Numbers in URL
-
Hey guys! Need your many awesome brains.
This may be a very basic question but am hoping you can help me out with some insights beyond "because Google says it's better".
I only recently started working with SEO, and I work for a SaaS website builder company that has millions of open/active user sites, and all our user sites URLs, instead of www.mydomainname.com/gallery or myusername.simplesite.com/about, we use numbers, so www.mysite.com/453112 or myusername.simplesite.com/426521
The Sales manager has asked me to figure out if it will pay off for us in terms of traffic (other benefits?) to change it from the number system to the "proper" and right way of setting up these URLs. He's looking for rather concrete answers, as he usually sits with paid search and is therefore used to the mindset of "if we do x it will yield us y in z months".
I'm finding it quite difficult to find case studies/other concrete examples beyond the generic, vague implication that it will simply be "better" (when for example looking at SEO checklists and search engine guidelines). Will it make a difference? How so?
I have to convince our developers of the importance and priority of this adjustment, or it will just drown in the many projects they already have. So truly, any insights would be so very welcome. Thank you!
-
The reference uses the words "Consider" and "when possible", which is not as clear as other suggestions Google make. Instructions are crystal clear for other on-page techniques, such as hreflang.
As a power user who works with clients in multiple languages, I frequently switch between languages using the URL, like going from https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/76329?hl=en to https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/76329?hl=fr. This wouldn't be possible if the URL was https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/keep-a-simple-url-structure. For this particular use, I would argue the former are more "user-friendly" than the latter!
More and more the URL is becoming a relic of the past. Sitename and Breadcrumbs are replacing it in SERPs. Browsers on mobile hide it by default. There is no URL bar in recent in-app browsers (Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn).
On the hand, it has been said in the past that keywords in URLs help search engines understand the context of a link when there is no anchor text.
A few things to consider:
- The need to create 301 redirects and the risk of losing trafic
- The impact on on-site SEO (hreflang, canonicals, sitemaps, internal links, etc.)
- The qualitative impact (do your users expect this feature? do visitors expect this feature?)
- Most importantly, the fact that it's probably a low priority optimization!
- If at all possible, consider running an experiment.
Hope this helps! I left out a clear answer on purpose - because I don't have one.
-
Just offering my opinion. There is no such thing as "concrete proof" that can't be disproven in this case due to the complexity of SEO.
Every factor is just one among many. So a site that has "proper" URL syntax can easily and readily outrank and outperform a site that doesn't if enough individual factors across the whole spectrum are strong enough.
Conversely, A site that has numeric URL structure and "non-ideal" syntax can also easily and outrank / outperform a site that has "proper" URL syntax if that site has enough strength from other factors to outweigh the "proper" structured URL site.
Anyone who has a case study claiming otherwise is not acknowledging how complex the reality of what we do is, and how any sub-group of signals can be so strong as to far outweigh any other sub-group of signals.
-
True story, Highland.
Very useful case, thank you!
-
I really like how Stack Exchange handles their URLs
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/30526714/seo-and-user-friendly-urls-for-multi-language-website
So to break down the URL, they have a directory questions, then the question ID and THEN the SEO friendly tag. Since the URL can be edited by anyone, it preserves the reference the system needs to access it regardless of what URL you're using. This might help your programmers if they know they can keep the ID in the URL. Otherwise you have the overhead of looking up the URL and then loading the correct page. Does that keep it typeable? No, but let's be honest... when was the last time you actually typed a URL (more than just the domain name) into your browser?
-
Click through rate is an excellent line of thought as well. Nice one. You're 100% right, as well.
-
Hey John,
I think you're onto something there. Putting it in a context of "us against them" and showcasing that we're actually falling (and staying) behind because we don't have these basics in order could be very effective. I think I got stuck in their mindset demand of "show us quantitative data!". So thanks a lot for offering me a different perspective, appreciate it!
-
Michelle
Matts answer is perfect but if you want me all you can do is condense common sense to them in a written form. I will try and give some suggestions. Firstly I would also give them online examples. Specifically I would use best in class pure online operators that your bosses would be familiar with. Competitors and not keeping up with them always rankle good bosses.
Hence showing examples between agreed world class operators and what you are doing would clearly highlight the lack of "best in class" attributes of your company SOP.
As Google states a Google indicator in page ranking is the words in the URL. Hence if you bosses are capable enough and type car insurance into www.google.com.au - nearly all websites will display a website like the below.
