Hlp with site setup
-
Hi there and thanks for the great information, certainly lots to take in.
Can anyone suggest the best way to setup product / category url structure for a store?
At the moment we have something like domainname.com/parentcategory/subcategory/product name.html
As the product url, we edited url structure using a plugin, we don't use default WooCommerce url settings.
domainname.com/parentcategory/subcategory/product name.html. this can sometimes be long
But when you click on the product the url changes to the following.
domainname.com/product name.html. This can shorted the url by 40% and still have keyword in url
Is there any benefit in doing his? Re canonical urls, I only have about 15 products that are selected in many categories.the other 200 are under once category only.
Product pages don't have many backlinks at the moment.
Thanking you so much.
-
HI seoelevated thaks again for taking the time to explain.
That helps a lot and will adjust the site accordingly, it makes sense.
-
To my understanding, a redirect and a canonical are treated very similarly from an SEO standpoint. With either of these, only the end URL (either the one to which you are redirecting, or the one linked in the canonical reference) is the one which, if all directives are honored, gets indexed. So, unless I'm missing something, there is no benefit at all of having the category paths in the URLs if you are either redirecting from those to the flat one, or if you are pointing a canonical to the flat one. The benefit would be there if those keywords were in the final URL (redirected or canonical). But if the final URL is flat, then I don't think you get any benefits from the non-canonical URLs having keywords in their paths. So, if the flat URL is the final one, from either method, I would ensure that the "product name" is fully descriptive with the desired keywords.
-
Hi seoelevated, thanks for taking the time to explain.
The reason for asking was that I noticed many sites that rank well within our industry display the full path in their urls, for example, domainname.com/parentcategory/subcategory/product name.html and this allows them to do as you suggested, have keywords in the category, then sub cat and then finally the product title.
Many when clicking on a product remove the categoy urls completely, something like this, domainname.com/product name.html and I didn't understand why but it makes sense now. I just thought that there might have been an SEO benefit to doing this.
Looking at our site we do have the following setup link href="https://www.domainname.com/category/subcat/product.html/" rel="canonical" so I assume that this tells google the right path to follow. I think that the disadvantage here is that urls can become quite long so they need to be optimised, much shorter than they are now.
As of accessing urls from many locations, some articles that you read say that the url should only be accessible from one path which was my worry. Although the cannical url tag is there I dont know if its it hurts our website if you can still access from all of the following, is this okay or should I not worry about it.
domainname.com/parentcategory/subcategory/product name.html
domainname.com/subcategory/product name.html
domainname.com/product name.html
domainname.com/parentcategory/product name.html -
The benefit of the directory paths approach is the additional keywords, if your product name (or ID) is not in itself descriptive enough. For example, if you have a sofa style named "Diana", you wouldn't want your URL to be domainname.com/diana.html. Something like domainname.com/furniture/sofas/diana.html would be better.
But, you can accomplish that with more descriptive product IDs. So, in the example above, if you could make your product name "furniture-sofas-diana", then your URL would be domainname.com/furniture-sofas-diana.html, which accomplishes the same keyword targeting.
And then that solves the issue of when products are in multiple categories, since it's a flat URL regardless of how the visitor arrived to the page.
But if your products are really almost entirely in a single category each (keeping in mind temporary categories like "sale", "new", etc.), and they will be that way forever, then there is an argument to be made for the paths. Because it does help the search engine to parse up your site, and to provide nice breadcrumbs on your listings.
This is really a perennial debate. And there's no one answer. For most of us, we do have to live with products being in multiple categories, as the norm (especially when considering categories like sale, new, best sellers, etc.). Canonical reference links help this issue, but aren't necessarily ideal.
But, what really struck me in your question was that you said the URL changes when you click on the product. Ideally, you don't want all your internal links to be redirects. That's something I would try to avoid.
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
-
Does ID's in URL is good for SEO? Will SEO Submissions sites allow such urls submissions?
Example url: http://public.beta.travelyaari.com/vrl-travels-13555-online It's our sites beta URL, We are going to implement it for our site. After implementation, it will be live on travelyaari.com like this - "https://www.travelyaari.com/vrl-travels-13555-online". We have added the keywords etc in the URL "VRL Travels". But the problems is, there are multiple VRL travels available, so we made it unique with a unique id in URL - "13555". So that we can exactly get to know which VRL Travels and it is also a solution for url duplication. Also from users / SEO point of view, the url has readable texts/keywords - "vrl travels online". Can some Moz experts suggest me whether it will affect SEO performance in any manner? SEO Submissions sites will accept this URL? Meanwhile, I had tried submitting this URL to Reddit etc. It got accepted.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RobinJA0 -
Site redesign what to consider to avoid any issues
Hi GUYS I want to avoid getting myself into a bad situation with google, so I'm just wanting to know if there are any steps I would need to take whilst I'm redesigning and developing my site as I'm currently deploying our new designs. One thing I noticed, i have my new designs and content on our development server to run through any checks before deploying it to the live environment, however while our live site is up, I have duplicate content on the live site that exactly matches the dev site for obvious reasons but do I need to tell google that the dev site is for development purposes only so google knows I'm not duplicating content? I have searched around to find some more info about this, if anyone has some insight i would be glad to know your thoughts. Thank you in advance
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | edward-may0 -
G.A. question - removing a specific page's data from total site's results?
