undefined
Skip to content
Moz logo Menu open Menu close
  • Products
    • Moz Pro
    • Moz Pro Home
    • Moz Local
    • Moz Local Home
    • STAT
    • Moz API
    • Moz API Home
    • Compare SEO Products
    • Moz Data
  • Free SEO Tools
    • Domain Analysis
    • Keyword Explorer
    • Link Explorer
    • Competitive Research
    • MozBar
    • More Free SEO Tools
  • Learn SEO
    • Beginner's Guide to SEO
    • SEO Learning Center
    • Moz Academy
    • SEO Q&A
    • Webinars, Whitepapers, & Guides
  • Blog
  • Why Moz
    • Agency Solutions
    • Enterprise Solutions
    • Small Business Solutions
    • Case Studies
    • The Moz Story
    • New Releases
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • Products
    • Moz Pro

      Your all-in-one suite of SEO essentials.

    • Moz Local

      Raise your local SEO visibility with complete local SEO management.

    • STAT

      SERP tracking and analytics for enterprise SEO experts.

    • Moz API

      Power your SEO with our index of over 44 trillion links.

    • Compare SEO Products

      See which Moz SEO solution best meets your business needs.

    • Moz Data

      Power your SEO strategy & AI models with custom data solutions.

    NEW Keyword Suggestions by Topic
    Moz Pro

    NEW Keyword Suggestions by Topic

    Learn more
  • Free SEO Tools
    • Domain Analysis

      Get top competitive SEO metrics like DA, top pages and more.

    • Keyword Explorer

      Find traffic-driving keywords with our 1.25 billion+ keyword index.

    • Link Explorer

      Explore over 40 trillion links for powerful backlink data.

    • Competitive Research

      Uncover valuable insights on your organic search competitors.

    • MozBar

      See top SEO metrics for free as you browse the web.

    • More Free SEO Tools

      Explore all the free SEO tools Moz has to offer.

    What is your Brand Authority?
    Moz

    What is your Brand Authority?

    Check yours now
  • Learn SEO
    • Beginner's Guide to SEO

      The #1 most popular introduction to SEO, trusted by millions.

    • SEO Learning Center

      Broaden your knowledge with SEO resources for all skill levels.

    • On-Demand Webinars

      Learn modern SEO best practices from industry experts.

    • How-To Guides

      Step-by-step guides to search success from the authority on SEO.

    • Moz Academy

      Upskill and get certified with on-demand courses & certifications.

    • SEO Q&A

      Insights & discussions from an SEO community of 500,000+.

    Unlock flexible pricing & new endpoints
    Moz API

    Unlock flexible pricing & new endpoints

    Find your plan
  • Blog
  • Why Moz
    • Small Business Solutions

      Uncover insights to make smarter marketing decisions in less time.

    • Agency Solutions

      Earn & keep valuable clients with unparalleled data & insights.

    • Enterprise Solutions

      Gain a competitive edge in the ever-changing world of search.

    • The Moz Story

      Moz was the first & remains the most trusted SEO company.

    • Case Studies

      Explore how Moz drives ROI with a proven track record of success.

    • New Releases

      Get the scoop on the latest and greatest from Moz.

    Surface actionable competitive intel
    New Feature

    Surface actionable competitive intel

    Learn More
  • Log in
    • Moz Pro
    • Moz Local
    • Moz Local Dashboard
    • Moz API
    • Moz API Dashboard
    • Moz Academy
  • Avatar
    • Moz Home
    • Notifications
    • Account & Billing
    • Manage Users
    • Community Profile
    • My Q&A
    • My Videos
    • Log Out

The Moz Q&A Forum

  • Forum
  • Questions
  • Users
  • Ask the Community

Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.

  1. Home
  2. SEO Tactics
  3. Technical SEO
  4. URL - Well Formed or Malformed

Moz Q&A is closed.

After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.

URL - Well Formed or Malformed

Technical SEO
3
8
2.3k
Loading More Posts
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as question
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with question management privileges can see it.
  • well-its-1-louder
    well-its-1-louder last edited by Jun 2, 2013, 11:34 AM

    Hi Mozzers,

    I've been mulling over whether my URLs could benefit a little SEO tweaking. I'd be grateful for your opinion.

