URL formating is it worth changing?
-
One of my clients sites has almost OK URL's, set up something like the following:
keyword2_keyword3_keyword1
Ideally the URL's would be more like this:
keyword1-keyword2-keyword3
My question is is there any point in changing them and 301 redirecting them over just to get the target keywords in a better order and change the _ to a - ?
Has anyone tried this and its worked or not worked, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Justin
-
The first thing I would ask to myself is:
are these URLs over-optimized?
If the URLs looks like: www.domain.com/category/sub-category/keyword-keyword-keyword and keyword can be a three words query... then probably that url is over optimized and can be more a danger than a competitive factor.
Good practice tells us that is better to have the primary keyword in the url, better if matching, and not used like a digest of all the keywords we want to rank for in a page.
Apart that, you have to consider also these other two factors when it comes to urls:
- Usability: too long urls are very hard to remember, therefore you are loosing the opportunity to receive direct traffic from users typing the url directly in the browser (for instance, as many of us do typing directly: www.seomoz.org/q to enter the SEOmoz Q&A
- Too long urls tend to not be used as a way of creating natural linking citation, as when you cite - for instance - a post using its url and not creating a classic link with anchor text.
Therefore I would not use any of your alternatives, but this:
and 301 the old urls.
Finally, about on page optimization, I suggest you to read this old but still valid post by Rand Fishkin:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/perfecting-keyword-targeting-on-page-optimization
-
If the client isn't ranking well for the terms, then it's highly unlikely that making this minor change to the URL will really help out. If the client ranks well, then I would for sure not mess with the URL and risk the loss of any PR. Bottom line is that I would look for other areas to optimize and make the URL change as a last desperate attempt.
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
-
Trailing Slashes on URLs
Hi we currently have a site on Wordpress which has two version of each URL trailing slash on URLs and one without it. Example: www.domain.com/page (preferred version - based on link data) www.domain.com/page**/** The non-slash version of the URL has most of the external links pointing to them, so we are going to pick that as the preferred version. However, currently, each version of every URL has rel canonical tag pointing to the non-preferred version. E.g. www.domain.com/page the rel canonical tag is: www.domain.com/page/ What would be the best way to clean up this setup? Cheers.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | cathywix0 -
How do you 301 redirect URLs with a hashbang (#!) format? We just lost a ton of pagerank because we thought javascript redirect was the only way! But other sites have been able to do this – examples and details inside
Hi Moz, Here's more info on our problem, and thanks for reading! We’re trying to Create 301 redirects for 44 pages on site.com. We’re having trouble 301 redirecting these pages, possibly because they are AJAX and have hashbangs in the URLs. These are locations pages. The old locations URLs are in the following format: www.site.com/locations/#!new-york and the new URLs that we want to redirect to are in this format: www.site.com/locations/new-york We have not been able to create these redirects using Yoast WordPress SEO plugin v.1.5.3.2. The CMS is WordPress version 3.9.1 The reason we want to 301 redirect these pages is because we have created new pages to replace them, and we want to pass pagerank from the old pages to the new. A 301 redirect is the ideal way to pass pagerank. Examples of pages that are able to 301 redirect hashbang URLs include http://www.sherrilltree.com/Saddles#!Saddles and https://twitter.com/#!RobOusbey.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DA20130 -
How much is the effect of redirecting an old URL to another URL under a new domain?
Example: http://www.olddomain.com/buy/product-type/region/city/area http://www.newdomain.com/product-type-for-sale/city/area Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | esiow20130 -
Changing the XML Sitemap address
For technical reason we are having to change our XML sitemap URL's from domain.com/sitemap.xml to domain.com/sitemaps/sitemap.xml - What checklist do I need to do to make sure this transition goes smoothly and is there any problems that I might come across?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JohnW-UK0 -
Google Hummingbird Update - Any Changes ?
Google has update with the new alogrithm and did you see any effects and as they are not revelaing the techinicaly how they work ? What's your opinion ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Esaky0 -
What Should I Do With My URL Names?
I release property on my blog each week, and it has come to the point we will get property in the same area as we have had in the past. So, I name my URL /blah-blah-blah-[area of property]/ for the first property in that area right. Now I get a different property in that same area and the URL will have to be named /blah-blah-blah-[area of property]-2/. Now I'm not sure if this is a major issue or not, but I'm sure there must be a better way than this, and I don't really want to take down our past properties - unless you can give me good reason too, of course? So before I start getting URLs like this: /blah-blah-blah-[area of property]-2334343534654/ (well, ok, maybe not that bad! But you get my point) I wanted to see what everyones opinion on it is 🙂 Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JonathanRolande0 -
Renaming a URL
Hi, If we rename a URL (below) http://www.opentext.com/2/global/company/company-ecm-positioning.htm
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | pstables
to http://www.opentext.com/2/global/products/enterprise-content-management.htm (or something similar) Would search engines recognize that as a new page altogether? I know they would need to reindex it accordingly, so in theory it is kind of a "new" page. But the reason for doing this is to maintain the page's metrics (inbound links, authority, social activity, etc) instead of creating a new page from scratch. The page has been indexed highly in the past, so we want to keep it active but optimize it better and redirect other internal content (that's being phased out) to it to juice it up even more. Thanks in advance!
Greg0 -
No index, follow vs. canonical url
We have a site that consists almost entirely as a directory of videos. Example here: http://realtree.tv/channels/realtreeoutdoorsclassics We're trying to figure out the best way to handle pagination and utility features such as sort for most recent, most viewed, etc. We've been reading countless articles on this topic, but so far have been unable to determine what might be considered the industry standard. Two solutions seem to stand out... Using the canonical url on all the sorted and paginated pages. However, after reading many blog posts, it seems that you should NEVER use the canonical url to solve the issue of paginated, and thus duplicated content because the search bots will never crawl past the first page leaving many results not in the index. (We are considering ruling this method out.) Another solution seems to be using the meta tag for noindex, follow so that a search engine like Google will crawl your directory pages but not add them to the index themselves. All links are followed so content is crawled and any passing link juice remains unchanged. However, I did see a few articles skeptical of this solution as well saying that there are always better alternatives, or that there is no verification that search engines obey this meta tag. This has placed some doubt in our minds. I was hoping to get some expert advice on these methods as it would pertain to our site. Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | grayloon0