<cite class="_Rm">www.comparethemarket.com.au/car-insurance/</cite>Hence even your bosses with only a few key strokes should be able to see what is best practice. Ask them to show you a world class online operator that states www.comparethemarket.com.au/123456 for the keyword car insurance.So in summary I would show them what is happening in a the real world - simply ask them to type in a query to bring up a good online operator. Best still show them what your competitors are up to.Good luck with them.
-
Hi Carlos, and thanks!
Yeah, for sure it will help out a lot of our users (which is just as much a priority for me as optimizing SEO for our own main site). Our own main site (www.simplesite.com) does have just words in the URL. It's just the sites from our users/customers that has numbers. Which is just endlessly frustrating for me AND our users, because they obviously want their pages and titles reflected in their URLs. So yeah, CTR is a really good point.
Thanks again!
-
Hi Michelle,
I can think of 2 main benefits of using words in URLs have instead of numbers.
If you are reading an article about Paella, and there is a list of recipes from different pages:
The second link is most likely to get more clicks. The same situation on Google search page, although the title is more important a readable URL will always be better to the user.
The second benefit for SEO purposes is that matching keywords from the title of you page and the URL will give you a boost, how much will be it is to discuss.
Here is an excellent MOZ article about the topic
https://mza.bundledseo.com/blog/15-seo-best-practices-for-structuring-urls
Hope it helps,
Carlos
-
Thanks again, MattAntonino, really appreciate it! Enjoy the rest of your Friday.
-
There really isn't a higher authority than "Google said so in WMT guidelines" when it comes to SEO for your site.
I know they're looking for case study or whatnot but all I can suggest is explain that Guidelines ARE the rules, Guidelines specifically and directly cover this question. So you should follow the Guidelines.
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/35769?hl=en says "Following these guidelines will help Google find, index, and rank your site."
I looked for case studies on this but search is done in words not numbers so I assume it's because it's fairly obvious that it can only help. Good luck!
-
Thanks so much for your quick response, MattAntonino! Totally agree with it.
Unfortunately, that's also exactly my problem. I personally agree that it is clear and tells us exactly what we should do, and I know most (if not all) SEOs would agree with you/the above statement. My problem is that I'm trying to convince people who are not sitting with SEO every day, and if I cannot give them more than this, they simply won't prioritize it over other projects.
-
I'll do the best I can, which is take you directly to the source:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/76329?hl=en
"Consider organizing your content so that URLs are constructed logically and in a manner that is most intelligible to humans (when possible, readable words rather than long ID numbers)."
That's fairly clear and exactly what you're trying to get at. This article is a direct piece of the "Webmaster Guidelines" section - and should be followed where possible. This should be enough to get you across the line.
I also think most SEOs would agree that Google uses keywords in the URL to at least some extent. We know they use search with synonyms and related keywords. So if your URL contains /seo/ it's much more related to "seo" searches than /123/ is. So yes, it will help. It's hard (impossible) to quantify by how much though.
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 Appending Blog URL inbetween my homepage and product page is it issue with base url?
Hi All, Google Appending Blog URL inbetween my homepage and product page. Is it issue or base url or relative url? Can you pls guide me? Looking to both tiny url you will get my point what i am saying. Please help Thanks!
Technical SEO | | amu1230 -
Old URLs Appearing in SERPs
Thirteen months ago we removed a large number of non-corporate URLs from our web server. We created 301 redirects and in some cases, we simply removed the content as there was no place to redirect to. Unfortunately, all these pages still appear in Google's SERPs (not Bings) for both the 301'd pages and the pages we removed without redirecting. When you click on the pages in the SERPs that have been redirected - you do get redirected - so we have ruled out any problems with the 301s. We have already resubmitted our XML sitemap and when we run a crawl using Screaming Frog we do not see any of these old pages being linked to at our domain. We have a few different approaches we're considering to get Google to remove these pages from the SERPs and would welcome your input. Remove the 301 redirect entirely so that visits to those pages return a 404 (much easier) or a 410 (would require some setup/configuration via Wordpress). This of course means that anyone visiting those URLs won't be forwarded along, but Google may not drop those redirects from the SERPs otherwise. Request that Google temporarily block those pages (done via GWMT), which lasts for 90 days. Update robots.txt to block access to the redirecting directories. Thank you. Rosemary One year ago I removed a whole lot of junk that was on my web server but it is still appearing in the SERPs.
Technical SEO | | RosemaryB2 -
Keyword in URL vs organization
I have a jobs site that currently has the following structure for jobs: www.site.com/jobs/openings/1234.html Categories used to be listed this way: www.site.com/jobs/openings/accounting But we changed it to: www.site.com/jobs/category/accounting Does it matter? Is one better than the other? The page title, heading, and description also have the word "openings" or "opening" in them.