I hope I can explain this clearly, hang in there! One of the clients of the law firm I work for does some SEO work for the firm and one thing he has been doing is googling a certain keyword over and over again to trick google's auto fill into using that keyword. When he runs his program he generates around 500 hits to one of our attorney's bio pages. This happens once or twice a week, and since I don't consider them real organic traffic it has been really messing up my GA reports. Is there a way to block that landing page from my overall reports? Or is there a better way to deal with the skewed data? Any help or advice is appreciated, I am still so new to SEO I feel like a lot of my questions are obvious, but please go easy on me!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | MyOwnSEO0 -
Can links from an old site raise DA for other site? Or just unethical?
So this may be an odd question. So a competing company went out of business. Their domain name is now available. So just for research purposes, would you ever or would it be unethical for a person to buy an expired competing domain name, and point it to another site to collect their link juice? The site was only a DA of 10, but not sure if one - its bad to buy a competing companies expired domain - and two - even though in the same industry, this would be bad to point it to another site or create a site from it. Just curious your thoughts.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | asbchris0 -
Is one of my competitors trying to get my site penalized?
Hi guys, I have been ranking #2 for a popular search term for several months now, and today I noticed a drop to #5, so I went to check my backlink profile, and I'm seeing thousands of no-follow exact keyword matched backlinks, all from spammy looking websites. I looked at some of the links and they do link to me, but I didn't generate these links, and I have never paid anybody externally to build links for me. What is the best course of action for me here? link disavow tool?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | davegill0 -
Penalty for all new sites on a domain?
Hi @all, a friend has an interesting problem. He got a manuel link penalty in the end of 2011...it is an old domain with domainpop >5000 but with a lot bad links (wigdet and banners and other seo domains, but nothing like scrapebox etc)...he lost most of the traffic a few days after the notification in WMT (unnatural links) and an other time after the first pinguin update in april´12. In the end of 2012 after deleting (or nofollowing) and disavow a lot of links google lifted the manuel penalty (WMT notification). But nothing happened after lifting, the rankings didn´t improve (after 4 months already!). Almost all money keywords aren´t in the top 100, no traffic increases and he has good content on this domain. We built a hand of new trust links to test some sites but nothing improved. We did in february a test and build a completely new site on this domain, it´s in the menu and got some internal links from content...We did it, because some sites which weren´t optimized before the penalty (no external backlinks) are still ranking on the first google site for small keywords. After a few days the new site started to rank with our keyword between 40-45. That was ok and as we expected. This site was ranking constantly there for almost 6 weeks and now its gone since ten days. We didn´t change anything. It´s the same phenomena like the old sites on this domain...the site doesnt even rank for the title! Could it still be an manuel penalty for the hole domain or what kind of reasons are possible? Looking forward for your ideas and hope you unterstand the problem! 😉 Thanks!!!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | TheLastSeo0 -
Google-backed sites' link profiles
Curious what you SEO people think of the link profiles of these (high-ranking) Google-backed UK sites: http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?site=www.startupdonut.co.uk http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?site=www.lawdonut.co.uk http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?site=www.marketingdonut.co.uk http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?site=www.itdonut.co.uk http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?site=www.taxdonut.co.uk Each site has between 40k and 50k inlinks counted in OSE. However, there are relatively few linking root domains in each case: 273 for marketingdonut 216 for startupdonut 90 for lawdonut 53 for itdonut 16 for taxdonut Is there something wrong with the OSE data here? Does this imply that the average root domain linking to the taxdonut site does so with 2857 links? The sites have no significant social media stats. The sites are heavily inter-linked. Also linked from the operating business, BHP Information Solutions (tagline "Gain access to SMEs"). Is this what Google would think of as a "natural" link profile? Interestingly, they've managed to secure links on quite a few UK local authority resources pages - generally being the only commercial website on those pages.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | seqal0 -
Opinions Wanted: Links Can Get Your Site Penalized?
I'm sure by now a lot of you have had a chance to read the Let's Kill the "Bad Inbound Links Can Get Your Site Penalized" Myth over at SearchEngineJournal. When I initially read this article, I was happy. It was confirming something that I believed, and supporting a stance that SEOmoz has taken time and time again. The idea that bad links can only hurt via loss of link juice when they get devalued, but not from any sort of penalization, is indeed located in many articles across SEOmoz. Then I perused the comments section, and I was shocked and unsettled to see some industry names that I recognized were taking the opposite side of the issue. There seems to be a few different opinions: The SEOmoz opinion that bad links can't hurt except for when they get devalued. The idea that you wouldn't be penalized algorithmically, but a manual penalty is within the realm of possibility. The idea that both manual and algorithmic penalties were a factor. Now, I know that SEOmoz preaches a link building strategy that targets high quality back links, and so if you completely prescribe to the Moz method, you've got nothing to worry about. I don't want to hear those answers here - they're right, but they're missing the point. It would still be prudent to have a correct stance on this issue, and I'm wondering if we have that. What do you guys think? Does anybody have an opinion one way or the other? Does anyone have evidence of it being one way or another? Can we setup some kind of test, rank a keyword for an arbitrary term, and go to town blasting low quality links at it as a proof of concept? I'm curious to hear your responses.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | AnthonyMangia0