Question on URL wording and structure best practices
-
We're mapping out some URL structures and trying to figure out what would be best for separating folders for articles and videos regarding wording in the folder say:
www.site.com/category/article/name-of-article/id#/ ---- www.site.com/category/video/name-of-video/id#/
vs.
www.site.com/category/a/name-of-article/id#/ ---- www.site.com/category/v/name-of-video/id#/
Second option came about the ''shorter is better' way of thinking. Downside I see to it is if the link would be copied and pasted somewhere probably would be best for a user to make it clear they are clicking into an article or a video, don't think just an 'a' or a 'v' would be very telling in that scenario.
Would it be better for search engines to make it clearer with the whole word in there? Any other pros and cons to each? Not sure what's the best route here.
-
I agree
-
Definitely the shorter the better but don't abbreviate words, If you can just go www.site.com/videos/[video name] that would definitely give an improved signal over and above longer URLs of competition.
Or you could possibly get away with www.site.com/blog/videos/[video name] this would carry a little bit less weight but be more descriptive.
Definitely rule of thumb the shorter the URL the better, do not abbreviate, (Google may not know what it means).
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
-
SEO advice on ecommerce url structure where categories contain "/c/"
Hi! We use Hybris as plattform and I would like input on which url to choose. We must keep "/c/" before the actual category. c stands for category. I.e. this current url format will be shortened and cleaned:
Technical SEO | | hampgunn
https://www.granngarden.se/Sortiment/Husdjur/Hund/Hundfoder-%26-Hundmat/c/hundfoder To either: a.
https://www.granngarden.se/husdjur/hund/hundfoder/c/hundfoder b.
https://www.granngarden.se/husdjur/hund/c/hundfoder (hundfoder means dogfood) The question is whether we should keep the duplicated category name (hundfoder) before the "/c/" or not. Will there be SEO disadvantages by removing the duplicate "hundfoder" before the "/c/"? I prefer the shorter version ofc, but do not want to jeopardize any SEO rankings or send confusing signals to search engines or customers due to the "/c/" breaking up the url breadcrumb. What do you guys say and prefer from the above alternatives? Thanks /Hampus0 -
PDF Optimization Question: Does URL Structure Matter?
Hi Mozzers: I am optimizing a bunch of PDF brochures within a client's website. Besides the typical optimization tactics I'm applying, (like these) I have a question regarding the file/url structure of the PDFs themselves. By default, the client is locating PDFs in an 'uploads' folder of their Wordpress site. So, a typical PDF might have a URL such as: https://www.Xyzinsurance.com/xyz-content/uploads/2015/06/Brochure-XYZ-Connect.pdf My question: is there any advantage in eliminating all these sub-directories and moving the files into a main folder, simply titled '/brochures' ?? Any insights or conjecture would be welcome!
Technical SEO | | Daaveey0 -
Yet Another, Yet Important URL structure query.
Massive changes to our stock media site and structure here. While we have an extensive category system previously our category pages have only been our search pages with ID numbers for sorting categories. Now we have individual category pages. We have about 600 categories with about 4 max tiers. We have about 1,000,000 total products and issues with products appearing to be duplicate. Our current URL structure for producta looks like this: http://example.com/main-category/12345/product-name.htm Here is how I was planning on doing the new structure: Cat tier 1: http://example.com/category-one/ Cat tier 2: http://example.com/category-one/category-two/ Cat tier 3: http://example.com/category-one-category-two/category-three Cat tier 4: http://example.com/category-one-category-two-category-three/category-four/ Product: http://example.com/category-one-category-two-category-three/product-name-12345.htm Thoughts? Thanks! Craig
Technical SEO | | TheCraig0 -
Duplicate Content Question
I have a client that operates a local service-based business. They are thinking of expanding that business to another geographic area (a drive several hours away in an affluent summer vacation area). The name of the existing business contains the name of the city, so it would not be well-suited to market 'City X' business in 'City Y'. My initial thought was to (for the most part) 'duplicate' the existing site onto a new site (brand new root domain). Much of the content would be the exact same. We could re-word some things so there aren't entire lengthy paragraphs of identical info, but it seems pointless to completely reinvent the wheel. We'll get as creative as possible, but certain things just wouldn't change. This seems like the most pragmatic thing to do given their goals, but I'm worried about duplicate content. It doesn't feel as though this is spammy though, so I'm not sure if there's cause for concern.
Technical SEO | | stevefidelity0 -
Canonical URL
I previously set the canonical Url in google web masters to the non www version, when I check my on page opt, it tells me that I have a critical issue with this. Should I change it in google web masters back to the www version? if so is there the possibility of negative results? Or is there a better way to deal with this? Note, I have inbound links pointing to both types.
Technical SEO | | bronxpad0 -
Robots.txt Question
In the past, I had blocked a section of my site (i.e. domain.com/store/) by placing the following in my robots.txt file: "Disallow: /store/" Now, I would like the store to be indexed and included in the search results. I have removed the "Disallow: /store/" from the robots.txt file, but approximately one week later a Google search for the URL produces the following meta description in the search results: "A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt – learn more" Is there anything else I need to do to speed up the process of getting this section of the site indexed?
Technical SEO | | davidangotti0 -
Duplicate pages, overly dynamic URL’s and long URL’s in Magento
Hi there, I’ve just completed the first crawl of my Magento site and SEOMOZ has picked up 1,000’s of duplicate pages, overly dynamic URL’s and long URL’s due to the sort function which appends URL’s with variables when sorting products (e.g. www.example.com?dir=asc&order=duration). I’m not particularly concerned that this will affect our rankings as Google has stated that they are familiar with the structure of popular CMS’s and Magento is pretty popular. However it completely dominates my crawl diagnostics so I can’t see if there are any real underlying issues. Does anyone know a way of preventing this? Cheers,
Technical SEO | | WendyWuTours
Al.1 -
Can URL re writes fix the problem of critical content too deep in a sites structure?
Good morning from Wetherby UK 🙂 Ok imagine this scenario. You ask the developers to design a site where "offices to let" is on level two of a sites hierachy and so the URL would look like this: http://www.sandersonweatherall.co.uk/office-to-let. But Yikes when it goes live it ends up like this: http://www.sandersonweatherall.co.uk...s/residential/office-to-let Is a fix to this a URL re - write? Or is the only fix relocating the office to let content further up the site structure? Any insights welcome 🙂
Technical SEO | | Nightwing0