    For instance, we've a product, a vintage (second hand), red Chanel bag. At the moment the URL is:

    www.vintageheirloom.com/vintage-chanel-bags/2.55-bags/red-2.55-classic-double-flap-bag-1362483150

    Broken down...

    vintage-chanel-bags = this is the main product category, i.e. vintage chanel bags

    2.55-bags = is a sub category of the main category above. They are vintage Chanel 2.55 bags, but I've not included 'vintage' again. 2.55 bags are a type of Chanel bag.

    red-2.55-classic-double-flap-bag = this is the product, the bag

    **1362483150 **= this is a unique id, to prevent the possibility of duplicate URLs

    As you no doubt can see we target, in particular, the phrase **vintage. **The actual bag / product title is: Vintage Chanel Red 2.55 classic double flap bag 10” / 25cm

    With this in mind, would I be better off trying to match the product name with the end of the URL as closely as possible?

    So a close match below would involve not repeating 'chanel' again:

    www.vintageheirloom.com/chanel-bags/2.55-bags/vintage-red-2.55-classic-double-flap-bag

    or an exact match below would involve repeating 'chanel':

    www.vintageheirloom.com/chanel-bags/2.55-bags/vintage-chanel-red-2.55-classic-double-flap-bag

    This may open up more flexibility to experiment with product terms like second hand, preowned etc.

    Maybe this is a bad idea as I'm removing the phrase 'vintage' from the main category. But this logical extension of this looks like keyword stuffing !!

    www.vintageheirloom.com/vintage-chanel-bags/vintage-2.55-bags/vintage-chanel-red-2.55-classic-double-flap-bag

    Maybe this is over analyzing, but I doubt it?

    Thanks for looking.

    Kevin

    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
    • well-its-1-louder
      well-its-1-louder last edited by Jun 3, 2013, 2:12 PM Jun 3, 2013, 2:12 PM

      Thanks Everett,

      Strange, the product on the website appears in two places, on the homepage 'Featured' product, and in the Chanel > 2.55 bags category. When I check both I only see the product name after the .com/.

      Thanks for the heads up about restructuring to match the rel canonical, makes perfect sense. I'll be moving over to Wordpress, Woocomerce at some point in the future. I'll look into making the linkable URL neat and tidy as suggested.

      Much appreciated...

      Kevin

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • Everett
        Everett @well-its-1-louder last edited by Jun 3, 2013, 1:19 PM Jun 3, 2013, 1:19 PM

        The product I checked (see above) had rel canonical tags that used the first category (though not the second / sub-category). That is different than what you listed as "default" above.

        Having the default rel canonical tag be .com/product-name-UniqueID/ is fine too. The important thing here is that you should be consistent. Also realize that using the rel canonical tag like this is sort of a temporary band-aid. Ideally you would be linking to the canonical URL and displaying the canonical URL instead of linking to and displaying the non-canonical URL on the site and relying on the rel canonical tag to "fix" it.

        That should be fine for now. At some point in the future you probably want to make .com/product-name-UniqueID the version that gets linked to from elsewhere on the site (such as category pages) and for all other versions of that URL to 301 redirect to it.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • well-its-1-louder
          well-its-1-louder last edited by Jun 3, 2013, 1:10 PM Jun 3, 2013, 1:10 PM

          Hi Everett,

          Thank you for your considered response.

          Choice wise, I feel fairly constrained by my shopping cart (Opencart, and lack of technical ability !

          So am I correct in thinking that Google reads the rel canonical, not what appears in the URL? I've checked the generated rel canonical & by default it takes just the product name, probably as products, as you say, can be in more than 1 category. So I get: www.vintageheirloom.com/red-2.55-classic-double-flap-bag-1362483150

          As you say this omits the term chanel & vintage.

          With no understanding of how to implement your suggestion of putting all products into a 'products' category I think it might be safer for me to leave as is... for now. I'll certainly bear this in mind when I next rebuild the website, all good food for thought.

          Thanks!

          Everett 1 Reply Last reply Jun 3, 2013, 1:19 PM Reply Quote 1
          • Everett
            Everett last edited by Jun 3, 2013, 1:00 PM Jun 3, 2013, 12:31 PM

            Hello Mr. Vintage Heirloom,

            Takeshi has some great points about priorities, and avoiding keyword stuffing your URLs. I might add, however, that putting category directories in product URLs has two major disadvantages that, in my opinion, usually outweigh the advantage of having those keywords in the URL.

