Replacing "_" with "-" in url, results in new url?
-
We ran SEOmoz's "On-Page Optimization" tool on a url which contains the character "_".
According to the tool:
"Characters which are less commonly used in URLs may cause problems with accessibility, interpretation and ranking in search engines. It is considered a best practice to stick to standard URL structures to avoid potential problems."
"Rewrite the URL to contain only standard characters."
Therefore we will rewrite the url, replacing "_" with "-".
Will search engines consider the "-" url a different one? Do we need to 301 the old url to the new one?
Thanks for your help!
-
One reason to change all URLs from _ to - is conformity.
If you have some that are _ and some that are -
the question is how will you remember which one to use, for a particular page?
For that reason, I would convert them all.
As for using a canonical tag, I don't know, you'd need to know what google and otehr search engines do with that information, if anything. I would also worry about what they will do with it in the future, because these things are liable to change.
If it was me, I would change them all and redirect the stragglers.
-
Why not use rel canonical? I would prefer that to a 301 (my 2nd choice)
-
To throw in my 2 cents, the benefit in rewriting the URL (and making a 301) comes from Google's ability to then clearly recognize the keywords that you're using within it (assuming that you're synching your on page KWs). Google views hot_keyword_landing_page.html as hotkeywordlandingpage.html - Matt Cutts on underscores vs. dashes in URLs. The downside is having to keep the 301 in place if the page has IBLs.
-
Yes it will. Had to re-write a few items myself and any little change will make a new URL.
301 it is best.
-
FYI, based on the information provided by the SEOmoz tool we will revamp the page (tags, look, content), therefore it'll be a "new page".
-
As stated before, the answer is Yes. Should you do it ? I would answer no.
You should do it for new content, but do move all you're content to other URL and 301 just for this. This would no do too much good.
-
Well this is an easy one.
_Will search engines consider the "-" url a different one? _Yes.
Do we need to 301 the old url to the new one? Yes.
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 Search Console issue: "This is how Googlebot saw the page" showing part of page being covered up
Hi everyone! Kind of a weird question here but I'll ask and see if anyone else has seen this: In Google Search Console when I do a fetch and render request for a specific site, the fetch and blocked resources all look A-OK. However, in the render, there's a large grey box (background of navigation) that covers up a significant amount of what is on the page. Attaching a screenshot. You can see the text start peeking out below (had to trim for confidentiality reasons). But behind that block of grey IS text. And text that apparently in the fetch part Googlebot does see and can crawl. My question: is this an issue? Should I be concerned about this visual look? Or no? Never have experienced an issue like that. I will say - trying to make a play at a featured snippet and can't seem to have Google display this page's information, despite it being the first result and the query showing a featured snippet of a result #4. I know that it isn't guaranteed for the #1 result but wonder if this has anything to do with why it isn't showing one. VmIqgFB.png
On-Page Optimization | | ChristianMKG0 -
Long url links
Just wondering about creating links.
On-Page Optimization | | Robotnik
Is it ok to have very long links?
Like: http://www.robotnik.com/computer-hardware-ram/8gb-ddr3-1600-desktop Is the above too long, is it better for SEO to be more to the point? Also For better SEO, is it better to use hyphens in a domain name or not?0 -
URLs and folder structure for an E-commerce
Hi there !-) I´m helping a friend who has a e-commerce about nail polish in Brazil. I´m a little in doubt about the urls and folder structure. Two questions: 1. There are 10 products per category and 50 categories. Should I put them all in the root folder or creat 2 major categories ( 25 sub-categories each one)? 2. Whats the better product page url ( the store has around 500) nailpolish.com/IMPORT/BRAND/NAME-OF-THE-PRODUCT OR nailpolish.com/COMPLETE-NAME-OF-THE-PRODUCT Whats the best recomandation?
On-Page Optimization | | SeoMartin10 -
How Pandas Define "Thin" content
Many websites like www.geico.com have little content on the homepage, but instead a ton of graphics. I've been told before to watch out for pages/posts less than 200 words, but 95% of websites have "main pages" that are graphically driven and have very very few words. So, if Panda is cracking down on thin content, how does Panda define "thin" with regards to major pages of a site? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | terran0 -
How long is too long for domain URL length?
I noticed one of the negatively correlated ranking factors was length of URL. I'm building a page from scratch, we are trying to rank for 'Minneapolis Fitness' and 'Minneapolis Massage'. Is www.minnnepolismassageandfitness.com just ridiculously long? Or does the exact match outweigh the penalty for URL length?
On-Page Optimization | | JesseCWalker2 -
Seeking URL Advice
Hey Moz Community, I'm looking for some URL structure advice for a new directory of a website. We're trying to rank for the term 'internships abroad in <country>'</country> We have roughly 100 pages targeting specific countries. Right now the URL structure is www.gooverseas.com/internships-abroad/china, but some of my colleagues believe this structure would be better: www.gooverseas.com/internships-abroad/intern-in-china. I personally prefer the shorter structure, but we couldn't come to any agreement so we thought we'd pose the question to the community. Any thoughts? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | dunklea0 -
Robots.txt: excluding URL
Hi, spiders crawl some dynamic urls in my website (example: http://www.keihome.it/elettrodomestici/cappe/cappa-vision-con-tv-falmec/714/ + http://www.keihome.it/elettrodomestici/cappe/cappa-vision-con-tv-falmec/714/open=true) as different pages, resulting duplicate content of course. What is syntax for disallow these kind of urls in robots.txt? Thanks so much
On-Page Optimization | | anakyn0 -
What's the best practice for implementing a "content disclaimer" that doesn't block search robots?
Our client needs a content disclaimer on their site. This is a simple "If you agree to these rules then click YES if not click NO" and you're pushed back to the home page. I have this gut feeling that this may cause an upset with the search robots. Any advice? R/ John
On-Page Optimization | | TheNorthernOffice790