Should I shorten my urls?
-
For my informational site I have a lot of urls that are way too long. When I first created the site, I wrote a script that takes out the common words of a post and fashions a url. So, for example, if the first few words of a question were:
Hi there, I have a question about back pain. I'm wondering what drugs would be good for relief and how I can get some help?
then my url may be:
www.mydomain.com/question?id=123-question-back-pain-wondering-drugs-good-relief-how-get-some-help
Once I got learning about seo I realized that these urls were too long but I never did anything about them. Should I be shortening these, or is my time best spent doing something else?
-
That is brilliant Marcus. The if-else idea regarding the ID makes so much sense. I will leave the old ones as is and change the ones from this point on.
Thanks!
p.s. I noticed that seomoz does the same thing with the Q&A urls. This one's not too long because I asked a short question but some of the question urls in here are quite long!
-
Hey
That's a solid point from EGOL - if there are ones that are working well at the moment, don't rock the boat and look to improve new content. The dynamic thing does make it a bit more tricky but really, it should not be a massive problem.
If your URLs are generated by the script and you have some kind of ID relating to the content you are adding it should be easy enough to put something in place that uses better quality URLs for new content.
If contentID > x Then
Build new URL Structure
Else
Build old URL Structure
End
Whether you do this entirely in the code or with some URL rewriting to add polish is up to you and in some part depends on how things work on your back end but...
Where there is a will there is a way and if you can shorten future URLs it will provide some benefit.
Maybe you could do some testing to see if it is going to be worth your while
- Create a few hard coded new pages over the next month
- Track them against the current pages
- see if there is a statistical improvement in clicks, conversions, impressions etc
I am pretty much of the opinion that if you can change them going forward, you should as they are not brilliant at the moment but I would not expect miracles from this though so don't bust a blood vessel over it.
Cheers
Marcus -
You could definitely redirect URLs using .htaccess and mod_rewrite. An example rule would be something like
RewriteRule ^q/(.*) /?question=$1
or
RewriteRule ^q/(.*)-(\d+) /?question=$2-$1
See the mod_rewrite documentation or just ask a competent developer about the rules above.
-
I definitely agree with the "messy" thing. Every few months I think, "Oh, I should fix that long url thingy", but then my brain gets shorted out trying to think of how to do it. I wanted to do a htaccess redirect but because the url is written with a php script I just can't figure out how to do it.
Invariably what happens is that I manage to get my mind onto other more exciting things and then I just do nothing and I end up having more and more ugly long urls.
-
ahh... this question is getting messy...
I don't know exactly how the rel-canonical tag will work in this situation.
-
Thanks guys. One of my problems is that all of these urls are generated dynamically. So, I'm thinking of changing the script on that page so that it generates a shorter url. Then, I think I can use the rel-canonical tag to tell Google that the short urls are the ones to use.
If I do that will the long ones drop out of the index?
-
If you can change future URLs without changing the historic URLs then I would leave the old ones "as is". (Meaning... change future but not old ones)
It will take work to change them and if you do a 301 then there might be some link power lost.
I always like to base my decisions at least in part on analytics, so if these pages are pulling nice traffic and ranking in the SERPs then I would not do a thing about the old ones.
Just an opinion.
-
Hey, they are too long and don't really make any sense so... I think they need improving.
In an ideal world your URL should describe the content of the page as it will help win clicks and may give you an SEO boost through links that use the URL itself as the anchor.
Shorten them though, should be easy enough and certainly gives a usability boost.
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
-
What should my main sitemap URL be?
Hi Mozzers - regarding the URL of a website's main website: http://example.com/sitemap.xml is the normal way of doing it but would it matter if I varied this to: http://example.com/mainsitemapxml.xml or similar? I can't imagine it would matter but I have never moved away from the former before - and one of my clients doesn't want to format the URL in that way. What the client is doing is actually quite interesting - they have the main sitemap: http://example.com/sitemap.xml - that redirects to the sitemap file which is http://example.com/sitemap (with no xml extension) - might that redirect and missing xml extension the redirected to sitemap cause an issue? Never come across such a setup before. Thanks in advance for your feedback - Luke
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Changing URLS: from a short well optimised URL to a longer one – What's the traffic risk
I'm working with a client who has a website that is relatively well optimised, thought it has a pretty flat structure and a lot of top level pages. They've invested in their content over the years and managed to rank well for key search terms. They're currently in the process of changing CMS and as a result of new folder structuring in the CMS the URLs for some pages look to have significantly changed. E.g Existing URL is: website.com/grampians-luxury-accommodation which ranked quite well for luxury accommodation grampians New URL when site is launched on new CMS would be website.com/destinations/victoria/grampians My feeling is that the client is going to lose out on a bit of traffic as a result of this. I'm looking for information or ways or case studies to demonstrate the degree of risk, and to help make a recommendation to mitigate risk.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | moge0 -
URL Migration: Better to have .301s processed or 200s?
