Search engine friendly URLs
-
I'm going to create some new content for my site, I'm trying to decide on the best search engine friendly format. Namely, is it ok to use a subdirectory or should I keep all content on root level?
Is the SEO effect of either of these URLs superior to the other?
-
I like this analysis and recommendation.
The only other thing I would say (if it's a page) is drop the trailing slash on the recommended URL to this:
domain.com/cooking/lasagnaThat makes it clear it's a page as opposed to a directory, and it also looks cleaner to the human eye.
Here's some more complete discussion on the trailing slash topic:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2010/04/to-slash-or-not-to-slash.html -
Hi Limens,
It is certainly fine to use a subdirectory, and can really make sense to help organize your content. It's also helpful in your analytics if you want to see who went to the blog area of your site versus the product area of your site.
It would help to know a little more about your site, but I would choose neither of the above. I'd actually go with something like domain.com/cooking/lasagna/. Note that I'm not including the .php. If you later switch to a different language, you won't have to redirect from php to asp or html, etc.
I wouldn't stuff your subfolder in your URL with keywords like the tasty-food in your example below. It just makes your URL longer and look a little more spammy to the human eye.
-
The second one is the best, because sort URLs are more relevant than long ones, but the best practices are http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/url
Use - instead of _ to separate keywords
-
this is what the length of URL would be in reality:
www.domaindom.com/cooking-tasty-food/lasagna_with_cheese.php
but if there is a good SEO reason, I could just put it on the root:
-
If your URLs are sort, the best way is to use domain.com/cooking/lasagna.php, this is the best way to optimize for lasagna and target secondary keywords cooking related.
Bye.
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
-
Fixing Index Errors in the new Google Search Console - Help
Hi, So I have started using the new Search Console and for one of my clients, there are a few 'Index Coverage Errors'. In the old version you could simply, analyse, test and then mark any URLs as fixed - does anyone know if that is possible in the new version? There are options to validate errors but no 'mark as fixed' options. Do you need to validate the errors before you can fix them?
On-Page Optimization | | daniel-brooks0 -
How to optimise a page for a regional search without it looking clumsy?
What's is the best way to go about optimising a page for a regional search phrase. E.g. 'Physiotherapy CITY' and keep the text looking natural and not manipulated? Previously I've added the search phrase 'Physiotherapy CITY' to TITLE and H1 but this can look clumsy when used in the H1 tag. If I grade a page using MOZ on-page optimisation it will suggest I add the search phrase to the H1. What the recommended way of doing regional on-page optimisation?
On-Page Optimization | | benners0 -
Changing URL Structure From Flat to Pyramid Theme
Hello Mozzers, I have an on-page SEO question regarding URL structure. A few months back we hired a full-time SEO person who is working on-page right now and she really wants us to completely re-due our URL restructure from a flat to pyramid style (example below). Current URL structure / page title is: Dog training Collars - K9electronics.com
On-Page Optimization | | k9byron
http://www.k9electronics.com/dog-training-collars/ Small Dog training Collars - K9electronics.com
http://www.k9electronics.com/small-dog-training-collars/ Einstein ET-300TS Mini Dog Training Collar - K9electronics.com
http://www.k9electronics.com/einstein-et-300ts-mini-remote-dog-trainer.html Suggested URL structure / page title change: Quality Dog Training Collars - Lowest Price Guarantee - K9electronics
http://www.k9electronics.com/dog-training-collars/ Dog Training Collars - Small Dog - K9electronics.com
http://www.k9electronics.com/dog-training-collars/small-dog/ Einstein ET-300TS Mini - Dog Training Collars - K9electronics.com
http://www.k9electronics.com/dog-training-collars/small-dog/einstein-et-300ts-mini I guess you could say we are the poster-boys for Google penalties and have received just about every penalty in the book. Panda, penguin algo penalties and a partial manual action for unnatural links. Several months ago we removed 1000's of in-bound links and had our manual action lifted a few months back and are now hovering around the top / mid 2nd page for all our big terms ...we used to be top 3 for everything. As we were removing bad links, we also completely redesigned the site and removed lots of categories and products and 95% of all our old, low quality content and replaced it with new, high quality content. The site was really slooooow, so we optimized it and moved it to a big dedicated server and tripled page load time. Added rich snippets, Google authorship, increased our FB and other social presences and much more ... I had also considered this URL structure change during the redesign because I had heard and read that it was good to do, but it required redirecting practically all our URL's which I know can hurt the site even more so then it already has been ... Our SEO says that as it sits now, our pages are competing with each other and really seems to think this is going to improve our rankings a lot ...after several weeks. My question is, at this stage in the game, is it really going to help a lot and give us more benefit compared to the 301 redirect link juice loss? Any comments and/or suggestions are very much appreciated!1 -
Url structure
Hi Guys, Wondering what is better for url structure say for example a key word "slow cooker" example.com/slowcooker or example.com/slow-cooker ? Thank you 🙂
On-Page Optimization | | GetApp0 -
301 Redirects From a URL without Keyphrases to one With Keyphrases
I have a client that sells services. Each service offered currently has a URL structure like this: www.companyname.com/product/asp$view-id-page3022-item-24 These pages are pretty old, and I would love to have a more user-friendly URL like this: www.companyname.com/product/purple-swatch-watch If I rename the URL and do a 301 redirect, what impact will that have on search? Ideally, this page will be optimized for "purple swatch watch", but the current URL structure is so... well, you know. My apologies if this has been answered before. I tried looking through archived of 301 issues, but lost hope after my first 10 or so attempts at answered didn't help this specific issue.
On-Page Optimization | | ericav0 -
Are flip books - pdf readers on websites SEO friendly?
I have a client with bar, most of their content is menus that are displayed in a flip book format. Is this content indexed by search engines, and if so, are they of any value for ranking?
On-Page Optimization | | SteveK640 -
Product sorting and dynamic urls
On our weekly SEOmoz crawls, we get thousands of warnings about overly dynamic URLs as a result of our product sorting options at the top of our category pages. It seems like the ability to sort products by price, name, etc., is nice for the customer. For SEO is this really a problem or can we ignore these warnings?
On-Page Optimization | | teatable0 -
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