            #1 - If the product exists in multiple categories you risk having more than one URL for the product. This can be mitigated with redirects or rel canonical tags, but is still a pain. Here's an example:
            http://www.vintageheirloom.com/vintage-chanel-bags/red-2.55-classic-double-flap-bag-1362483150
            http://www.vintageheirloom.com/vintage-chanel-bags/2.55-bags/red-2.55-classic-double-flap-bag-1362483150
            The bag's URL can be accessed from at least two different URLs (some products could have many more versions) and the canonical tag says that the shorter of the two URLs above is the canonical version. If that is the case the keywords in your /2.55-bags/ directory are useless as a ranking factor for that particular product page since that directory is not in the rel canonical tag.

            Yes you can avoid the issues presented by multiple URL versions of the page, and some sites only ever put a product into a single category. However, that does nothing to account for this...

            #2 - The deeper your category structure goes the further away from the root your product pages are. I have seen product pages five or six folders deep across entire eCommerce sites because of this. While I don't think the entire site architecture should be completely flat (some sort of taxonomy in the URLs is logical and useful) you don't want your most important pages to be several folders deep either.

            I always recommend going with this:
            site.com/products/product-name/
            Or in your case:

            site.com/products/product-name-uniqueID/

            Putting the products into the /products/ directory is that level of useful taxonomy I mentioned above. This allows you, for instance, to do a search on Google like (site:domain.com inurl:products) to see how many of your product pages are indexed. The same type of logic is useful when segmenting analytics reports or WMT exports in Excel, among other uses.

            Then you don't have to worry about keyword stuffing due to keywords already contained in the category directory portion of the URL.

            This is just one person's opinion though. Some may disagree. I just don't find keywords in the URL to be all that important these days compared to other things. It has been spammed to death and thus the importance attributed to that factor has been steadily declining over the years, at least to my observation.

            Regarding 301 redirects, they don't really cost you any appreciable amount of pagerank. It truly is negligible as long as you're not going through several redirect hops at once. The key is to make up your mind about your URLs with an eye to the future scalability and useability of the site - and stick with it. One round of redirects will temporarily set you back in the SERPs, but you should bounce back within a couple of weeks (good time of year to do them!) if done correctly.

            Good luck!

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
            • TakeshiYoung
              TakeshiYoung last edited by Jun 2, 2013, 7:13 PM Jun 2, 2013, 7:13 PM

              Remember that every keyword you add to your URL decreases the value of every other keyword you have in the URL. You want to include a few keywords in your URL for SEO value, but not so many that it dilutes the value of the other keywords. Also, having an overly long URL is a poor user experience.

              So in this case, I would not include the word "vintage" in your URL for a 3rd time, because the SEO value is marginal and it will dilute the value of your other keywords, as well as making an already long URL even longer. And like I said, changing your URL structure will result in a loss of PageRank.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
              • well-its-1-louder
                well-its-1-louder last edited by Jun 2, 2013, 7:06 PM Jun 2, 2013, 7:05 PM

                Thanks Takeshi,

                Good to know. Any harm in adding an additional 'vintage' here to match H2 product name?

                www.vintageheirloom.com/vintage-chanel-bags/2.55-bags/vintage-chanel-red-2.55-classic-double-flap-bag...

                Or does that look spammy?

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • TakeshiYoung
                  TakeshiYoung last edited by Jun 2, 2013, 7:04 PM Jun 2, 2013, 6:52 PM

                  If you've been running your site for a while, I would recommend against changing your URL structure as 301s do result in some loss of link value, and you will likely see your rankings drop. The URLs you have now aren't bad, so I would focus on higher value activities such as link building. Ultimately, Google weighs offsite factors more highly than a few on-site tweaks.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                  • 1 / 1
                  1 out of 8
                  • First post
                    1/8
                    Last post

                  Got a burning SEO question?

                  Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.


                  Start my free trial


                  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.

