Spammy? Long URLs
-
Hi All:
Is it true that URLs such as this following one are viewed as "spammy" (besides being too long) and that such URLs will negatively affect ranks for keywords and page ranks:
My thinking is that the page will perform better once it is 301 redirected to a shorter page name, such as:
http://www.repairsuniverse.com/ipod-touch-1G-replacement-parts.html
It also appears that these long URLs are also more likely to break, creating unnecessary 404s.
<colgroup><col width="301"></colgroup>
Thanks for your insight on this issue!
-
The issue is the repetition of words more than anything. There's no justification or rationalization that can be used to say "this long URL is valid from a readability or a page topical focus perspective. In fact, it can both make the site look untrustworthy to some users, and potentially cause search engines to flag the page as "over" optimized - going too far with keyword repetition is definitely something that can cause a page to lose some of it's ranking value.
-
Thanks Ryan for your helpful insight and confirmation of my suspicions!
These URLs were created before I came into the project.
The .html extension is automatically added by the Yahoo Store page builder, so I'm not sure I can change that.
Cheers
Phil
-
Hello Phillip,
I found it convenient your question appeared after the WBF by Cyrus on the 29th regarding title tag length.
If you look at the transcript about half way down, the header is: "Best Practices are Guidelines not Rules." I think you are talking of a best practice and not a hard and fast rule. By going to about 15 of your pages none of the other urls are that longIf you look at your url here and the url for Cyrus' WBF, yours is roughly 20 to 25 characters longer. Given his is over 80 characters, I don't see yours as being significantly different.
If you go to Google WM blog it speaks to not having session ID's and using a 301 to redirect to a clean url. Given that you do not have hundreds of urls that appear to be built for a search engine, I do not believe it becomes an issue to Google.
With the 301 you have a better url and, beyond the occasional 404 from the lengthy url, you have a customer friendly url which is what the customers like. If you make it easy to get around and to find what they are looking for, they are more apt to buy in my opinion.
Best of luck.
-
The first URL you shared definitely appears spammy. A URL is not the place to stuff keywords. A short, accurate description as you shared in the second example is helpful.
A properly presented URL is a minor ranking factor. It can affect your search result position, but it is unlikely to make a difference in most cases. It affects Click Through Rates much more. In search results and other places users have very little information upon which to base a decision. Many users simply wont select a spammy URL.
As you shared, a spammy URL is much harder to remember. No user could reasonably remember your first URL. Your second URL is short enough where some people could remember it, especially if they were regular visitors on your site.
A last note, remove the technology extension of your URL. It is not helpful not users nor search engines to know it is an html page. Take a look at the URL of this Q&A page. It is a great example: www.seomoz.org/q/spammy-long-urls. There is no .html nor .php type of extension tacked onto the end. Just a short, clean and memorable URL.
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
-
Google Only Indexing Canonical Root URL Instead of Specified URL Parameters
We just launched a website about 1 month ago and noticed that Google was indexing, but not displaying, URLs with "?location=" parameters such as: http://www.castlemap.com/local-house-values/?location=great-falls-virginia and http://www.castlemap.com/local-house-values/?location=mclean-virginia. Instead, Google has only been displaying our root URL http://www.castlemap.com/local-house-values/ in its search results -- which we don't want as the URLs with specific locations are more important and each has its own unique list of houses for sale. We have Yoast setup with all of these ?location values added in our sitemap that has successfully been submitted to Google's Sitemaps: http://www.castlemap.com/buy-location-sitemap.xml I also tried going into the old Google Search Console and setting the "location" URL Parameter to Crawl Every URL with the Specifies Effect enabled... and I even see the two URLs I mentioned above in Google's list of Parameter Samples... but the pages are still not being added to Google. Even after Requesting Indexing again after making all of these changes a few days ago, these URLs are still displaying as Allowing Indexing, but Not On Google in the Search Console and not showing up on Google when I manually search for the entire URL. Why are these pages not showing up on Google and how can we get them to display? Only solution I can think of would be to set our main /local-house-values/ page to noindex in order to have Google favor all of our other URL parameter versions... but I'm guessing that's probably not a good solution for multiple reasons.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Nitruc0 -
Internal Links - Different URLs
Hey so, In my product page, I have recommended products at the bottom. The issue is that those recommended products have long parameters such as sitename.com/product-xy-z/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co&srcType=dp_recs The reason why it has that long parameter is due to tracking purposes (internally with the dev and UX team). My question is, should I replace it with the clean URL or as long as it has the canonical tag, it should be okay to have such a long parameter? I would think clean URL would help with internal links and what not...but if it already has a canonical tag would it help? Another issue is that the URL is different and not just the parameter. For instance..the canonical URL is sitename.com/productname-xyz/ and so the internal link used on the product page (same exact page just different URL with parameter) sitename.com/xyz/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co&srcType=dp_recs (missing product name), BUT still has the canonical tag!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ggpaul5620 -
Is there a problems with putting encoding into the subdomain of a URL?
