Restructuring URLS - unsure if this falls on the spammy side of paths.
-
Hi all,
I'm restructuring a site that has been built with no real structure. It's moving over to HTTPS and having a full new development so it's a good time to tackle it all together.
It's a snowboard site and at the moment the courses, camps ect are all just as pages like:
examplesnowboarding.com/off-piste-backcountry/
I'm wanting to tighten the structure so it gives more meaning to the pages and so I can style them selectively and make it easier for the client to manage but I'm worried repeating the word snowboard too often will look spammy.
I'm wanting to do the following:
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/snowboard-courses/splitboard-backcountry-intro/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/snowboard-camps/technical-performance/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/snowboard-camps/girls-only/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/snowboard-lessons/private/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/snowboard-lessons/group/The urls are clean and humanly descriptive but it does mean that the "snowboard" keyword is used a lot!
The other 2 options I thought of were like so (including snowboard in the page name not path)
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/courses/snowboard-splitboard-backcountry-intro/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/camps/snowboard-technical-performance/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/camps/snowboard-girls-only/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/lessons/private-snowboard/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/lessons/group-snowboard/or simply removing "snowboard" as "snowboarding" is already in the main url
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/courses/splitboard-backcountry-intro/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/camps/technical-performance/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/camps/girls-only/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/lessons/private/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/lessons/group/Any thoughts appreciated!
-
Which idea did you decide against please? Surely having more paths would work better for breadcrumbs would it not?
Are you saying you think /courses/girls-only looks more spammy than /girls-only-course/ ?
Thank you
-
Hi,
Our company faced the same challenge and we decided against your idea. First of all, your urls will be extremely long and they will look spammy indeed. Imagine someone will search for your product and you rank well, but people might not want to visit due to the spammy looking URL. If the website is nicely structured, Google will understand what's going on. If there are a few urls that require the same name/keyword, try to differentiate. Regarding users' orientation on the site - why not use breadcrumbs? It makes a lot more sense than relying on online visitors having to check the lengthy urls.
Thanks
Katarina
-
That was the idea really as there are around 20 or so courses. 5-10 camps ect... so a decent amount to gain benefit from the structure.
I don't think there is any risk to forgetting to add -courses to a page however and I'm wondering if I'd be poking the bear too much by changing all the urls fairly drastically if they dont need to so much.
I can still setup the content in courses, camps ect from the cms admin so it's easy for them to manage without a path/ impact.
But yes each section like that will and does have a landing page already pretty much its just in a page name not a clear structure.
So it sounds like adding the extra structure is probably fairly sensible... but maybe more risky than keeping the current structure?
-
I'd say it depends if you're going to have a significant numbers of courses, camps or lessons and a main landing page for them at examplesnowboarding.com/courses for example.
As a general rule, it's probably a good idea to have courses,camps and lessons in the urls just to give an extra indication to Google, and also to users. And saves those times when you forget to include 'course' on the end of every page title, too...
-
No paths just /name-of-course-or-camp/ at present
-
What is the current structure?
-
Thanks,
I'm not sure I need to do the full structure now - I thought having paths maybe more of an indicator to the content type but maybe it'll be better to manage these like so:
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/splitboard-backcountry-intro-course/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/technical-performance-camp/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/girls-only-camp/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/private-lessons/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/group-lessons/vs
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/courses/splitboard-backcountry-intro/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/camps/technical-performance/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/camps/girls-only/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/lessons/private/
URL - examplesnowboarding.com/lessons/group/Does anyone have a preference over which is better on a site with say 70 pages and a 300 post blog?
-
Hey there,
I'd recommend going with the last option.
Google will understand from the existing content what is your site about. You don't need to include the word "snowboard" in every URL. If you do so, it may hurt your site instead for trying to "fool" the search engines. On top of that, KWs in URLs are not a strong ranking signal anymore.
Also, the shorter link the better not only for Google but for the user experience as well.
Hope it helps. Cheers, Martin
-
Hi Snowflake74,
If your website is about snowboarding then there are going to be multiple URLs that have the word snowboard in them outside the domain name. Your first example is perfectly acceptable. You should be designing your url structure for the best user experience not to manipulate Google or any other search engine. Do keywords in urls help. Yes they certainly do but are not as big of a ranking factor as your on page content.
I would stay away from blatantly stuffing your pages with the work Snowboard or versions there of. This is where spammy keyword selection can kill you. Not so much on the URLs. You do however, want to make sure your urls are short. The only problem I can see with your new structures is that the urls have a chance to be way to long.
Thanks,
Don
-
I should mentioned I've read up on keyword stemming so my gut feeling is that because "snowboarding" is in the domain name that I shouldn't have to repeat "snowboard" further down the url as it should be matched from the top level keyword "snowboarding"?
