Page URL Hiearchy
-
So I have read on here that page URL Hiearchy is important. My question is from a search engine standpoint which of the following methods would be the best to use (or another if not listed)
COMPACT and naturally hierarchical
MountainBiking.com/adventures ( a list of the pages below )
MountainBiking.com/adventures/in whistler (for each page)
MountainBiking.com/adventures/in utah
OR VERBOSE but reptetive
MountainBiking.com/Mountain Biking adventures ( intro + a list of the pages below )
MountainBiking.com/Mountain Biking Adventures/Mounting Biking adventures in whistler
MountainBiking.com/Mountain Biking Adventures/Mountain Biking Adventures in Utah
It seemed like the blog I read suggested the compact form, but it seems to me that the verbose (though admittedly a bit clunky) seems better so far as exact keyword match etc.
Experience and or advice on this?
-
My opinion: mountainbiking.com/adventures/mountain-biking-adventures-in-utah/ Why like this? Because when you put less than 3 or more than 5 words in the URL google gives less importance for the keywords in the URL based in what mattcutts said. And for user point of view, If I see a sub-folder with MOUNTAIN BIKING too( assume the domain already have the keywords ) will look spammy for me.
-
The only problem with that would be that all of the links would have to be on the home page, which I don't want.
I have a landing page, then a couple of searchable content categories/catalogs, similar to a blog structure ( excerpts to the full page )
Personally I like the flat structure better, but worry about losing out on points for not having an exact enough URL
-
I was going to add - between the words, is there a reason that more compact form (no - ) is better?
So the part that looks like it's phishing is the repetition of mountain bike adventures in the catalog section?
My thought was, and perhaps incorrectly that if someone searched for "Mountain Bike Adventures" then they would get the catalog page, but if something more specific the expanded page.
So to clarify you think that MountainBiking.com/adventures if all else on the page was optimized would work better than MountainBiking.com/Mountain Biking adventures/
Thanks for the help, really appreciate it.
-
I've read that a flat URL structure is best -
"MountainBiking.com/Mountain Biking Adventures In Whistler" instead of "MountainBiking.com/Mountain Biking Adventures/Mountain Biking Adventures In Whistler".
This format is easier for bots to crawl. Since only around 130 characters of the URL show in SERPs anyway, searchers won't see the whole URL if it's too long. You also avoid the appearance of "keyword stuffing" by using a flat URL structure.
-
The second format looks blatantly like SEO-'phishing' and I would not go to a website like that. Having the spaces in there could also cause some serious issues. You can always have the final destination being verbose:
MountainBiking.com/adventures/mountainbikingadventuresinwhistler
Although this looks crappy again. I think just having all these in your domain will be enough, so go with the clean, compact format, for your visitor's sake.
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
-
Category pages, should I noindex them?
Hi there, I have a question about my blog that I hope you guys can answer. Should I no index the category and tag pages of my blog? I understand they are considered as duplicate content, but what if I try to work the keyword of that category? What would you do? I am looking forward to reading your answers 🙂
On-Page Optimization | | lucywrites0 -
To create extra pages, or not to create extra pages?
I'm responsible for a site where we cater for all kinds of medical & legal problems. I recently conducted keyword research that shows a lot of questions being 'asked' in relation to the conditions we cater for. Naturally, I want to create content to answer these questions. We have a page for 'Cancer compensation' - the 'possible content' that answers questions won't necessarily help someone claiming compensation for cancer mistreatment, BUT someone who asks a question relating to cancer, answered in the 'possible content' may find the 'cancer compensation' page useful. SO! Do I: Add this content to the existing 'cancer compensation' page? Create individual pages of content answering each question, linking to the 'cancer compensation' page? or do I amalgamate all the answers into one heafty 'resource' page that sits elsewhere on the site? What do you think? Thanks in advance. John King
On-Page Optimization | | Muhammad-Isap0 -
Form Only Pages Considered No Content/Duplicate Pages
We have a lot of WordPress sites with pages that contain only a form. The header, sidebar and footer content is the same as what's one other pages throughout the site. Each form page has a unique page title, meta description, form title and questions but the form title, description and questions add up to probably less than 100 words. Are these form pages negatively affecting the rankings of our landing pages or being viewed as duplicate or no content pages?
On-Page Optimization | | projectassistant0 -
Page architecture
We have some good content on our site, particularly relating to UK employment law. One section on unfair dismissal is split into 9 pages - there is a fair amount of legal detail. The question is whether we should combine it all into one "mother of all unfair dismissal" page just to satisfy the Google monster or keep in as it is. Some of the individual pages rank on page 1 already. If we change the architecture are 301 redirects the best way to handle the changing urls? The other more important issue is whether it is easier to read it all on one page or split it. Keeping G happy may not actually keep our users happy. As the content is quite dense we want to ensure we don't overload people. Any thoughts appreciated.
On-Page Optimization | | dexm100 -
Is reported duplication on the pages or their canonical pages?
There are several sections getting flagged for duplication on one of our sites: http://mysite.com/section-1/?something=X&confirmed=true
On-Page Optimization | | Safelincs
http://mysite.com/section-2/?something=X&confirmed=true
http://mysite.com/section-3/?something=X&confirmed=true Each of the above are showing as having duplicates of the other sections. Indeed, these pages are exactly the same (it's just an SMS confirmation page you enter your code in), however, they all have canonical links back to the section (without the query string), i.e. section-1, section-2 and section-3 respectively. These three sections have unique content and aren't flagged up for duplications themselves, so my questions are: Are the pages with the query strings the duplicates, and if so why are the canonical links being ignored? or Are the canonical pages without the query strings the duplicates, and if so why don't they appear as URLs in their own right in the duplicate content report? I am guessing it's the former, but I can't figure out why it would ignore the canonical links. Any ideas? Thanks0 -
Is On Page SEO Dead?
Hey Guys, Search Engine Roundtable has published a short post about this a few days ago, quoting senior member at WebmasterWorld forums who said: "The way I see it, on-page text today is for the "relevance" part of the total algorithm. The whole algorithm is, in broad strokes, "relevance + connectedness + quality". After you've clearly stated the relevance of the page, then the rest of your ranking power comes from elsewhere. I've added on-page bold tags with no effect. I've added or changed h1 elements with no effect. Not too long ago, those might well have done something, but that's not the game anymore. And moving from a table layout to a CSS-P layout today might get you nowhere, too. It all depends how deeply complicated the table layout was, I think." http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4408395.htm Is it true? Is on-page SEO really dead? What do you think?
On-Page Optimization | | ShivaS0 -
Long URLs
Many URLs of my site are long due to long navigation paths. Here is an example: http://tinyurl.com/6qc4syb. My question is, if I shorten the urls (which I probably should do), does it matter that they no longer follow the navigation path?
On-Page Optimization | | rdreich490 -
Page title
So if we have a main category page on our site (mines an ecommerce site), do we go for more than that main keyword phrase for that category of products, or is it better to just keep it by itself, and not utilize the 65-70 characters available?
On-Page Optimization | | azguy0