Adding keywords to URL's
-
I understand the importance of having the keyword in the URL (at least now I do). When I created my site (www.enchantingquotes.com), I was completely ignorant about SEO. So....question is...how do I go about adding keywords to already done pages? Do I create a new section and then redirect - or do I have to basically recreate pages? Thx much
-
You can change your page file names to your keywords. Make sure they are relevant to the actual page and not overly spammy.
so for example your kitchen quote page could be renamed from:
http://www.enchantingquotes.com/kitchenbath.html
http://www.enchantingquotes.com/**kitchen-**and-bath-quotes.html
The way to do this is to rename the actual files, you will have to remember to change all links and also add 301 redirects to each new page from the old. You can learn more about how to do that at http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/url and http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/redirection.
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
-
Url permalink structure question!
Hello! I just read the "15 SEO Best Practices for Structuring URLs" but I have still a question: My A version bellow "20 accessoires" has no meaning in french. If I add "voyage" (version B), then is it considered as spammy? I mean the "voyage" keyword repetition? A) http://www.lytchee.com/preparer-son-voyage/20-accessoires/ B) http://www.lytchee.com/preparer-son-voyage/20-accessoires-voyage Thanks for advices! Sylvain
On-Page Optimization | | lytcheetv0 -
Why my keyword rank fell down while I didn't do anything wrong?
Hi! I just got ranking results for the past week, and I am a little bit confused about what I saw. Two weeks ago, I optimized one of my website's page for the keyword "viking appliance repair in Los Angeles" (was #43 before), and one week later I found it on the second page of Google (ranked #21). I continued working on other pages thinking that all I need to do for "viking appliance repair in Los Angeles" to get it ranked even higher is to gain high quality inbound links. But for some reason updated ranking results I got today show this keyword fell down and now ranked #51. Could you please tell me why that might happened? What affected this keyword performance while I didn't do anything with it in between that much?
On-Page Optimization | | kirupa0 -
Is there a limit to the number of duplicate pages pointing to a rel='canonical ' primary?
We have a situation on twiends where a number of our 'dead' user pages have generated links for us over the years. Our options are to 404 them, 301 them to the home page, or just serve back the home page with a canonical tag. We've been 404'ing them for years, but i understand that we lose all the link juice from doing this. Correct me if I'm wrong? Our next plan would be to 301 them to the home page. Probably the best solution but our concern is if a user page is only temporarily down (under review, etc) it could be permanently removed from the index, or at least cached for a very long time. A final plan is to just serve back the home page on the old URL, with a canonical tag pointing to the home page URL. This is quick, retains most of the link juice, and allows the URL to become active again in future. The problem is that there could be 100,000's of these. Q1) Is it a problem to have 100,000 URLs pointing to a primary with a rel=canonical tag? (Problem for Google?) Q2) How long does it take a canonical duplicate page to become unique in the index again if the tag is removed? Will google recrawl it and add it back into the index? Do we need to use WMT to speed this process up? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | dsumter0 -
How important are clean URLs?
Just wanting to understand the importance of clean URLs in regards to SEO effectiveness. Currently, we have URLs for a site that reads as follows: http://www.interhampers.com.au/c/90/Corporate Gift Hampers Should we look into modifying this so that the URL does not have % or figures?
On-Page Optimization | | Gavo1 -
Table text : Does that influences the website's ranking ?
We are currently working on a new page for one of our clients and there is A LOT of writing, so A LOT of differents pages. If I decide to put the texts on table text instead of creating a link for another page, will that influence the ranking in any way ? I've been a web writer for only a year now and still try to figure out how to optimize the written part. Thank you for your answers.
On-Page Optimization | | marketingmedia.ca0 -
Errors in URL´s
SEOMOZ is showing quite a lot of URL Errors like this: http://trampoliny.net.pl/akcesoria/pokrowiec-basic?frontend=1825cb1eea3af8ee6ee2d96617d32ff6 All these URL´s use the parameter "?frontend=". In webmaster tools we told google not to index this parameter. Unfortunately at the moment we cannot set this parameter as "NOINDEX". We also dont want to use a robots.txt file. How to get rid of the URLS in Seomoz?
On-Page Optimization | | drgoodcat0 -
Slash at the end of a url
I keep reading contradicting information, so I figured I'll ask here. What's the best practice for slash '/' at the end of a URL? Should it be idealchooser.com/search/laptop/ or idealchooser.com/search/laptop (no trailing slash)? The options: 1. Accept both equally 2. Accept 1 and redirect the other with 301 3. Accept 1 and treat the other as a wrong URL returning 404 Which would be the best for SEO? Thank you.
On-Page Optimization | | corwin0 -
Canonical URL's - Fixed but still negatively impacted
I recently noticed that our canonical url's were not set up correctly. The incorrect setup predates me but it could have been in place for close to a year, maybe a bit more. Each of the url's had a "sortby" parameter on all of them. I had our platform provider make the fix and now everything is as it should be. I do see issues caused by this in Google Webmaster, for instance in the HTML suggestions it's telling me that pages have duplicate title tags when in fact this is the same page but with a variety of url parameters at the end of the url. To me this just highlights that there is a problem and we are being negatively impacted by the previous implementation. My question is has anyone been in this situation? Is there any way to flush this out or push Google to relook at this? Or is this a sit and be patient situation. I'm also slightly curious if Google will at some point look and see that the canonical urls were changed and then throw up a red flag even though they are finally the way they should be. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks,
On-Page Optimization | | dgmiles
Dave0