm thinking it's going to make duplicate content.
-
Sika22
Typically, when you come up with a URL structure, that URL structure should closely resemble the breadcrumb trail of your site. So, if you have something like www.domain.com/category/product1 then you should be able to go to www.domain.com/category/ and get a list of products.
It looks like the URL structure you're talking about is adding extra keywords, and that's not necessary.
-
That's the plan. Our site has not been updated since 2011 so I'm trying to point out these issues and tackle them one at a time. We are also double indexed with www and non and about to launch a new site that we will be redirecting to. Lots of work ahead
-
Google is getting pretty good at sniffing out webmasters trying to game the system. Just naturally put your keywords in places that make sense and try not to overdo it, and you should be fine.
-
Thank you. This is what I was thinking but wanted to confirm my thoughts.
-
It is going to be spamming your URL's with keywords that are not serving a subfolder purpose. I would focus on naturally putting your keywords into your product name in the title tag, URL and H1 tag.
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
-
I am wondering if there is a right answer for keywords with alternate spelling.
I work in insurance, specifically CoOp Insurance. I researched on Google trend the 3 different spellings (Co Op, Co-Op and CoOp) and there is search volume for all 3 but no big trends. Moz shows optimization for all 3. Is there a right one to go after? Is the correct spelling the correct one to target, even if it doesn't have the highest search volume? Does going after the misspellings dilute branding, or enhance search visibility?
Algorithm Updates | | Trent.Warner1 -
Is it possible (or advisable) to try to rank for a keyword that is 'split' across subfolders in your url?
For example, say your keyword was 'funny hats' - ideally you'd make your url 'website.com/funny-hats/' But what if 'hats' is already a larger category in your site that you want to rank for as its own keyword? Could you then try to rank for 'funny hats' using the url 'website.com/hats/funny/' ? Basically what I'm asking is, would it be harmful to the chances of ranking for your primary keyword if it's split across the url like this, and not necessarily in the correct order?
Algorithm Updates | | rwat0 -
One keyword gone in Google SERPs - Fred?
I have an ecommerce site. One keyword, which I use to rank #1 for on Google years ago, I'm now completely gone from the SERP's as of a couple weeks ago. I'm scratching my head here, my other keywords don't seem to have changed much recently. Around mid-March of this year, which seems to line up with the Fred update, I noticed I went from page 3 to middle of page 1 for a few days with this keyword. It was a very happy few days. Then it slipped down and down and hovered around page 6. But as of a couple weeks ago, it's now gone. Before the Fred update, I changed a bunch of product pages within the keyword category that had duplicate content because they were kits of items arranged different ways. So instead of repeating the individual item descriptions over and over in the different kits, I changed the descriptions on the kits to links to the individual items within the kits. After the Fred update, at the end of March, I set all these kit item pages that I reduced to very thin content with just links to noindex. My theory is that the Fred update reset algorithmic penalties for a couple days as it was being introduced. So the penalty of duplicate content that I may have had was lifted since I took out the duplicate content, and I made it back to page one. Then as Fred saw I now had a new penalty of thin content, I got hit and slid back down the rankings. Now that I updated the pages that had very thin content to be noindex, do you think I'll see a return of the keyword to a higher position? Or any other theories or suggestions? I remember seeing keywords disappear and come back stronger years ago, but haven't seen anything like this in a long time.
Algorithm Updates | | head_dunce0 -
Should plural keyword variations get their own targeted pages?
I am in the middle of changing a website from targeting just a single keyword on all pages to instead having each page target its own keyword/phrase. However, I'm a little conflicted on whether or not plural forms and other suffix (-ing) variations are different enough to get their own pages. SERP show different results for each keyword searched. Also, relevancy reports for the keywords score some differently and some the same. Is it best to instead use these as secondary and third level keywords on the same page as the main keyword for a page? See example below: OPTION A (Use each for different pages): Page 1 - Construction Fence Page 2 - Construction Fences Page 3 - Construction Fencing Page 4 - Construction Site Fence Page 5 - Construction Site Fences Page 6 - Construction Site Fencing ... OPTION B (Use as variations on same page): Page 1 - Construction Fence, Construction Fences, Construction Fencing Page 2 - Construction Site Fence, Construction Site Fences, Site Construction Fencing ... Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | pac-cooper0 -
Meta Keyword Tags
What is the word on Meta Keyword Tags? Are they good to have, or bad? Our biggest competitor seems to have them.
Algorithm Updates | | Essential-Pest0 -
Phantom Indexed: 301 Redirected Old URL Shows in Google Search Result!
Today, I have read about Phantom Indexed in Google search result. Because, I was searching about 301 redirect due to indexing of 301 redirected old URLs in Google search result rather than new landing pages. I've added my comment on jennita's blog post about 301 redirect. I would like to paste similar question over here! I have 301 redirected following 3 domains to new website... http://www.lampslightingandmore.com/ To http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps http://www.vistapatioumbrellas.com/ To http://www.vistastores.com/patio-umbrellas http://www.spiderofficechairs.com/ To http://www.vistastores.com/office-chairs I have done it before 3 months but, Google still shows me home page URL in search result rather than new landing page. You can check following search results to know more about it. For LampsLightingandMore ~ On second or third page::: For VistaPatioUmbrellas ~ On second or third page::: For SpiderOfficeChairs ~ On Second or third page::: I come to know about Phantom Indexed after raised my comment over there. So, why should not start discussion on it. Because, It's all about branding and who'll love to hang old address in front of new home.
Algorithm Updates | | CommercePundit0 -
The related: query for one of my urls makes no sense
I'm trying to compete regarding keyword X. Currently, I'm on first page, 7-8th position. If, for each one of the urls listed in first page for such keyword, I search for related:[url], I get similar results for all of them, but mine. Mine shows inconsistent results, none of which related to the same topic as the other 9 in the top 10. Looking at them, the only hypothesis I am able to formulate is that, somehow, google is linking the url to its paid banners in big media. However, such banners go through an adserver and/or are declared as nofollow. Is there any obvious reason that could be causing this? I wonder if we are on page 1 even though we're considered pretty-much 'off-topic' regarding the keyword.
Algorithm Updates | | jleanv240 -
If Google turns down the weight of keywords in domains then what will they be turning up?
Per Matt Cutts video "We will be turning that keyword in domain down." http://youtu.be/rAWFv43qubI So what will they be turning up?
Algorithm Updates | | Thos0030