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
-
Seeing URLS indexed that we don't want how do we approach this?
Hey guys, I have seen a few pages in the SERPS that are appearing from my site, some of these pages urls are actually ajax to refresh the buttons on our site... If these are important to our site but don't need to show up in the serps results can anyone recommend anything? Should I remove the urls? Or exclude them from the sitemap? or noindex? Any advice would be much appreciated thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | edward-may0 -
Duplicate keywords in URL?
Is there such a thing as keyword stuffing URLs? Such as a domain name of turtlesforsale.com having a directory called turtles-for-sale that houses all the pages on the site. Every page would start out with turtlesforsale.com/turtles-for-sale/. Good or bad idea? The owner is hoping to capitalize on the keywords of turtles for sale being in the URL twice and ranking better for that reason.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | CFSSEO0 -
Is horizontal hashtag linking between 4 different information text pages with a canonical tag to the URL with no hashtag, a White Hat SEO practice?
Hey guys, I need help. hope it is a simple question : if I have horizontal 4 text pages which you move between through hashtag links, while staying on the same page in user experience, can I canonical tag the URL free of hashtags as the canonical page URL ? is this white hat acceptable practice? and will this help "Adding the Value", search queries, and therefore rank power to the canonical URL in this case? hoping for your answers. Best Regards, and thanks in advance!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Muhammad_Jabali0 -
Do searchs bot understand SEF and non SEF url as the same ones ?
I've jsut realized that since almost for ever I use to code first my website using the non sef for internal linkings. It's very convenient as I'm sure that what ever will be the final url the link will always be good. ex: website.com/component1/id=1 Before releasing the website I use extensions to make the url user friendly according the choosen strategy. ex: website.com/component1/id=1 -> website.com/article1.html But I just wondered if google consider both urls as the same ones or if it consider just as a 301 redirection. What do you think is the best to do ?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | AymanH0 -
URL Structure - forward slashes, hyphen separated, query paramters
I am having difficulty evaluating pros and cons of various URL structures with respect to SEO benefits. So I can have the following 1. /for-sale-in-<city>-<someothertext>-<uniqueid>.php
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | proptiger
So in this case a term like 'for sale in San Francisco' is directly part of the URL. </uniqueid></someothertext></city> 2. /for-sale/<city>/<someothertext>uniqueId
Here 'for sale in San Francisco' is not so direct in the URL, so I think. Also I 'heard' that forward slash URLs are somehow considered as being 'lower down' in the directory structure. </someothertext></city> 3. /for-sale/<city>/<someothertext>/?pid=uniqueId</someothertext></city> someOtherText contains keywords we are targeting. 1. Is there a preference of one format over the other? 2. Does it even matter? 3. someOtherText - does it makes sense to put keywords in the URL for just SEO purposes? I do not per se need someOtherText for functionality.0 -
Include placename in URL, or not?
Hi Mozzers, I'm wondering whether to put placename in URL or not. This is for a hotel so it's very focused on the county. I have loads of sub pages along the lines of www.hotelname.com/short-breaks-somerset www.hotelname.com/eat-out-somerset and so on but I was wondering whether that placename element would help or hinder. For example, may want to rank for short breaks in other searches (not just those seeking short breaks in Somerset) and was wondering whether the somerset bit may actually hinder this in the future. Also noticed Somerset is mentioned in nearly all of the page urls through the site. Perhaps this is a bit spammy and just not neccesary. I can include the address of the hotel on every page anyway. What do you think? Thanks in advance for your help 🙂 Luke
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Deny visitors by referrer in .htaccess to clean up spammy links?
I want to lead off by saying that I do not recommend trying this. My gut tells me that this is a bad idea, but I want to start a conversation about why. Since penguin a few weeks ago, one of the most common topics of conversation in almost every SEO/Webmaster forum is "how to remove spammy links". As Ryan Kent pointed out, it is almost impossible to remove all of these links, as these webmasters and previous link builders rarely respond. This is particularly concerning given that he also points out that Google is very adamant that ALL of these links are removed. After a handful of sleepless nights and some research, I found out that you can block traffic from specific referring sites using your.htaccess file. My thinking is that by blocking traffic from the domains with the spammy links, you could prevent Google from crawling from those sites to yours, thus indicating that you do not want to take credit for the link. I think there are two parts to the conversation... Would this work? Google would still see the link on the offending domain, but by blocking that domain are you preventing any strength or penalty associated with that domain from impacting your site? If for whatever reason this would nto work, would a tweak in the algorithm by Google to allow this practice be beneficial to both Google and the SEO community? This would certainly save those of us tasked with cleaning up previous work by shoddy link builders a lot of time and allow us to focus on what Google wants in creating high quality sites. Thoughts?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | highlyrelevant0