Long or Short URLs. Who's Coming to Dinner?
-
This has been discussed on the forums in some regard.
My situation.
Example 1 Long Keyword URL:
www.abctown.com/keyword-for-life-helping-keywords-everywhere-rank-better
Example 2 Short Keyword URL:
In both examples I want to improve rankings for the "keyword" phrase. My current URL is example 1. And I've landed a page one ranking in Google (7) with that URL. In attempts to improve rankings further (top 5), I was toying with the idea of going simpler with all my URLs in favor of the example 2 model.
Might this method help or hurt my current rankings? In recent articles I've read it seems that going with the simpler more human approach to my SEO efforts.
Any thought would be appreciated.
Cheers,
-
Agreed. The risk of losing juice from a redirect would keep me from moving forward. The only way that I would consider redirecting the old page is if the new page provides better and more relevant/current content.
If you don't plan on improving the content and are only using duplicate content then there is no need to change the page or URL.
-
If this was on my site I would not change the URL.
You might gain a little from having a better URL but you might lose a little by doing a redirect. Maybe you would lose more from the redirect than you gain from the short URL.
So, I would start using better URLs going forward and spend the time savings on new content.
-
Yes, as I mentioned above, in order to keep page authority (at least most of it) and ranking, you will want to 301 the page.
-
Thanks for the input! Great advise.
In the above examples, if I decided to move to a shorter, simpler URL for page abctown.com/keyword-for-life-helping-keywords-everywhere-rank-better to abctown.com/keyword
Would you setup the 301 from the current page URL to the simpler one or the new simple URL to the current URL???
Appreciate the help!
-
I try to make the URL match the most important keyword that I hope to rank for.
-
Test, test, test.
It seems that the general rule of thumb on old URLs redirecting to new ones is that you will lose some of the linking value in the redirect.
But I must agree with Richard Getz, in that you may want a middle ground. You certainly shouldn't over kill KWs in the URL and I would advise never using the Keyword twice the way you have in Example 1.
-
This answer comes right from Rand himself (and a few other answers), as I just stumbled upon it in Quora yesterday:
http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-permalink-structure-for-SEO
And to add my two cents, as far as rankings, I don't think you can credit the URL alone for a #1 page ranking. I would construct your URL as Rand suggests and focus your on-page optimization efforts in a holistic manner.
-
I'd love to see if someone has tests to this effect. I have silly long urls (mostly because I designed them before I knew anything about SEO.) But, I kind of feel that they help me.
My philosophy is that if I am targeting long tail traffic then having a url like, mydomain.com/questions-about-blue-widgets-and-where-to-purchase-them is good. But, if I have an article that I want at the top of the serps for a particular competetive term then I would go for something like mydomain.com/blue-widgets.
I've heard people say that BING likes shorter urls...not sure if it is true though.
-
I would vote for middle ground here on future pages, and questions on current page metrics.
www.abctown.com/keyword-for-life
And then lengthen the Title to the full title of the page.
Does the current page have many inbound links? If so, doing a 301 will loos some of that juice. Can you get the inbound links re-pointed? If so, then 301 the page and get the old links to point to the new page.
If not, and this page has a high authority, then you will take a hit on the move, at least for the short term. But building more inbound links to the new page will resolve this.
Also, if you do move the page, I would push it back out on your social network to get the SEs attention and build fresh links back to the new page. Dr. Pete recently wrote about how the canonical tag is respected by Facebook and Twitter, so they might then respect the 301 also.
In short, I would make the change as the shorter URL would be better in my opinion.
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
-
Anyone know the benefit of URLs being in the target language?
For example, a page targeting the spanish language, does it make a difference if the URL is site.com/i-don't-speak-spanish vs site.com/no-habla-espanol
On-Page Optimization | | LennyO0 -
How can I make sure pages with similar content don't damage the other's SEO?