                  • See all categories

                  Related Questions

                  • Redooo

                    Appending a code at the end of a URL

                    url seo

                    Hi All, Some real estate/ news companies have a code appended to the end of a URL https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-qld-ormiston-141747584 https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/childcare-centre-could-face-prosecution-for-leaving-child-on-hot-bus-20230320-p5ctqs.html Can I ask if there's any negative SEO implications for doing this? Cheers Dave

                    Technical SEO | Mar 28, 2023, 10:09 PM | Redooo
                    0
                  • GhillC

                    Trailing slash URLs and canonical links

                    Hi, I've seen a fair amount of topics speaking about the difference between domain names ending with or without trailing slashes, the impact on crawlers and how it behaves with canonical links.
                    However, it sticks to domain names only.
                    What about subfolders and pages then? How does it behaves with those? Say I've a site structured like this:
                    https://www.domain.com
                    https://www.domain.com/page1 And for each of my pages, I've an automatic canonical link ending with a slash.
                    Eg. rel="canonical" href="https://www.domain.com/page1/" /> for the above page. SEM Rush flags this as a canonical error. But is it exactly?
                    Are all my canonical links wrong because of that slash? And as subsidiary question, both domain.com/page1 and domain.com/page1/ are accessible. Is it this a mistake or it doesn't make any difference (I've read that those are considered different pages)? Thanks!
                    G

                    Technical SEO | Feb 6, 2019, 8:09 AM | GhillC
                    0
                  • brianvest

                    Absolute URL or Relative URL in my sitemap?

                    It there a benefit to using and absolute url in my sitemap vs relative?

                    Technical SEO | Feb 10, 2016, 5:18 PM | brianvest
                    0
                  • jfmonfette

                    XML Sitemap and unwanted URL parameters

                    We currently don't have an XML sitemap for our site. I generated one using Screaming Frog and it looks ok, but it also contains my tracking url parameters (ref=), which I don't want Google to use, as specified in GWT. Cleaning it will require time and effort which I currently don't have. I also think that having one could help us on Bing. So my question is: Is it better to submit a "so-so" sitemap than having none at all, or the risks are just too high? Could you explain what could go wrong? Thanks !

                    Technical SEO | Jan 20, 2014, 5:08 PM | jfmonfette
                    0
                  • Richline_Digital

                    Approved Word Separators in URLs

                    Hi There, We are in the process of revamping our URL structure and my devs tell me they have a technical problem using a hyphen as a word separator. There's a whole lot of competing recommendations out there and at this point I'm just confused. Does anyone have any idea what character would be next-best to the hyphen for separating words in a URL? Any reason to prefer one over another? Some links I've found discussing the topic: This page says that "__Google has confirmed that the point (.), the comma (,) and the hyphen (-) are valid word separators in URL’s.": http://www.internetofficer.com/seo/google-word-separator/ This page suggests the plus (+) symbol would be best: http://labs.phurix.net/posts/word-separators-in-urls This guy says he's tested and there's a whole bunch of symbols that will work as word separators: http://www.webproguide.com/articles/Symbols-as-word-separators-a-look-inside-the-search-engine-logic/ I'm leaning towards the tilde (~) or the plus (+) sign. Usage would be like so: http://www.domain.com/shop/sterling~silver OR /shop/sterling+silver etc... Thanks in advance for your help!

                    Technical SEO | Nov 10, 2012, 5:09 PM | Richline_Digital
                    1
                  • edantadis

                    Is it a problem to have a homepage with a slug / URL ?

                    Hi, We are designing a web site for one of our clients, and using a home made CMS. I don't know how this CMS has been built, but anyways, in the end the homepage has a URL format which looks like this : www.mydomain.com/my-custom-url.html. No www.mydomain.com. Is it dangerous for SEO to have a slug/URL directly on the homepage ? Do you have experiences, cases where it has impacted a site negatively ? The main problem I expect is duplicate content (with Google seeing both www.mydomain.com and www.mydomain.com/my-custom-url.html as being different pages) but apparently the CMS is doing a 302 redirect from the root domain to the URL (I told my colleague it should at least be a 301). Sorry if this question seems like basic SEO knowledge, but I really can't find a definitive answer on the subject. Thank you very much 🙂

                    Technical SEO | Jul 23, 2012, 12:27 PM | edantadis
                    0
                  • jkundrotas

