SEO - New URL structure
-
Hi,
Currently we have the following url structure for all pages, regardless of the hierarchy: domain.co.uk/page, such as domain/blog name.
Can you, please confirm the following:
1. What is the benefit of organising the pages as a hierarchy, i.e. domain/features/feature-name or domain/industries/industry-name or domain/blog/blog name etc.
2. This will create too many 301s - what is Google's tolerance of redirects? Is it worth for us changing the url structure or would you only recommend to add breadcrumbs?
Many thanks
Katarina
-
Hey all!
I am asking question in replies as i don't have free trial any more. Well, my question is about technical and off-page seo. I get confused about the both more often. Can someone please clarify the difference between the two? I am new to seo and applying my learnings to my technology blog for improving the search ranking. -
How wonderful Adam. I am currenctly working on a smaller <a href="https://cryptocasinosverige.com/">Bitcoin Casino</a> site and I hope that eventually Google will notice it. It is not easy but Moz gives great insight on how all SEO related things work.
-
I had a really working and profitable website made by qualified employees of the company https://seotwix.com/ . I liked their professionalism, efficiency and friendly attitude to clients. There was a truly impressive work - created a unique design with original findings and innovations. Adequate understanding of the needs of my company and careful attention to all my complex needs, especially in the design of the structure of the site, as well as its further promotion on the Internet.
-
Hi there! There seems to be a bit of confusion in this thread between URL structure and Information Architecture. Having more folders in a URL doesn't reduce the authority but pages with more folders in the URL tend to be deeper in the sites linking architecture, which means they tend to have less authority because they aren't as close to the surface. The difference between internal links and url format is an important one. There's a blog post here which explains in more depth.
From my perspective, here are the benefits of having pages within folders;
- There is an opportunity to put more relevant keywords in the URL without stuffing
- Easier folder-level reporting in Google Analytics, Search Console etc.
- Some increased understanding for Google of how pages hang together - there is some evidence that Google uses folder structure for ranking before it knows much about the page for example.
In terms of managing authority for pages and signals of relevance I'd be looking much more towards the internal linking to those pages. I wouldn't rely on Google intuitively understanding the topical connection between two pages unless both of those pages target that topic or have relevant links between them. So for example, say you have two pages;
If those pages are both subcategories of trinkets you could reformat them to be;
Having "trinkets" in the url might help both pages rank for "trinkets" type keywords, like "doodad trinkets" for example. However, I wouldn't rely on this change to help Google understand that widgets are related to doodads - you can handle that much more effectively with relevant internal links between /widgets and /doodads that make the relation clear.
In terms of whether there is a risk to making this change - this is essentially a migration and definitely comes with risks associated, even if all of your redirects are 1:1 and direct. It'll take time for Google to find the redirects and new pages, and as a rule of thumb, link equity isn't passed perfectly along a 301 redirect so I wouldn't expect these new pages to just inherit the strength of the old ones.
I think it comes down to weighing up whether the benefits I listed above outweigh the risk of an in-site migration. If you think the keyword targeting opportunities will make enough of a difference then great but I wouldn't rely on url structure as a way to get Google to understand your site differently - the impact of internal links is going to be a far greater factor.
-
Google's tolerance for 301 redirects is pretty high as long as you use speedy ones (implement via NginX - 'engine X', not via .htaccess lines). If the redirects are logical and they don't chain or contact with incorrect redirect types (Meta refreshes, 302s etc) then usually you're ok. Still it will take Google time to digest all the changes and you could see a small interim performance dip
Flat URL structure tends to build the 'authority' of URLs better, making them more powerful. Deeper and more nested URL structures serve 'relevance' better as they give much more context. If your domain's overall SEO authority is low to begin with, then a flatter structure may be better for now. If you have lots of SEO authority then you may be able to 'irrigate' more deeply nested URLs more effectively, thus reaping long-tail gains (so each structure has strengths and weaknesses, depending upon your current standing on the web)
Flatter structures rank better for larger terms, but only if you have the SEO authority to power them. Deeper structures rank better for longer-tail terms (but thousands of them) - again though without the right SEO authority metrics, there will be very few droplets of 'SEO juice' which end up reaching the lower-level pages
In the end most sites evolve to a point where they adopt the more deeply nested structure, but they usually suffer growing pains as they transition. In the long run it can be superior, but only for sites which can make good use of it (e.g: eCommerce web stores with categories, products, collections, product variants etc). If a site is services based it often doesn't have so much SEO authority and also - the deeper structure isn't really so relevant! A services based site will usually offer far fewer services than an eCommerce store offers products (tens vs hundreds of thousands)
A strong publisher with lots of ranking power (online magazines, newspaper digital editions) will often switch to the deeper structure for listing their content and (in the long run) see a lot of benefit from that. For smaller publications (blogs, blog or news pages on business / non-publisher sites) - it's often not worth the move
-
Hi,
Thanks for your answer. We sell B2B software.
