In Report Card - Weird Characters in URL
-
We have an underscore in a lot of our links. My question is since it is difficult to change existing site architecture, is an underscore really that negative?
Here is an example:
http://www.winematch.com/profile_368-2005-Artesa-Vineyards--Winery-Merlot-Reserve.html
Eventually we want to change this to
http://www.winematch.com/wine/2005-Artesa-Vineyards-Winery-Merlot-Reserve.html
but it is a big project.
-
We built everything custom in php.
The second link I posted uses another directory "/wine/" which doesn't exist yet. That is the direction we'd like to go eventually where it would not have an underscore anymore. We would use mod_rewrite to do this.
You probably selected the second link which doesn't exist yet if you couldn't access our site.
Thanks for your response,
-tom
-
Hi Thomas!
It depends on your server configuration and what software you are using.
An underscore isn't negative. At one point Matt Cutts recommended using dashes (-) as a delimiter, but that was many years ago and he has since said that Google is smart enough to figure out what delimiters you are using.
I find that there are diehard fans of specific delimiters, which I think is silly. I myself prefer the dash, but again that's just personal preference.
The more concerning matter is that you have no sense of hierarchy in your URL. I'm assuming you are running an old version of osCommerce or something similar (your website won't load for me). I don't have much experience in osCommerce but I do remember that their permalink structure was horribly limiting back in the day. Not sure how plausible it would be to change your structure, but a quick Google search for your version number should return an answer rather quickly.
Also, both of your links are the same. I think you meant for the second one to be different
Would be glad to help out further if you can supply more information. Cheers!
P.S. - I'm biased toward Magento, but they have a free Community Edition you can check out if you want an eCommerce solution that isn't antiquated.
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
-
Multi URL treated as one?
I had previous asked this question, where the issue turned out to be that I didn't have all the URLs in Google Search console. Whoops! So I have added 4 properties that are really all the same property: https:// https://www http:// http://www I have added all of these. This has raised a few more questions: Can I get Google Search Console to treat these (and even group these together) to show as one property? Right now they are all listed separately. I know in Site Settings you can set a Preferred Site. Even so, they show as separate sites with data separately. Can I merge these? What about Moz? Should I do something similar to see traffic for each of these in Moz? It looks like we are missing a ton of info. Does Moz get this from GSC automatically? What about sitemaps? Can I fix this in sitemaps? Do I need separate sitemaps for each property?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TapGoods0 -
Reporting Webspam to Google
We are in ecommerce, and there are a few review sites that are dominating the rankings for our products. The sites are very good - very well written content (2000+ words) and visually appealing sites. The 2 main culprits are clearly black hat. One site's backlinks are pure spam, and the other is buying footer and sidebar links. Will ratting them to Google have any impact? If not, any suggestions on how to compete? Our competing pages are product descriptions, and creating a 2000 word product description seems inappropriate. Also, all of these products are brand new, and due to extensive media spends, the search volume is very high. Since they are beating us to the punch by getting good content posted first, they are proving difficult to displace.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AMHC0 -
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 -
Is 1:1 301 redirect required on indexed URL when restructing URL even if the new URL is canonicalized?
Hello folks, We are restructuring some URLS which forms a fair chunk of the content of the domain.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HB17
These content are auto generated rather than manually created unlike other parts of the website. The same content is currently accessible from two URLs: /used-books/autobiography-a-long-walk-to-freedom-isbn
/autobiography/used-books/a-long-walk-to-freedom-isbn The URL 1 uses the URL 2 as the canonical url and it has worked allright since Moz does
not show the two as duplicate of each other. Google has also indexed the canonical URL although
there is still a few 'URL 1s' which were indexed before the canonical was implemented. The updated URL structure will look like something like this: /used-books/autobiography-a-long-walk-to-freedom-author-name-isbn
/autobiography/used-books/a-long-walk-to-freedom-authore-name-isbn It would be great to have just a single URL but a few business requirement prevents
us from having just the canonical URL only even with the new structure. Since we will still have two URLs to access the same content and we were wondering
whether we will need to do a 1:1 301 redirect on the current URLs or since there will be canonical URL
(/autobiography/used-books/a-long-walk-to-freedom-authore-name-isbn),
we won't need to worry about doing the 1:1 redirect on the the indexed content? Please note that the content will still be accessible from the OLD URL (unless 301ed of course). If it is advisable to do a 1:1 301 redirect this is what we intend to do: /used-books/autobiography-a-long-walk-to-freedom-isbn 301 to
/used-books/autobiography-a-long-walk-to-freedom-author-name-isbn /autobiography/used-books/a-long-walk-to-freedom-isbn 301 to
/autobiography/used-books/a-long-walk-to-freedom-authore-name-isbn Any advice/suggestions would be greated appreciated. Thank you.0 -
URL Structure
URL i have to use targeted keyword on all sub page domain or not for example now i am using url like this format fundingtype.html litigation-funding.html legal-funding.html financingservices.html process.html and if i re-write all url with targated keyword like this format lawsuit-loans-fundingtype.html lawsuit-loans-litigation-funding.html lawsuit-loans-legal-funding.html lawsuit-loans-financingservices.html lawsuit-loans-process.html so which type URL are more effective for best SEO ??
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JulieWhite0 -
Non-www URL showing in Blog
Thanks to Sanket Patel in an earlier query I've now got non-www pages showing as www. pages on my www.nile-cruises-4u.co.uk website. But the Blog which is part of the site posts and pages still show as non-www pages. For example: http://nile-cruises-4u.co.uk/blog/makadi-palace-hotel-makadi-bay/ I wonder if anyone has come upon the same problem and what the solution might be? Thanks, Colin
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | NileCruises1 -
Will our PA be retained after URL updates?
Our web hosting company recently applied a seo update to our site to deal with canonicalization issues and also rewrote all urls to lower case. As a result our PA is now 1 on all pages its effected. I took this up with them and they had this to say. "I must confess I’m still a bit lost however can assure you our consolidation tech uses a 301 permanent redirect for transfers. This should ensure any back link equity isn’t lost. For instance this address: http://www.towelsrus.co.uk/towels-bath-sheets/aztex/egyptian-cotton-Bath-sheet_ct474bd182pd2731.htm Redirects to this page: http://www.towelsrus.co.uk/towels-bath-sheets/aztex/egyptian-cotton-bath-sheet_ct474bd182pd2731.htm And the redirect returns 301 header response – as discussed in your attached forum thread extract" Firstly, is canonicalization working as the number of duplicate pages shot up last week and also will we get our PA back? Thanks Craig
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Towelsrus0 -
Which URL structure is much better?
Hi Everybody, Which URL structure is much better? Type 01. http://www.domain.com/category-a/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | cprasad
http://www.domain.com/category-a/subcategory-a-1/
http://www.domain.com/category-a/subcategory-a-2/
http://www.domain.com/category-b/
http://www.domain.com/category-b/subcategory-b-1/
http://www.domain.com/category-b/subcategory-b-2/ Type 02. http://www.domain.com/category-a/
http://www.domain.com/subcategory-a-1/
http://www.domain.com/subcategory-a-2/
http://www.domain.com/category-b/
http://www.domain.com/subcategory-b-1/
http://www.domain.com/subcategory-b-2/ How these 2 types can affect for Ranking, Site Links in Google and passing PR from root to other pages? Thanks Prasad0