Large event site - how should I structure my URLs?
-
Hi guys,
I'm working on a new website which is consolidating a number of existing event sites into one. The existing sites use a variety of URL structures:
www.eventsite1.com/events/event-name
www.eventsite2.com/festival-program/event-name
This inconsistency has led to issues with tracking category usage properly in analytics - for instance, with eventsite3.com, events fall within categories (www.eventsite3.com/category-name) but as soon as you drill into an event detail page (www.eventsite3.com/event-name) from the category page, the category is lost to analytics. This is compounded when one event lives within multiple categories, as I can't figure out which category is the most effective for a particular event.
I've seen other event sites establish a canonical URL for a primary category, display it in the URL (i.e. www.eventsite4.com/primary-category/event-name) yet still let that event get hit via the secondary categories (www.eventsite4.com/secondary-category/event-name). This way, the categories get passed to analytics without any duplicate content issues (i.e. via the setting of canonicals)
Basically, I want to make sure that whatever instruction I give to the devs for the new site re: URL structure is correct from an SEO perspective and analytics perspective. Do I even need to worry about having the category in the URL?
Can someone please help me with this?
Hope this makes sense
Cheers
-
Hi Karl,
I can't give you a definitive answer on this as it's based on more data, but I think you need to keep in mind that you need an can separate on how your URL structure actually looks and the data you can save in Google Analytics. For example it's really easy to send custom pageviews data to Google Analytics. Also if you try to prefer having the category not in the URL it's still possible to send them to Google Analytics via either a custom pageview of custom dimension. So I would go for the best SEO option in your opinion and also the best option in Google Analytics so you get the best of both.
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
-
Site Hacked: Is it Faster and Better to 301 or 404 Irrelevant URLs?
Hey Everyone, So our site was hacked which created a large amount of irrelevant URLs on our domain; resulting in thousands of 404 errors and pages coming up for searches unrelated to our brand. The question is now that the issues have been resolved (and site re-submitted) would it be quicker (and more ideal) to redirect important 404 errors that see traffic, have links…etc. although not relevant or just let everything 404 out? We’re not as concerned with offering a relevant user experience because these are not in our demographic but want to avoid these pages convoluting our analytics as well as issues that might arise from Google thinking these topics do apply. Any help or insight would be very appreciated. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns or we could provide further details that might help. Looking forward to hearing from all of you! Thanks in advance. Best,
Reporting & Analytics | | Ben-R0 -
Best to Leave Toxic Links or Remove/Disovow on Site with Low Number of Linking Domains
Our site has only 87 referring domains (with at least 7,100 incoming links). LinkDetox has identified 29% of our back links as being toxic and 14% as being questionable. Virtually all of these links derive from spammy sites. We never received a manual penalty, but ever since the first Penguin penalty in 2012 our search volume and ranking has dropped with some uneven recover in the last 3 years. By removing/disavowing toxic links are we risking that over optimized link text will be removed and that ranking will suffer as a result? Are we potentially shooting ourselves in the foot? Would we be better to spend a few months building quality links from reputable domains before removing disavowing bad links? Or toxic links (as defined by LinkDetox) so bad that it should be a priority to remove them immediately before taking any other step? Thanks, Alan
Reporting & Analytics | | Kingalan10 -
Implemented Enhance Ecommerce but Event tracking showing double
Hi, Today i have implemented Enhance Ecommerce with GTM everything working fine but in google analytic > Behavior > Events here all events figure i see double - triple so not getting exactly what is the issue. Thanks!
Reporting & Analytics | | varo0 -
Dip in traffic from Pune for our sites in Google Analytics
Hi, We have noticed dip in traffic from Pune after 6th May'14 in our Google Analytics account for few of our sites. Did anyone noticed the same for your site. Kindly let me know if you have any idea. Thank and Regards
Reporting & Analytics | | vivekrathore0 -
How is it possible that this site has a higher page authority than my site?
Judging by open site explorer, I'm crushing my competitor in every imaginable way. And yet, somehow they have a higher page authority than me and, consequently, are ranking higher than me. How is this possible? My site is on the left: 40atcpP.png
Reporting & Analytics | | ScottMcPherson0 -
Why are there url's in my np Keywords in google analtyics?
I have been scratching my head at this one. On my not provided keywords, there is a url. Keyword is the primary dimension. It doesn't makes sense why there would be url keywords for pages with a different url. For example, the keywords for page www.xyz.com/abc np - /someotherurl.com Thanks for your insights in advance!
Reporting & Analytics | | konverge0 -
Google News traffic spike mystery; referring URLs all blank, Omniture tags didn't fire.
Our content is occasionally featured in Google News. We recently have had two episodes where this happened, but (a) nearly all the referring URLs were blank, and (b) our backend logs show 3-4x more requests for the article in question than Omniture does. In other words, hundreds of thousands of visitors requested a URL from our site (as proven by the traffic logs), but don't seem to have come from Google News (because HTTP_REFERER was blank), and didn't execute the onpage javascript tag to notify Omniture of the pageview. Perhaps this has nothing to do with Google News, but it is too strong a coincidence that the two times we were on there recently, the same thing happened: big backend traffic spike that is not seen by Omniture. It is as if Google News causes browsers to pre-fetch our article without executing the javascript on the page. And without sending a referring URL. Has anyone else seen anything like this before? Stats from the recent episode:
Reporting & Analytics | | mcglynn
- 835,000 HTTP requests for the article URL (logged by our servers) - these requests came from 280,000 distinct IP addresses (70% US) - the #1 referring URL is blank. This accounts for 99.4% of requests. Which, in itself, is hard to believe. These people had to come from somewhere. I believe browsers don't pass HTTP_REFERER when you click from an SSL page to a non-SSL page, but I think Google News doesn't bounce users to SSL by default.That said, we do see other content pages with 70-90% blank referring URLs. Rarely 99+% though.0 -
Strange 404 Error URL
Can anyone help determine how a URL like "www.mycompany.com/lago_www.bad-nsfw-content.com" would appear on the "not found" crawl error list in Google Webmaster Tools? The "www.bad-nsfw-content" site has nothing to do with our company and I don't how it would get associated with our site.
Reporting & Analytics | | pbhatt0