I work for a travel company and I have a 'tour page' targeted for pre-booking and a 'booking pack page' post-booking page, with some similar content but with details such as hostel locations, meeting places and times etc. I want to make sure the tour page keeps the authority as this is what I want to rank on SEO. I've got a couple of similar problems to this across site, there are a few pages on site that are post-sale and don't really need to rank on Google but it would be great if they could contribute to other pages' rankings. Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | nicolewretham0 -
MOZ identifies duplicate titles - one has' www' in the title
MOZ has identified duplicate titles - one has' www' in the title. - we have a few pieces of content where the same thing is happening. Not sure how this has happened. Should we do something about this? Will it cause problems for ranking? | KETAMINE GUIDE FOR DRUG WORKERS - free | Harm reduction informationhttp://substance.org.uk/harm-reduction-information/ketamine-guide-for-drug-workers-free | 13 | 2 |
On-Page Optimization | | Substance-create
| KETAMINE GUIDE FOR DRUG WORKERS - free | Harm reduction informationhttp://www.substance.org.uk/harm-reduction-information/ketamine-guide-for-drug-workers-free | 13 | 4 | 1 - 2 of 20 -
Google's mobile-friendly update. How significant is the impact for us?
Hi guys. Recently I got an email from Webmaster-tools saying our site is poorly optimised for mobile devices, and that it’s going to heavily affect rankings from April 21st. I’m worried to say the least. We literary cannot afford a hit on traffic at the moment 😞 We rank well for niche terms like ‘customised diary’ and ‘personalised diary’. So question... Because we rank well for these very specific searches will we still take a hit on rankings after the update? Won’t our high relevancy for those search terms be enough to keep us high in the results? Also, do you know if this change is specific to the users device? E.g) Someone on a mobile device will get mobile-friendly results, whilst users on a laptop will get different results altogether? I'm just trying to get a sense of how much this update will effect us. Any isights, suggestion, or thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Our site. Thanks in advance. This community is invaluable to us 🙂 Isaac - TOAD Diaries.
On-Page Optimization | | isaac6630 -
Will "internal 301s" have any effect on page rank or the way in which an SE see's our site interlinking?
We've been forced (for scalability) to completely restructure our website in terms of setting out a hierarchy. For example - the old structure : country / city / city area Where we had about 3500 nicely interlinked pages for relevant things like taxis, hotels, apartments etc in that city : We needed to change the structure to be : country / region / area / city / cityarea So as patr of the change we put in place lots of 301s for the permanent movement of pages to the new structure and then we tried to actually change the physical on-page links too. Unfortunately we have left a good 600 or 700 links that point to the old pages, but are picked up by the 301 redirect on page, so we're slowly going through them to ensure the links go to the new location directly (not via the 301). So my question is (sorry for long waffle) : Whilst it must surely be "best practice" for all on-page links to go directly to the 'right' page, are we harming our own interlinking and even 'page rank' by being tardy in working through them manually? Thanks for any help anyone can give.
On-Page Optimization | | TinkyWinky0 -
Google's Page Layout Algorythm
It seems that Google have been or will penalizing websites with too many ads above the fold. Is it me or Google's search result layout is a perfect example of what NOT to do?
On-Page Optimization | | sbrault741 -
How long does it take to seen Title in SERP
A friend of mine asked me how long it takes before Google shows the right Title in the SERPs. He changed the title of his homepage some weeks ago but Google still shows the old Title in the rankings... I'm a Wordpress user and don't have this problem, when I change something in the title it doesn't take that long to see the changes showing up in SERPs
On-Page Optimization | | nvs.nim0 -
The URL Inside
Howdy SEO'ers, I have a quick question for the SEO gurus out there. When constructing "better" search friendly URLs would one of these be better than the other? Example 1: http://Domain.com/Category/Sub-Category/Product-name Example 2: http://Category.Domain.com/Sub-Category/Product-name In this example the category could be phones and the sub-category brands of phones. Is either one of these URLs "better" than the other in terms of ranking? Thanks! I'll hang-up and listen to your answer. 🙂 Jonathan
On-Page Optimization | | creativedepartment0