Are the prepositions and separate letters in URL bad for website optimization?
-
Is it ok for website optimization to use prepositions and separate letters in URL ?
Examples: -i-series ; -salad-with-avocado etc.
-
Thanks Ipegiro... My point exactly on saying "unless they are creating value within the url"... as obviously "bunny-on-stool" has a completely different meaning than "bunny-stool"..
Cheers
-Jake
-
Reducing the url lenght will be a best pratice, however my adivice is to alwways put yourself as a user, the dumbest user you could be.
Which one is the best for your users e.g. bunny-on-stool or bunny-stool
Google will ignore hyfens and stopwords (the, a, on, ....)
-
Typically you want to minimize url length by removing stop words, prepositions, etc. unless they are creating value within the URL. e.g. bunny-on-stool vs. bunny-stool
I wouldn't go as far as to say it is bad for SEO, but there are some schools of thought that minimizing the number of words in a URL "concentrates" relevance around those terms remaining. That being said, I'm confident Google already ignores common stop words and phrases, and this isn't something I would go about changing in an existing URL structure.
You'll notice some sites, such as wordpress, by default remove the prepositions, etc. from the URLs.
-
Yes, it's perfectly fine. It used to be that you actually needed to use hyphens to separate words in the URL (so search engines could understand) but now you don't need to do that.
So, it is OK to use hyphens in URLs.
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
-
Toxic URL???
Hi I have a URL that produced page 1, number 1 to 3 for most of our industries top phrases. Then we received a google penalty, (as did several of our competitors on the same day). We were effectively wiped from google. After much disavowing we were allowed back into the search results, this took about 3 months. I have employed the services of a top London SEO company for over a year now and have seen no significant improvement. I believe they are doing there best, however there results are VERY poor. According to the various tools, (searchmetrics, woorank, semrush) to name but a few, our site scores very well, yet we are not getting the results. Page one seems to be full of totally new websites, most of which I have never heard of, and have appeared from nowhere. Should I scrap our URL and put up a completely new one, and put a redirect from the original one? This would be a biggy since our url has been around for 20 years. Thanks for reading. Andy
On-Page Optimization | | First-VehicleLeasing0 -
Placement of key words in URL
I notice that the MOZ Page Grader considers "/keyword1/keyword2-keyword3" in a URL string to be less effective than "/keyword1-keyword2-keyword3". Is this correct from Google's perspective? If I am trying to maximise my SEO for the page title "Business building tips", for example, does Google think my URL is more relevant if it's in the form: 1. www.website.com/business-building-tips
On-Page Optimization | | Gavin.Atkinson
2. www.website.com/business/building-tips or
3. www.website.com/business/business-building-tips My instinct tells me 3 is more powerful, but logic tells me if I have a whole section devoted to "business" and one of those pages is "business building tips" then 2 should work just as well, possibly better?0 -
Is a resource page bad for SEO
This is the page http://www.christoit.com/free-resources/articles. While this page isn't what I would consider to be a "resource page" (there are no downloads or any other resources) The question is, does a page like this that just has links to articles, hurt the overall ranking of the site. If you have any examples to support your opinion that would be great! Thanks so much for all awesome threads and answers on this site. There are some really smart people all in one place!
On-Page Optimization | | Britewave0 -
To Optimize Brand Name or Product Name First on Product Pages for E-Commerce Website?
We are using your free month trial for optimization of our E-Commerce website. In regards to individual product pages such as this one http://www.amgair.com/air-purifiers/iqair-healthpro-plus-air-purifier/, would it be more effective to have the page title start with the brand name and then the product (as we have it now) or forgo the brand name and start with just the product. IE: IQAir Healthpro Plus Air Purifier or HealthPro Plus Air Purifier by IQAir. These are commodity type products and are price restricted so all competitive websites advertise at the same pricing and it would be helpful not only to have a keyword phrase that is searched for a lot but also one that is easy to rank for. Please give me a recommendation when possible.
On-Page Optimization | | youhow0 -
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 -
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 -
Robots.txt: excluding URL
Hi, spiders crawl some dynamic urls in my website (example: http://www.keihome.it/elettrodomestici/cappe/cappa-vision-con-tv-falmec/714/ + http://www.keihome.it/elettrodomestici/cappe/cappa-vision-con-tv-falmec/714/open=true) as different pages, resulting duplicate content of course. What is syntax for disallow these kind of urls in robots.txt? Thanks so much
On-Page Optimization | | anakyn0 -
Absolute vs relative urls
Hello, Should absolute or relative urls to be used for the internal links? I heard mixed opinions on that: One source claims that web crawlers prefer absolute urls as they are more understandable Other source points that there is no difference for web crawlers what urls are used and relative urls are shorter which reduces the size of a page. Which option is recommended? Many thanks Darius
On-Page Optimization | | LinenMe0