The reference uses the words "Consider" and "when possible", which is not as clear as other suggestions Google make. Instructions are crystal clear for other on-page techniques, such as hreflang.

As a power user who works with clients in multiple languages, I frequently switch between languages using the URL, like going from https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/76329?hl=en to https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/76329?hl=fr. This wouldn't be possible if the URL was https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/keep-a-simple-url-structure. For this particular use, I would argue the former are more "user-friendly" than the latter!

More and more the URL is becoming a relic of the past. Sitename and Breadcrumbs are replacing it in SERPs. Browsers on mobile hide it by default. There is no URL bar in recent in-app browsers (Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn).

On the hand, it has been said in the past that keywords in URLs help search engines understand the context of a link when there is no anchor text.

A few things to consider:

• The need to create 301 redirects and the risk of losing trafic
• The impact on on-site SEO (hreflang, canonicals, sitemaps, internal links, etc.)
• The qualitative impact (do your users expect this feature? do visitors expect this feature?)
• Most importantly, the fact that it's probably a low priority optimization!
• If at all possible, consider running an experiment.

Hope this helps! I left out a clear answer on purpose - because I don't have one.

Moz most definitively need a "give a beer" feature!! Thanks for the in-depth response. We'll also work on building "local" links as you suggest.

We've since changed the structure of the site to :

USA/Canada: www.site.com
Europe EN: www.site.com/en_gb/
Europe FR: www.site.com/fr_fr/
Canada FR: www.site.com/fr/

That way we can use hreflang and avoid duplicate content. In your experience, will Google serve www.site.com/fr_fr/ instead of www.site.com/fr/ to Belgium and Switzerland? Will UK and Ireland see www.site.com or www.site.com/en_gb/ ?

Thanks a lot for the answer!

Hi everyone,

We have a website which will have content tailored for a few locations:

USA: www.site.com
Europe EN: www.site.com/eu
Canada FR: www.site.com/fr-ca

Link hreflang and  the GWT option are designed for countries. I expect a fair amount of duplicate content; the only differences will be in product selection and prices.

What are my options to tell Google that it should serve www.site.com/eu in Europe instead of www.site.com? We are not targeting a particular country on that continent.

Thanks!

Hi Daniel,

Any reason you would be less inclined to use heading tags in the footer vs sidebars?

Thanks

Howdy SEOmoz fans!

Is it considered a good / bad / neutral practice to include H tags in the footer, as a mean to group a few links?

Take http://www.seomoz.org/ for instance:

- Voted Best SEO Tool 2010! = H2
- Looking for SEO consulting? = H3
- Product and Tools = H3

• Company = H3
• etc.

I often see the same principle applied to sidebars.

[+] Perhaps they are helpful for usability (screen readers) and thin added value (i.e. category names that carry more weight than if they weren't headers).

What do you think?

Thanks for your time.

Howdy SEOmoz fans!

Is it considered a good / bad / neutral practice to include H tags in the footer, as a mean to group a few links?

Take http://www.seomoz.org/ for instance:

- Voted Best SEO Tool 2010! = H2
- Looking for SEO consulting? = H3
- Product and Tools = H3

• Company = H3
• etc.

I often see the same principle applied to sidebars.

[+] Perhaps they are helpful for usability (screen readers) and thin added value (i.e. category names that carry more weight than if they weren't headers).

What do you think?

Thanks for your time.

The reference uses the words "Consider" and "when possible", which is not as clear as other suggestions Google make. Instructions are crystal clear for other on-page techniques, such as hreflang.

As a power user who works with clients in multiple languages, I frequently switch between languages using the URL, like going from https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/76329?hl=en to https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/76329?hl=fr. This wouldn't be possible if the URL was https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/keep-a-simple-url-structure. For this particular use, I would argue the former are more "user-friendly" than the latter!

More and more the URL is becoming a relic of the past. Sitename and Breadcrumbs are replacing it in SERPs. Browsers on mobile hide it by default. There is no URL bar in recent in-app browsers (Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn).

On the hand, it has been said in the past that keywords in URLs help search engines understand the context of a link when there is no anchor text.

A few things to consider:

• The need to create 301 redirects and the risk of losing trafic
• The impact on on-site SEO (hreflang, canonicals, sitemaps, internal links, etc.)
• The qualitative impact (do your users expect this feature? do visitors expect this feature?)
• Most importantly, the fact that it's probably a low priority optimization!
• If at all possible, consider running an experiment.

Hope this helps! I left out a clear answer on purpose - because I don't have one.