Technical SEO | | cmp1010 -
Number of links you should have on a taxonomy term??
According to SeoMoz, my taxonomy terms contain more than 100 links (links to articles in my case) and it tells me that I should reduce it. I have seen a video by Matt Cutts, the google software engineer, and in that video he said that Google's engine has dramatically improved ever since and 100 is not the limit anymore. What do you guys think is the best practice here? To clarify the subject even more: I want to learn this from link juice perspective, does it effect how link juice is distributed? Let's say I have 5 taxonomy terms and all of them have 200 articles and these 5 terms are listed on the home page of a PR7 website. In this case some of the PR will be passed to these 5 taxonomy terms. However, if I increase taxonomy terms to 10, then i will reduce links to 100, but the PR will be distributed even more. This means each taxonomy term will have even less PR value. Am I wrong? Any ideas?
Technical SEO | | mertsevinc0 -
Removing a URL from Search Results
I recently renamed a small photography company, and so I transferred the content to the new website, put a 301-redirect on the old website URL, and turned off hosting for that website. But when I search for certain terms that the old URL used to rank highly for (branded terms) the old URL still shows up. The old URL is "www.willmarlowphotography.com" and when you type in "Will Marlow" it often appears in 8th and 9th place on a SERP. So, I have two questions: First, since the URL no longer has a hosting account associated with it, shouldn't it just disappear from SERPs? Second, is there anything else I should have done to make the transition smoother to the new URL? Thanks for any insights you can share.
Technical SEO | | williammarlow0 -
Question/Concern about URL structure
Hey! I have some doubts concerning structuring a websites URL’s and what would be the best practise for this case. The site has 4 (main) categories with a maximum of 4 products in each category. For example: domain -> category (natural-stones) -> product (flooring) Which I would give the follow url: www.companysite.com//natural-stones/flooring Nothing odd so far, but here is the tricky part: the category isn’t an actual page a user wouldn’t be able to visit. The category is just an item in the mainmenu. If a user hovers over the category in the main menu they will get a dropdown in which they can select a product. E.g. flooring, wall strips etc. My question is: Is the url structure as I suggested: www.companysite.com//natural-stones/flooring the best practise. Even though the category isn’t an actually page. Or would it be better to structure the site: www.companysite.com/flooring My concern with this type of structure would be that the site would seem ‘flat’ with in-depth structure. Or would a third (and maybe best?) option be to create an actual page for the category itself. Thanks for taking the time to help me with my question/concern. If you need more information let me know.
Technical SEO | | RvG0 -
Category URL Duplicate Content
I've recently been hired as the web developer for a company with an existing web site. Their web architecture includes category names in product urls, and of course we have many products in multiple categories thus generating duplicate content. According to the SEOMoz Site Crawl, we have roughly 1600 pages of duplicate content, I expect primarily from this issue. This is out of roughly 3600 pages crawled. My questions are: 1. Fixing this for the long term will obviously mean restructuring the URLs for the site. Is this worthwhile and what will the ramifications be of performing such a move? 2. How can I determine the level and extent of the effects of this duplicated content? 3. Is it possible the best course of action is to do nothing? The site has many, many other issues, and I'm not sure how highly to prioritize this problem. In addition, the IT man is highly doubtful this is causing an SEO issue, and I'm going to need to be able to back up any action I request. I do feel I will need to strongly justify any possible risks this level of site change could cause. Thanks in advance, and please let me know if any more information is needed.
Technical SEO | | MagnetsUSA0 -
Duplicate canonical URLs in WordPress
Hi everyone, I'm driving myself insane trying to figure this one out and am hoping someone has more technical chops than I do. Here's the situation... I'm getting duplicate canonical tags on my pages and posts, one is inside of the WordPress SEO (plugin) commented section, and the other is elsewhere in the header. I am running the latest version of WordPress 3.1.3 and the Genesis framework. After doing some testing and adding the following filters to my functions.php: <code>remove_action('wp_head', 'genesis_canonical'); remove_action('wp_head', 'rel_canonical');</code> ... what I get is this: With the plugin active + NO "remove action" - duplicate canonical tags
Technical SEO | | robertdempsey
With the plugin disabled + NO "remove action" - a single canonical tag
With the plugin disabled + A "remove action" - no canonical tag I have tried using only one of these remove_actions at a time, and then combining them both. Regardless, as long as I have the plugin active I get duplicate canonical tags. Is this a bug in the plugin, perhaps somehow enabling the canonical functionality of WordPress? Thanks for your help everyone. Robert Dempsey0