The website is structured as global, /us, /au etc. It's just the urls appear all equal atm.
Thanks
Katarina
-
It all depends what you're selling & where you're selling it, also if your hierarchy structure allows for the inclusion of keywords including geo locations, all the better.
Somewhat dated but useful article https://moz.com/learn/seo/url
-
One additional thought to add extra complexity, adding hierarchy is fine, but try to avoid increasing page depth while doing so.
John Mueller discussed this in a few places in the past year that page depth > URL structure.
-
Thanks for your time.
Excellent! Now I'm super scared haha But I understand what you are saying and will share your advice with the team.
Many thanks.
Katarina
-
Hi
No your sweet on the redirects/301's - many sites have 95% redirects from http to https for example. So no chains and you are fine.
Well my view on above is that advice on a hierarchical structure is dangerous. Our job is to always adopt a "first do no harm" approach. We have many clients - no hierarchical structure and awesome rankings. Do we very slowly build hierarchical structures into them - yes. It makes life easier for all. But would we touch the top traffic driving pages - 100% no. It is too high a risk. So you need to do a proper evaluation of the site and what pages are ranking - getting clicks and what are not. There may be sections, a low risk that can move into a hierarchical structure - start there. But do not make a change for change sake to follow what is now good practice.
Hope that helps.
-
Hi,
Thanks for your answer.
'...if the site is ranking well under current strategy...' - I mean, we don't know as there is nothing to compare with. Recently we have been presented with an idea of creating subfolders and clearly showing the site hierarchy via urls. Apparently, it should make an instant difference and should improve our ranks. I'm really unsure if this is guaranteed.
FYI - we would never 301 one url more than just once so no chain. However, I wonder if we had 95% of all site urls redirected if this would impact us negatively.
Also - one more thing we are doing now (and we never used to have) is creating portfolio pages - very relevant pages linking from one main page to demonstrate the hierarchy further.
I'm trying to find out if adding so many 301s and putting all the effort into creating a hierarchy via additional articles, pages, breadcrumbs etc would definitely result in a positive outcome.
Thanks
Katarina
-
Hi
Not clear 100% on the question. Firstly if the site is ranking well under current strategy then recommend where appropriate that continues. It sounds like every page hangs straight off the root domain? However, if the opportunity presents to build out a hierarchical structure then we would recommend same.
The benefit of a hierarchical structure is it builds out topical authority or makes it easier for search engines to interpret the site. All google has done is roll the old dewy library system into the site maps. By analogy the more books you have hanging off the History section (parent subfolder) the better the site should be seen in the context of providing answers to history. Then it comes down to the quality of pages hanging off the subfolder and how much shared.
So in short to answer your question a hierarchical structure makes your site easier for Google to understand and builds out topical authority which long term is future proofing against voice search.
Onto the second part of the question, there is no problems with 301's per se as long as it is one hop.. so to redirect a page more than 3 times is a big negative as Google often does not crawl those pages. Recommended practice to change the redirects from page 1 > page 4 and page 2 > page 4, page 3 > 4, etc so all old redirects point in one hop to the final destination page.
Hope that helps.
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
-
Google selecting incorrect URL as canonical: 'Duplicate, submitted URL not selected as canonical'
Hi there, A number of our URLs are being de-indexed by Google. When looking into this using Google Search Console the same message is appearing on multiple pages across our sites: 'Duplicate, submitted URL not selected as canonical' 'IndexingIndexing allowed? YesUser-declared canonical - https://www.mrisoftware.com/ie/products/real-estate-financial-software/Google-selected canonical - https://www.mrisoftware.com/uk/products/real-estate-financial-software/'Has anyone else experienced this problem?How can I get Google to select the correct, user-declared canoncial? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | nfrank0 -
How to 301 trailing URLs to new domain home page - wildcard?