We are looking at changing our URL structure for tracking various affiliates from: https://sub.domain.com/quote/?affiliate_id=xxx to https://aff_xxx_affname.domain.com/quote/ Both would allow us to track affiliates, but the second would allow us to use cookies to track. Does anyone know if this could possibly cause SEO concerns? Also, For the site we want to rank for, we will use a reverse proxy to change the URL from https://aff_xxx.maindomain.com/quote/ to https://www.maindomain.com/quote/ would that cause any SEO issues. Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RoxBrock0 -
Woo Commerce Woo Compare Urls Indexing?
Hi I am using Wordpress/Woo commerce for my site Thetotspot.co.uk http://www.thetotspot.co.uk/?action=yith-woocompare-add-product&id=1412&_wpnonce=a5560b1b07 But I am getting a lot of temporary redirects registering in Moz for things like the above - woo compare / add to cart links Anyone come across this - how did you get solve? I am using Yoast SEO currently, have no indexed archives and pages of archive etc.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kelly33300 -
Move to new domain with new design and url
I have an e-commerce website that is template based and I have absolutely no control over it. Each product have quite good ranking in google. However, we are creating new website using asp.net mvc and host in azure. It has totally new design. Since I have no control over my old website, I cannot force the server to redirect each product page to my new website product page. This is what I have done so far. I told my old website provider to point my domain (ex. domainA.com) to new nameserver at dyndns I created a new zone and add a http redirect service to new domain (http://www.domainB.com) with 301 redirect I'm pretty sure that this is not enough since there is a difference in url like this Old: www.domainA.com/product/70/my-product-name New: www.domainB.com/product/1/my-new-product-name New route config: {product}/{id}/{name} As you can see, the structure is similar but the product id and name is different. Do I need to catch the incoming id and name from old website and 301 redirect it again to the correct one? If so, this will cause double 301 redirect and would this be a SEO problem? Thank you in advance for your answer.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | as142208080 -
How careful do you need to be about changes to readable URLs?
We are moving to Sitecore where the standard out the box is that if you change page title it amends the URL as well. I am worried that this will lead to SEO issues and am considering whether we need to get it locked down so that if the page title is amended (only in a minor way) it does not also change the URL. I have never worked with readable URLs before - what are the implications of the URL not exactly matching the wording of the page title?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | alzheimerssoc0 -
Long urls created by filters (not with query parameters)
A website adds subfolders to a category URL for each filter that's selected. In a crawl of the website some of these URLs reach over 400 characters. For example, if I select shoe size 5, 5.5 and 6, white and blue colour, price $70-$100, heel and platform styles, the URL will be as follows: www.example.com/shoes/womens/filters/shoe-size--5--5.5--6/color--white--blue/price--70-100/style--heel--platform There is a canonical that points to www.example.com/shoes/womens/ so it isn't a duplicate content issue. But these URLs still get crawled. How would you handle this? It's not a great system so I'm tempted to tell them to start over with best practice recommendations, but maybe I should just tell them to block the "/filters/" folder from crawlers? For some products however, filtered content would be worth having in search indexes (e.g. colour).
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alex-Harford0 -
Should I shorten my urls?
For my informational site I have a lot of urls that are way too long. When I first created the site, I wrote a script that takes out the common words of a post and fashions a url. So, for example, if the first few words of a question were: Hi there, I have a question about back pain. I'm wondering what drugs would be good for relief and how I can get some help? then my url may be: www.mydomain.com/question?id=123-question-back-pain-wondering-drugs-good-relief-how-get-some-help Once I got learning about seo I realized that these urls were too long but I never did anything about them. Should I be shortening these, or is my time best spent doing something else?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MarieHaynes2