I'm migrating sub-domains to sub-folders, but this question is likely applicable for most URL migrations. For example: subdomain1.example.com to example.com/subdomain1 and any child pages. Bear with me as it may just be me but I'm having trouble understanding whether internal links (menu, contextual etc and potentially the sitemaps) should be kept as the pre-migration URL (with .301 in place to the new URL) to give Google a chance to process the redirects or if they should be updated straight away to the new URL to provide a 200 response as so many guides suggest. The reason I ask is unless Google specifically visits the old URL from their index (and therefore processes the .301), it's likely to be found by following internal links on the website or similar which if they're updated to reflect the new URL will return a 200. I would imagine that this would be treated as a new page, which is concerning as it would have a canonical pointing toward itself and the same content as the pre-migrated URL. Is this a problem? Do we need to allow proper processing of redirects for migrations or is Google smarter than this and can work it out if they visit the old URL at a later date and put two and two together? What happens in-between? I haven't seen any migration guides suggest leaving .301s in place but to amend links to 200 as soon as possible in all instances. One thought is I guess there's also the Fetch as Google tool within Search Console which could be used with the old URLs - could this be relied on? Apologies if this topic has been covered before but it's quite difficult to search for without returning generic topics around .301 redirects. Hope it makes sense - appreciate any responses!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AmyCatlow0 -
URL Injection Hack - What to do with spammy URLs that keep appearing in Google's index?
A website was hacked (URL injection) but the malicious code has been cleaned up and removed from all pages. However, whenever we run a site:domain.com in Google, we keep finding more spammy URLs from the hack. They all lead to a 404 error page since the hack was cleaned up in the code. We have been using the Google WMT Remove URLs tool to have these spammy URLs removed from Google's index but new URLs keep appearing every day. We looked at the cache dates on these URLs and they are vary in dates but none are recent and most are from a month ago when the initial hack occurred. My question is...should we continue to check the index every day and keep submitting these URLs to be removed manually? Or since they all lead to a 404 page will Google eventually remove these spammy URLs from the index automatically? Thanks in advance Moz community for your feedback.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | peteboyd0 -
How careful do you need to be about changes to readable URLs?
We are moving to Sitecore where the standard out the box is that if you change page title it amends the URL as well. I am worried that this will lead to SEO issues and am considering whether we need to get it locked down so that if the page title is amended (only in a minor way) it does not also change the URL. I have never worked with readable URLs before - what are the implications of the URL not exactly matching the wording of the page title?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | alzheimerssoc0 -
URL Parameter & crawl stats
Hey Guys,I recently used the URL parameter tool in WBT to mark different urls that offers the same content.I have the parameter "?source=site1" , "?source=site2", etc...It looks like this: www.example.com/article/12?source=site1The "source parameter" are feeds that we provide to partner sites and this way we can track the referral site with our internal analytics platform.Although, pages like:www.example.com/article/12?source=site1 have canonical to the original page www.example.com/article/12, Google indexed both of the URLs
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mr.bfz
www.example.com/article/12?source=site1andwww.example.com/article/12Last week I used the URL parameter tool to mark "source" parameter "No, this parameter doesnt effect page content (track usage)" and today I see a 40% decrease in my crawl stats.In one hand, It makes sense that now google is not crawling the repeated urls with different sources but in the other hand I thought that efficient crawlability would increase my crawl stats.In additional, google is still indexing same pages with different source parameters.I would like to know if someone have experienced something similar and by increasing crawl efficiency I should expect my crawl stats to go up or down?I really appreciate all the help!Thanks!0 -
What will the effect of normalising the case of my URLs be?
Hi all, I have a web site with a selection of pages with excellent rankings, mostly in the top 3 for the keywords we want to rank for. Currently, the URLs are mostly presented mixed case, like this: www.mydomain.com/Type/ITEM-IDENTIFIER/ However we have problems of different cases being used in different parts of our application, and also it's obviously not that attractive the way it is. What we are proposing to do is deploy a change to our web site that lowercases all URLs in internal links, as well as present the URLs in lowercase in our sitemap.xml, and provide any links to partners from this point on in lowercase format. We are also proposing to 301 redirect any non-lowercase URLs to the lowercase version. These pages already have a canonical link tag due to us hosting different versions of these pages on multiple domains, for skinning purposes. The link in the canonical link tag will also be changed to be lowercase. What I am concerned about is, URLs of the case above have been in the rankings for a few years now, and if all of a sudden our links are all lowercase, will they drop off the rankings? Or will the above measures mean that the pagerank is transferred to the lowercase version of the URL? Thanks in advance, James
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SeeTickets0 -
What url should i link to?
Hi everybody, after some discussions i decided to keep my page on the old domain for better seo rankings; However, the new third level domain sounds better: poltronafraubrescia.zenucchi.it.... the question is: i'm going to recive a high value link and i don't know if i should link directly to the old adress ( www.zenucchi.it/ITA/poltrona-frau-brescia.it ) where the page is located or to the new one by making a 301 redirect to the previous. what's best? and second question what's the way to keep the page on this adress ( www.zenucchi.it/ITA/poltrona-frau-brescia.it ) but show poltronafraubrescia.zenucchi.it as url? thank you guido
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | guidoboem0