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
-
When using long-tail keywords, should you exactly match for the url or delete "in" "to" etc.?
long-tail keyword - "seizures in adults with no history" Should you include "in and with" in the url?
On-Page Optimization | | Moleculera0 -
Whether to open a new window for an internal link
I'm aware of the advice to add internal links between pages and so I always add links as and when appropriate. However, my website builder allows me the option to open the link in a new window or in the originator. I invariably choose the former but don't know if this is best practice. Could anyone advise?
On-Page Optimization | | Catherine_Selectaglaze0 -
Changing a page url
I have a page that ranks well (#4) for a good keyword. However, the url has the keyword in it but is misspelled. I would like to change the url to have the correct spelling but do not want to lose the ranking that I have. What is the best and safest way to proceed?
On-Page Optimization | | bhsiao0 -
Canonical URL, cornerstone page and categories
If I want to have a cornerstone "page", can I substitute an actual page with a category archive of posts "page" (that contains many posts containing the target key phrase)? This way, if I make blog posts about a certain topic/ key phrase (example "beach weddings") and add a canonical URL of the category archive page to the individual posts, am I right then to assume google will see the archive page as the cornerstone page (and thereby won't see the individual posts with the same key phrase as competing)?
On-Page Optimization | | stephanwb0 -
Mixing hyphens and underscores in a url
Hello. I am working on a site that was built with underscores in the urls, but only in the page names, not in the subdirectories. All the subdirectories have one-word names. So a typical url is "example.com/sub1/sub2/page_name." We would like to change the name of one of the subdirectories to a name that would be very useful for SEO, but this new name is a hyphenated word, let's call it "new-sub." If we changed "sub2" to "new-sub" then our url would have a mix of underscores and hyphens: example.com/sub1/new-sub/page_name. But if I used "new_sub" instead, google would read the words as connected with an underscore, instead of reading the subdirectory as a hyphenated word, which would be less useful for SEO. It seems like it might be a problem to have a hyphen in a subdirectory and underscores in the page names. But I want the SEO value of the hyphenated word. Any recommendations? Thank you!
On-Page Optimization | | nyc-seo0 -
How do I address "Critical Factors: Accessible to Engines"?
Hello,I am going thru the on-page report card produced by SEOMOZ and am stumped as to how to address the first critical factor. It looks like the correct meta tag to get search engines to index the site is at the bottom of the header. And as far as I know, which isn't much, the site returns the HTTP code 200 when I refresh.I am new at this, so please let me know if you have some specific solutions. I am using IWeb and the IWeb SEO Tool to make meta code improvements. I have pasted the head code for my website (www.grass2greens.com) below. Thanks in advance!<html lang="en" xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head><meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"><meta content="iWeb 3.0.4" name="Generator"><meta content="local-build-20120619" name="iWeb-Build"><meta content="IE=EmulateIE7" http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible"><meta content="width=880" name="viewport"><title>Grass to Greens: Asheville Edible Landscapingtitle><link href="Grass_to_Greens__Asheville_Edible_Landscaping_files/Grass_to_Greens__Asheville_Edible_Landscaping.css" media="screen,print" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet"><style type="text/css"><script type="text/javascript" async="" src="http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js"><script type="text/javascript" async="" src="http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js"><script src="Scripts/iWebSite.js" type="text/javascript"><script src="Scripts/iWebImage.js" type="text/javascript"><script src="Scripts/iWebMediaGrid.js" type="text/javascript"><script src="Scripts/Widgets/SharedResources/WidgetCommon.js" type="text/javascript"><script src="Scripts/Widgets/HTMLRegion/Paste.js" type="text/javascript"><script src="Grass_to_Greens__Asheville_Edible_Landscaping_files/Grass_to_Greens__Asheville_Edible_Landscaping.js" type="text/javascript"><script type="text/javascript"><meta content="Grass to Greens offers a range of edible landscape design, consultation, installation, and maintenance services. Free Consultations! We specialize in beautiful and useful vegetable gardens, season extension, tree work, orchards and food forests, stone work, fencing, and rain water catchment. Grass to Greens is an edible landscaping company committed to creating food security and fostering social justice through urban agriculture in the Asheville area. " name="description"><meta content="Landscaping Asheville Edible Gardens" name="keywords"><meta content="follow,index" name="robots"><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="Grass_to_Greens__Asheville_Edible_Landscaping_files/Grass_to_Greens__Asheville_Edible_LandscapingMoz.css">head> Grass to Greens: Asheville Edible Landscaping
On-Page Optimization | | dcaudio0 -
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 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 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?
On-Page Optimization | | bThere0 -
Which method should I use for my URL structure?
I have an existing site that is currently utilizing a structure that is like this: http://www.mysite.com/Ohio/City-of-Cleveland-PRODUCT-NAME Should I restructure it like: http://www.mysite.com/Ohio/City-of-Cleveland/Product-Name We are doing very well with very specific searches already but are sometimes coming in 2nd and 3rd place. For example: If I search for CLEVELAND PRODUCT NAME I always come up in the top three and about 60% of the time I am #1. I want to make it better. We have only launched in 4 states but plan on launching an additional 4 states over the next few weeks and I want to make sure we are building things properly. Any feedback would be wonderful. As usual, thanks everyone!! -Alex
On-Page Optimization | | dbuckles0