Should you shorten very long URLs?
-
Hi Moz Community!
If the nav architecture URL is long, like this:
can I and should I shorten that new destination URL to make it easy for Google to see that the page topic is really the owl, like this:
https://savewildlife.org/endangered-species-list/mexican-spotted-owl
Thank you! Jane
-
That is a long URL, but I don't think shortening it will help in terms of SEO. Google is generally good at understanding the structure of your site without the structure of URLs. They are also good at determining the topic without the use of the URL. In my experience, the work from changing the URL is more than it would help.
If you find a reason to change the URL structure in the future that is very necessary (new CMS as an example), update the structure then. Until then, unless you are getting feedback from your users that it is annoying them, I'd leave them as is.
-
It’s easier than you might expect to set up custom shortened URLs for your brand. Though it might be an extra step to run your links through a link shortener, there are many benefits associated with the practice, including tracking and making URLs easy to remember.
-
Hi Jane!
There is no correct answer here. In the examples you gave there is a big difference between them: The number of folders.
4 folders vs just 1.The are some miths and some experiments stating that both long and short URLs rank really good.
In my opinion, I'd go for a middle in those two: 2-3 folders with less words each folders.You should focus in the experience you are providing the user and if each of those folders represent a section in your site.
This is just a wild guess:
yoursite.com/conservation/endangered-species/birds/mexican-spotted-owl
It looks like /endangered-species-act-protections/ and /endangered-species-list/ are the same category/folder. I'd remove the latter.Hope it helps.
Best luck.
GR
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
-
Index Bloat: Canonicalize, Redirect or Delete URLs?
I was doing some simple on-page recommendations for a client and realized that they have a bit of a website bloat problem. They are an ecommerce shoe store and for one product, there could be 10+ URLs. For example, this is what ONE product looks like: example.com/products/shoename-color1 example.com/products/shoename-color2 example.com/collections/style/products/shoename-color1 example.com/collections/style/products/shoename-color2 example.com/collections/adifferentstyle/products/shoename-color1 example.com/collections/adifferentstyle/products/shoename-color2 example.com/collections/shop-latest-styles/products/shoename-color1 example.com/collections/shop-latest-styles/products/shoename-color2 example.com/collections/all/products/shoename-color1 example.com/collections/all/products/shoename-color2 ...and so on... all for the same shoe. They have about 20-30 shoes altogether, and some come in 4-5 colors. This has caused some major bloat on their site and I assume some confusion for the search engine. That said, I'm trying to figure out what the best way to tackle this is from an SEO perspective. Here's where I've gotten to so far: Is it better to canonicalize all URLs, referencing back to one "main" one, delete all bloat pages re-link everything to the main one(s), or 301 redirect the bloat URLs back to the "main" one(s)? Or is there another option that I haven't considered? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AJTSEO0 -
How long to re-index a page after being blocked
Morning all! I am doing some research at the moment and am trying to find out, just roughly, how long you have ever had to wait to have a page re-indexed by Google. For this purpose, say you had blocked a page via meta noindex or disallowed access by robots.txt, and then opened it back up. No right or wrong answers, just after a few numbers 🙂 Cheers, -Andy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Andy.Drinkwater0 -
Duplicate URL Parameters for Blog Articles
Hi there, I'm working on a site which is using parameter URLs for category pages that list blog articles. The content on these pages constantly change as new posts are frequently added, the category maybe for 'Heath Articles' and list 10 blog posts (snippets from the blog). The URL could appear like so with filtering: www.domain.com/blog/articles/?taxonomy=health-articles&taxon=general www.domain.com/blog/articles/?taxonomy=health-articles&taxon=general&year=2016 www.domain.com/blog/articles/?taxonomy=health-articles&taxon=general&year=2016&page=1 All pages currently have the same Meta title and descriptions due to limitations with the CMS, they are also not in our xml sitemap I don't believe we should be focusing on ranking for these pages as the content on here are from blog posts (which we