                    URL rewriting from subcategory to category

                    Hello everybody! I have quite simple question about URL rewriting from subcategory to category, yet I can't find any solution to this problem (due to lack of my deeper apache programming knowledge). Here is my problem/question: we have two website url structures that causes dublicate problems: www.website.lt/language/category/ www.website.lt/language/category/1/ 1 and 2 pages are absolutely same (both also returns 200 OK). What we need is 301 redirect from 2 to 1 without any other deeper categories redirects (like www.website.com/language/category/1/169/ redirecting to .../category/1/ or .../category/). Here goes .htaccess URL rewrite rules: RewriteRule ^([^/]{1,3})/([^/]+)/([^/]+)/([^/]+)/([^/]+)/([^/]+)/$ /index.php?lang=$1&idr=$2&par1=$3&par2=$4&par3=$5&par4=$6&%{QUERY_STRING} [L] RewriteRule ^([^/]{1,3})/([^/]+)/([^/]+)/([^/]+)/([^/]+)/$ /index.php?lang=$1&idr=$2&par1=$3&par2=$4&par3=$5&%{QUERY_STRING} [L] RewriteRule ^([^/]{1,3})/([^/]+)/([^/]+)/([^/]+)/$ /index.php?lang=$1&idr=$2&par1=$3&par2=$4&%{QUERY_STRING} [L] RewriteRule ^([^/]{1,3})/([^/]+)/([^/]+)/$ /index.php?lang=$1&idr=$2&par1=$3&%{QUERY_STRING} [L] RewriteRule ^([^/]{1,3})/([^/]+)/$ /index.php?lang=$1&idr=$2&%{QUERY_STRING} [L] RewriteRule ^([^/]{1,3})/$ /index.php?lang=$1&%{QUERY_STRING} [L] There are other redirects that handles non-www to www and related issues: RedirectMatch 301 ^/lt/$ http://www.domain.lt/ RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^domain.lt RewriteRule (.*) http://www.domain.lt/$1 [R=301,L] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !(.)/$RewriteRule ^(.)$ http://www.domain.lt/$1/ [R=301,L] At this moment we cannot solve this problem with rel canonical (due to our CMS limits). Thanks for your help guys! If You need any other details on our coding, just let me know.

                    Technical SEO | Dec 3, 2011, 7:08 PM | jkundrotas
                    0
                  • upick-162391

                    Trailing Slashes In Url use Canonical Url or 301 Redirect?

                    I was thinking of using 301 redirects for trailing slahes to no trailing slashes for my urls. EG: www.url.com/page1/ 301 redirect to www.url.com/page1 Already got a redirect for non-www to www already. Just wondering in my case would it be best to continue using htacces for the trailing slash redirect or just go with Canonical URLs?

                    Technical SEO | Nov 27, 2011, 12:19 PM | upick-162391
                    0

                  Get started with Moz Pro!

                  Unlock the power of advanced SEO tools and data-driven insights.

                  Start my free trial
                  Products
                  • Moz Pro
                  • Moz Local
                  • Moz API
                  • Moz Data
                  • STAT
                  • Product Updates
                  Moz Solutions
                  • SMB Solutions
                  • Agency Solutions
                  • Enterprise Solutions
                  Free SEO Tools
                  • Domain Authority Checker
                  • Link Explorer
                  • Keyword Explorer
                  • Competitive Research
                  • Brand Authority Checker
                  • MozBar Extension
                  • MozCast
                  Resources
                  • Blog
                  • SEO Learning Center
                  • Help Hub
                  • Beginner's Guide to SEO
                  • How-to Guides
                  • Moz Academy
                  • API Docs
                  About Moz
                  • About
                  • Team
                  • Careers
                  • Contact
                  Why Moz
                  • Case Studies
                  • Testimonials
                  Get Involved
                  • Become an Affiliate
                  • MozCon
                  • Webinars
                  • Practical Marketer Series
                  • MozPod
                  Connect with us

                  Contact the Help team

                  Join our newsletter
                  Moz logo
                  © 2021 - 2025 SEOMoz, Inc., a Ziff Davis company. All rights reserved. Moz is a registered trademark of SEOMoz, Inc.
                  • Accessibility
                  • Terms of Use
                  • Privacy

                  Looks like your connection to Moz was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.