URL Length Issue
-
MOZ is telling me the URLs are too long.
I did a little research and I found out that the length of the URLs is not really a serious problem. In fact, others recommend ignoring the situation.
Even on their blog I found this explanation:
"Shorter URLs are generally preferable. You do not need to take this to the extreme, and if your URL is already less than 50-60 characters, do not worry about it at all. But if you have URLs pushing 100+ characters, there's probably an opportunity to rewrite them and gain value.
This is not a direct problem with Google or Bing - the search engines can process long URLs without much trouble. The issue, instead, lies with usability and user experience. Shorter URLs are easier to parse, copy and paste, share on social media, and embed, and while these may all add up to a fractional improvement in sharing or amplification, every tweet, like, share, pin, email, and link matters (either directly or, often, indirectly)."
And yet, I have these questions: In this case, why do I get this error telling me that the urls are too long, and what are the best practices to get this out?
Thank You
-
Question: if you start redirecting the longer URLs for the shorter, don't you get actually do get dinged for - ecessive 301s or daisy-chain 301s.
How do you handle this for large sites with products? Canonicals?
-
Agree with Steve above. URL length is a very minimal SEO factor, to attempt to shorten them you could do an analysis of your URLs "silo structure" and see if you can get rid of unnecessary parts of the link.
For example, if you have "xyz.com/services/marketing/seo/local-seo", you can maybe cut "services" and "marketing" (and maybe even "seo" from the structure, so the URL can just be "xyz.com/local-seo", and then 301 the old URL to the new of course.
Check out this article from Search Engine Land for more info on URL Structure for SEO- https://searchengineland.com/infographic-ultimate-guide-seo-friendly-urls-249397
-
It's a signal that may be valuable for sites but one that may not have a huge impact on it's own.
I like to have shorter URLs because it ends up being easier and more friendly to share. Longer URLs can be a deterrent. I also like to pay closer attention to the click depth of the page, not just length of the URL.
I'm not sure you'll be hurt by a long URL like:
http://www.yourtld.com/blog/02/08/18/some-crazy-long-slug-nested-with-dates-that-triggers-moz-errorsI would bet you can get that page ranked if the content is valuable enough, even with a longer URL. But the issues start to pop up If you have a site that has content only found by browsing the nested pages it is a larger issue.
For example:
http://yourtold.com/services/cleaning/windows/indoors
This is an example where I'm really worried about the length, but more importantly the overall structure of the URL and site. It may be difficult users, and crawlers to find this content making it less search friendly overall when the content is 4-5 layers deep.
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
-
404 errors High Priority Issues in Moz Pro: change to 301 or not ?
Hi there, Moz Pro is showing us 404 errors on our site as High Priority Issues. These 404 errors regard deleted product pages, which we did not 301. Should we 301 them all backwards ? We have an ecommerce site. After reading How Should You Handle Expired Content? on Moz and a few other Q&A discussions I now know we should 301 each expired url and now we do so. My concern is with what was done in the past, and what we should do about it: for the past few years we have been leaving the pages on the site, creating a big amount of outdated url's without either content nor traffic in march our IT decided to delete these url's, and ask for a webpage removal in Google Search Console: we 301 only a 40 url's and 404 the other 3500 now 6 monthts after, we still have 2500 crawl errors in the Search Console, and Moz Pro finding each week new 404 errors Our SEO consultant says we should not bother about the errors shown in the Search Console. But I am concerned about these errors not reducing, and about Moz Pro High Priority Issues: should we 301 the url's to similar categories or products?
Moz Pro | | isabelledylag0 -
Issue with follerwonk
Hey, im having issues with followerwonk. Activate my pro because when i go in search bio feater it goes back to standard and i can t use service app shows installed too. fix thanks
Moz Pro | | hunterh0 -
Does a url with no trailing slash (/)need A special redirect to the same url with a trailing slash (/)
I recently moved a website to wordpress which the wordpress default includes the trailing slash (/) after ALL urls. My url structure used to look like: www.example.com/blue-widgets Now it looks like: www.example.com/blue-widgets/ Today I checked the urls using Open Site Explorer and below is what I discovered: www.example.com/blue-widgets returned all my links, authority, etc HOWEVER there is a note that says........."Oh Hey! it looks like that URL redirects to www.example.com/blue-widgets/. Would you like to see data for that URL instead?" When I click on the link to THAT URL I get a note that says_.....NO DATA AVAILABLE FOR THIS URL._ Does this mean that www.example.com/blue-widgets/ really has NO DATA? How do I fix this?
Moz Pro | | webestate0 -
Seomoz shows issue with canconical
Hi When I use the on-page research tool seomoz tells me I have an issue with the rel canconical tag pointing to the wrong url, but I have it set so that on this particular page it points to itself (as per recommendation from seomoz) full url is http://www.growingyourownveg.com/how-to-grow/garlic.html in head section i have <base href="http://www.growingyourownveg.com/"> Have I got this wrong? Google and Bing appear to accept it OK Thanks
Moz Pro | | spes1230 -
I have a Rel Canonical "notice" in my Crawl Diagnostics report. I'm presuming that means that the spider has detected a rel canonical tag and it is working as opposed to warning about an issue, is this correct?
I know this seems like a really dumb question but the site I'm working on is a BigCommerce one and I've been concerned about canonicalisation issues prior to receiving this report (I'm a SEOmoz pro newbie also!) and I just want to be clear I am reading this notice correctly. I presume this means that the site crawl has detected the rel canonical tag on these pages and it is working correctly. Is this correct?? Any input is much appreciated. Thanks
Moz Pro | | seanpearse0 -
How to remove Duplicate content due to url parameters from SEOMoz Crawl Diagnostics
Hello all I'm currently getting back over 8000 crawl errors for duplicate content pages . Its a joomla site with virtuemart and 95% of the errors are for parameters in the url that the customer can use to filter products. Google is handling them fine under webmaster tools parameters but its pretty hard to find the other duplicate content issues in SEOMoz with all of these in the way. All of the problem parameters start with ?product_type_ Should i try and use the robot.txt to stop them from being crawled and if so what would be the best way to include them in the robot.txt Any help greatly appreciated.
Moz Pro | | dfeg0 -
Open Site Explorer Issue - Pullng up No-follow links when settings ask for Follow + 301 Redirect..
Anybody else having this issue? Here lately when I am doing competitive research on open site explorer I set it to only pull up followed + 301 redirects and it will still pull up no-follow competitors links. Can anybody help me out here?
Moz Pro | | axzm0 -
Can overly dynamic URLs be overcome with canonical meta tags?
I tried searching for questions regarding dynamic URLs and canonical tags, but I couldn't find anything s hopefully this hasn't been covered. There are a large number of overly dynamic URLs reported in our site crawl (>7,000). I haven't looked at each of these, but most of these either have a canonical meta tag or have are indicated as FOLLOW, NO INDEX pages. Will these be enough to overcome any negative SEO impact that may come from overly dynamic URLs? We are down to almost 0 critical errors and this is now the biggest problem reported by the site crawl after too many on page links.
Moz Pro | | afmaury0