How would I add a redirect rule so all old domain URLs redirect to a new domain? All the old pages no longer exist on a new website. The domains have been through several CMS platforms, so it would be unnecessary to recreate them. Problem is, they're indexed in search engines from the past 10 years, so it's causing a lot of 404s. Example: search "NARI Tampa Bay" and you'll find 2 old domains: nari-tampabay.com & nari-tampabay.org. The new domain is naritb.org Those 2 old domains are now pointed to the same nameservers as the new and listed as parked domains. Here's the current rules in htaccess: <code>RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^nari-tampabay.org [NC,OR] RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.nari-tampabay.org [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ https://www.naritb.org/$1 [L,R=301] RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^nari-tampabay.com [NC,OR] RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.nari-tampabay.com [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ https://www.naritb.org/$1 [L,R=301]</code>
Technical SEO | | CartoMark0 -
URL Structure & SEO - Should we be using sub-folders?
Hi all, As part of our content marketing efforts we have run a number of initiatives in the past and created pages on the website to go along with them (also where the links for these particular projects point to). However, the URL structure isn't actually a reflection of where the pages sit on the site. Unfortunately I'm unable to provide a URL for reasons I won't bore you with, but here's an example: We recently ran a competition that was very successful in generating links. The URL for this is www.domain.co.uk/competition. However, the page actually sits within the About Us section - which is where all of our news and content marketing pages go - and uses a URL override. How much of an issue is this in regards to A) Our SEO in general?; and B) Ensuring we receive as much equity from the links we earn as possible? A brief explanation of what URL overrides actually are would also be useful! (We have a digital marketing agency who handle most of our SEO) Thanks in advance guys! John
Technical SEO | | NAHL-14300 -
Am I doing SEO test properly?
Hello, I just created a page for researching the impact of social signals on Google ranking (in Italy). Page was not optimized (one internal backlink, no other external/internal links, keyword repeated 4 or 5 + h1 h2, no alt tags), and only social signals are being stimulated (through votes). The domain is 2 months old and is already positioned for few relevant keywords, but from 2 page down. My question is: am I doing right? Is this a good way to proceed? And if not, what I should do instead? Thank you for an advice. Eugenio
Technical SEO | | socialengaged0 -
Best URL Structure for Product Pages?
I am happy with my URLs and my ecommerce site ranks well over all, but I have a question about product URL's. Specifically when the products have multiple attributes such as "color". I use a header URL in order to present the 'style' of products, www.americanmusical.com/Item--i-GIB-LPCCT-LIST and I allow each 'color' to have it's own URL so people can send or bookmark a specific item. www.americanmusical.com/Item--i-GIB-LPCCT-ANCH1 www.americanmusical.com/Item--i-GIB-LPCCT-WRCH1 I use a rel canonical to show that the header URL is the URL search engines should be indexing and to avoid duplicate content issues from having the exact same info, MP3's, PDF's, Video's accessories, etc on each specific item URL. I also have a 'noindex no follow' on the specific item URL. These header URLs rank well, but when using tools like SEOMoz, which I love, my header pages fail for using rel canonical and 'noindex no follow' I've considered only having the header URL, but I like the idea of shoppers being able to get to the specific product URL. Do I need the no index no follow? Do I even need the rel canonical? Any suggestions?
Technical SEO | | dianeb1520 -
Pintrest SEO
Has any testing been done to determine if Pintrest helps a website ranking?
Technical SEO | | StreetwiseReports0 -
URL content format - Any impact on SEO
I understand that there is a suggested maximum length for a URL so as not to be penalized by search engines. I'm wondering if I should if should optimize our ecommerce categories to be descriptive or use abbreviations to help keep the URL length to a minimum? Our products are segmented into many categories, so many products URL's are pretty long if we go the descriptive route. I've also heard that removing the category component entirely from a product URL can also be considered. I'm fairly new to all this SEO stuff, so I'm hoping the community can share their knowledge on the impact of these options. Cheers, Steve
Technical SEO | | SteveMaguire0 -
What is the best top menu linking structure (for SEO) for my site: A or B?
I don't know if these two scenarios are any different as far as SEO is concerned, but I wanted to ask to get an opinion. On my website: http://www.rainchainsdirect.com you can see there is a top menu with "About" "Info" "Questions" etc. Some of these links lead to further pages that are essentially a indeces for multiple further links. My question is: in terms of SEO, is it better to A) have all links (that are now on the pages that the menu links lead to) displayed in a drop down menu directly from the top menu (and bypassing an intermediate page) or B) to have it as it is now where you have to click to an intermediate page (like "rain chain info") to get access to the links (and not have such a large drop down menu) Is there a difference in terms of SEO? In terms of useability it almost seems like a toss up between the two, so if there were better SEO value to one of the other, then I would choose that one. By the way, I know that the way it is structured now is strange, where there is only one drop down that leads to the same page as the top menu item, but that will be fixed, fyi. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | csblev0