Replacing "_" with "-" in url, results in new url?
-
We ran SEOmoz's "On-Page Optimization" tool on a url which contains the character "_".
According to the tool:
"Characters which are less commonly used in URLs may cause problems with accessibility, interpretation and ranking in search engines. It is considered a best practice to stick to standard URL structures to avoid potential problems."
"Rewrite the URL to contain only standard characters."
Therefore we will rewrite the url, replacing "_" with "-".
Will search engines consider the "-" url a different one? Do we need to 301 the old url to the new one?
Thanks for your help!
-
One reason to change all URLs from _ to - is conformity.
If you have some that are _ and some that are -
the question is how will you remember which one to use, for a particular page?
For that reason, I would convert them all.
As for using a canonical tag, I don't know, you'd need to know what google and otehr search engines do with that information, if anything. I would also worry about what they will do with it in the future, because these things are liable to change.
If it was me, I would change them all and redirect the stragglers.
-
Why not use rel canonical? I would prefer that to a 301 (my 2nd choice)
-
To throw in my 2 cents, the benefit in rewriting the URL (and making a 301) comes from Google's ability to then clearly recognize the keywords that you're using within it (assuming that you're synching your on page KWs). Google views hot_keyword_landing_page.html as hotkeywordlandingpage.html - Matt Cutts on underscores vs. dashes in URLs. The downside is having to keep the 301 in place if the page has IBLs.
-
Yes it will. Had to re-write a few items myself and any little change will make a new URL.
301 it is best.
-
FYI, based on the information provided by the SEOmoz tool we will revamp the page (tags, look, content), therefore it'll be a "new page".
-
As stated before, the answer is Yes. Should you do it ? I would answer no.
You should do it for new content, but do move all you're content to other URL and 301 just for this. This would no do too much good.
-
Well this is an easy one.
_Will search engines consider the "-" url a different one? _Yes.
Do we need to 301 the old url to the new one? Yes.
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
-
Canonical URL Category and Tags
Hello, I would like to know that I want to use both category and tags in my blog StylishMahi. If I index both category and tags, should I use canonical URL tag to pass referring to main category. As I want more my categories in SERP results ranking higher? I have also attached a picture. Can someone please confirm? Photo by Moz ZigdWMx
On-Page Optimization | | PratapSingh0 -
Why Isnt My New Article Indexed?
I posted this article last night: http://www.londontri.com/325/tomtom-runner-gps-watch-review It didn't appear in Google's index this morning despite me pointing a few high quality links to it (not keyword optimized links, just links from high quality forum posts) On closer examination I thought that the problem could be due to a keyword stuffing penalty so I have made sure that I am not repeating too many words/word combinations using a keyword density checker but the article is still not indexed. Any ideas what could be going on?
On-Page Optimization | | ross88guy0 -
Recommendation: Add a canonical URL tag referencing this URL to the header of the page.
Please clarify: In the page optimization tool, seomoz recommends using the canonical url tag on the unique page itself. Is it the same canonical url tag used when want juice to go to the original page? Although the canonical URL tag is generally thought of as a way to solve duplicate content problems, it can be extremely wise to use it on every (unique) page of a site to help prevent any query strings, session IDs, scraped versions, licensing deals or future developments to potentially create a secondary version and pull link juice or other metrics away from the original. We believe the canonical URL tag is a best practice to help prevent future problems, even if nothing is specifically duplicate/problematic today. Please give example.
On-Page Optimization | | AllIsWell0 -
URL Rewrite
(By Google Traductor) Hello, I wanted to ask about some changes that we are evaluating for the issue of passing the url with variables to be more descriptive, for example: http://www.agroads.com.ar/detalle.asp?clasi=139592 tohttp://www.agroads.com.ar/humedimetro-para-cereales-draminski-gmm-139592.html In this case corresponds to the breakdown of a product if you have long published andcan be well positioned to change the title of this position would be lost unless youmanage it with a 301, as one would manage when you have more than 30000 products and title may change several times? There are tools to manage this? Finally, we must apply this to all listed with their respective filters, recommends doingtheir part with 301 redirects and analyze what funciene well to continue with the rest or implement a complete change? I hope I can bring a little light to implement this. Greetings and thanks! Roberto
On-Page Optimization | | romaro0 -
SEF URLs. Should I use / or - ?
I have o activate SEF URLs in a website. Regarding SEO, is there any difference between using / or - ? I mean, Is it better to write URLs like this: http://www.domain.com/folder/folder/page or like this: http://www.domain.com/folder-folder-page ? Is there any difference? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | ociosu0 -
Does having a "+" in a URL hurt SEO? Would much value be gained changing it to a hyphen?
There's a site that contains "+" signs in the URL in order to call different information for the content on the page. Would it be better to change those to hyphens (-), or not that much value will be gained, so leave them as is? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | MitchellStoker0 -
How many urls per page is to many
I know it used to be 100 urls per page, but recently Matt cutts has said that they can count a lot more now. I was wonder what you guys thought was how many was to many per page?
On-Page Optimization | | Gordian0 -
Should I include a "|" for better page title SEO results?
I have seen many sites that include the "|" in page titles and was wondering if there is some SEO value in the practice. Example: Product Name | Company Name Instead of: Product Name by Company Name I have not seen any value in it myself other than a good way to avoid stop words. I wanted to make sure. Currently I have the "by" included in the page titles.
On-Page Optimization | | JedHenning0