do want to rank for on the individual post) but there are 3000 duplicates and they need to be fixed. Below are the options we have so far: Canonical URLs Have all parameter pages within the category canonicalize to www.domain.com/blog/articles/?taxonomy=health-articles&taxon=general and generate dynamic page titles (I know its a good idea to use parameter pages in canonical URLs). WMT Parameter tool Tell Google all extra parameter tags belong to the main pages (e.g. www.domain.com/blog/articles/?taxonomy=health-articles&taxon=general&year=2016&page=3 belongs to www.domain.com/blog/articles/?taxonomy=health-articles&taxon=general). Noindex Remove all the blog category pages, I don't know how Google would react if we were to remove 3000 pages from our index (we have roughly 1700 unique pages) We are very limited with what we can do to these pages, if anyone has any feedback suggestions it would be much appreciated. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Xtend-Life0 -
Uppercase in URLs = Dupe Content
Hi Mozzers, My developers recently changed a bunch of the pages I am working on into all lower case (something I know ideally should have been done in the first place). The URLs have sat for about a week as lower case without 301 redirecting the old upper-case URLs to these pages. In Google Webmaster Tools, I'm seeing Google recognize them as duplicate meta tags, title tags, etc. See image: http://screencast.com/t/KloiZMKOYfa We're 301 redirecting the old URLs to the new ones ASAP, but is there anything else I should do? Any chance Google is going to noindex these pages because it seems them as dupes until I fix them? Sometimes I can see both pages in the SERPs if I use personalized results, and it scares me: http://screencast.com/t/4BL6iOhz4py3 Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Travis-W0 -
Refactoring 20,000+ URLs and the SEO impact
I run a site that is largely powered by user reviews. We have almost 20,000 reviews, and each review has its own unique URL (/items/item-reviewed/reviews/1), as each one is quite lengthy and detailed (much longer than the normal Yelp review). Of course, the item being reviewed has its own URL (/items/item-reviewed), and we would very much prefer users are driven to that page rather than a review page in search results. I've been looking into ways to improve our SEO, and I'm wondering if the current structure is hurting our SEO to the item page, and if so, what is the best way to 'solve' the issue without causing future SEO issues. Basically, are the 20,000 (and growing) review pages reducing the SEO impact of the actual item pages? I'd like to get the content in the reviews indexed, but not at the expense of negative SEO impact on the items being reviewed. I have several follow-up questions if the answer to my question is indeed 'Yes, it is negatively impacting the SEO of your item page', so I'll await a response. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jhdavids80 -
How canonical url harm our website???
Even though my website has no similar/copied content, i used rel=canonical for all my website pages. Is Google or yahoo make any harm to my SERP's?? EX: http://www.seomoz.org is my site, in that i used canonical as rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="http://www.seomoz.org" to my home page like that similar to all pages, i created rel=canonical. Is search engine harm my website???
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MadhukarSV0 -
Hash as a Replacement for Absolute URL in Canonical Tags?
Any idea why companies like Skechers would be doing this: http://screencast.com/t/ooEkATGN7EX ? I suppose it makes sense, but I've never seen it done before. If this works, why on earth would we be using absolute URLs still?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stevewiideman0 -
URL Length or Exact Breadcrumb Navigation URL? What's More Important
Basically my question is as follows, what's better: www.romancingdiamonds.com/gemstone-rings/amethyst-rings/purple-amethyst-ring-14k-white-gold (this would fully match the breadcrumbs). or www.romancingdiamonds.com/amethyst-rings/purple-amethyst-ring-14k-white-gold (cutting out the first level folder to keep the url shorter and the important keywords are closer to the root domain). In this question http://www.seomoz.org/qa/discuss/37982/url-length-vs-url-keywords I was consulted to drop a folder in my url because it may be to long. That's why I'm hesitant to keep the bradcrumb structure the same. To the best of your knowldege do you think it's best to drop a folder in the URL to keep it shorter and sweeter, or to have a longer URL and have it match the breadcrumb structure? Please advise, Shawn
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Romancing0