Should we use URL parameters or plain URL's=
-
Hi,
Me and the development team are having a heated discussion about one of the more important thing in life, i.e. URL structures on our site.
Let's say we are creating a AirBNB clone, and we want to be found when people search for
apartments new york.
As we have both have houses and apartments in all cities in the U.S it would make sense for our url to at least include these, so
clone.com/Appartments/New-York
but the user are also able to filter on price and size. This isn't really relevant for google, and we all agree on clone.com/Apartments/New-York should be canonical for all apartment/New York searches. But how should the url look like for people having a price for max 300$ and 100 sqft?
clone.com/Apartments/New-York?price=30&size=100
or (We are using Node.js so no problem)
clone.com/Apartments/New-York/Price/30/Size/100
The developers hate url parameters with a vengeance, and think the last version is the preferable one and most user readable, and says that as long we use canonical on everything to clone.com/Apartments/New-York it won't matter for god old google.
I think the url parameters are the way to go for two reasons. One is that google might by themselves figure out that the price parameter doesn't matter (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1235687?hl=en) and also it is possible in webmaster tools to actually tell google that you shouldn't worry about a parameter.
We have agreed to disagree on this point, and let the wisdom of Moz decide what we ought to do. What do you all think?
-
Personally, I would agree with you an opt for the following option:
clone.com/Apartments/New-York?price=30&size=100I don't think it matters whether that section of the URL is readable to everyone. I would actually say that anyone who has a technical background would find the URL above easier to change than the other one, as having /'s in the URL almost symbolised different directories rather than a parameter (that's how I would generally interpret it anyway).
I think in the grand scheme of things, It's going to make little different as you don't want the additional sections to actually be indexed in the search engines. Like Gary correctly pointed out, you can setup 'URL Parameters' in GWT and I think that's your best option. There's more information about that here - http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/improved-handling-of-urls-with.html
You could also use robots.txt to block the parameters in the URL but this depends on whether the search engine crawling your website chooses to use it.
Hope this helps!
Lewis -
Good example of a site that does show up in the SERPs for all things related
-
OK, not to sit on the fence here but both are good options.
However when it comes to "URL Parameters" there is a section in Webmaster Tools that you can set to ignore certsin parameters. So that's always an option.
I like to look at sites like oodle in cases like this.
Here is an example
they spent a lot of time working out the best process and they use the node type url.
However Google has been said to prefer shorter urls recently.
Hope my sitting on the fence did not make things worse LOL
-
Personally I would just $_POST price and size - and be done with it. ( as opposed to $_GET which shows the parameter in the URL ) - No need to over think creating more URLs and complicating life.
If anything - you can define in WMT what price is and what size is but just keep it clean. Also, remember # tags in the URL doesn't get followed by google. So, clone.com/Apartments/New-York#price=30&size=100 could work too.
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
-
Title Tags in Sitecore are the same as navigation. How do I add keyword phrases without effecting my website's navigation?
I am working on overhauling the on-page SEO for ecommerce website on Sitecore. I've done all my research and I am ready to plug the Title tags and descriptions in. So, if the page on Navigation is 'SHOP' this is in the Title tag box. How do I add my 70 characters of keywords? Thanks. JOE
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | iJoe0 -
Category Page - Optimization the product's anchor.
Hello, Does anybody have real experience optimizing internal links in the category page? The category pages of my actual client uses a weird way to link to their own products. Instead of creating diferents links (one in the picture, one in the photo and one in the headline), they create only one huge link, using everything as anchor (picture, text, price, etc.). URL: http://www.friasneto.com.br/imoveis/apartamentos/para-alugar/campinas/ This technique can reduce the total number of links in the page, improving the strenght of the other links, but also can create a "crazy" anchor text for the product. Could I improve my results creating the standard category link (one in the picture, one in the photo and one in the headline)? Hope it's not to confuse.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Nobody15569049633980 -
Why do people put xml sitemaps in subfolders? Why not just the root? What's the best solution?
Just read this: "The location of a Sitemap file determines the set of URLs that can be included in that Sitemap. A Sitemap file located at http://example.com/catalog/sitemap.xml can include any URLs starting with http://example.com/catalog/ but can not include URLs starting with http://example.com/images/." here: http://www.sitemaps.org/protocol.html#location Yet surely it's better to put the sitemaps at the root so you have:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart
(a) http://example.com/sitemap.xml
http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes.xml
http://example.com/sitemap-spongecakes.xml
and so on... OR this kind of approach -
(b) http://example/com/sitemap.xml
http://example.com/sitemap/chocolatecakes.xml and
http://example.com/sitemap/spongecakes.xml I would tend towards (a) rather than (b) - which is the best option? Also, can I keep the structure the same for sitemaps that are subcategories of other sitemaps - for example - for a subcategory of http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes.xml I might create http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes-cherryicing.xml - or should I add a sub folder to turn it into http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes/cherryicing.xml Look forward to reading your comments - Luke0 -
When does it make sense to make a meta description longer than what's considered best practice?
I've seen all the length recommendations and understand the reasoning is that they will be cut off when you search the time but I've also noticed that Google will "move" the meta description if the search term that the user is using is in the cached version of the page. S I have a case where Google is indexing the pages but not caching the content (at least not yet). So we see the meta description just fine on the Google results but we can't see the content cache when checking the Google cached version. **My question is: **In this case, why would it be a bad idea to make a slightly lengthier (but still relevant) meta description with the intent that one of the terms in that description could match the user's search terms and the description would "move" to highlight that term in the results.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | navidash0 -
Impact of simplifying website and removing 80% of site's content
We're thinking of simplifying our website which has grown to a very large size by removing all the content which hardly ever gets visited. The plan is to remove this content / make changes over time in small chunks so that we can monitor the impact on SEO. My gut feeling is that this is okay if we make sure to redirect old pages and make sure that the pages we remove aren't getting any traffic. From my research online it seems that more content is not necessarily a good thing if that content is ineffective and that simplifying a site can improve conversions and usability. Could I get people's thoughts on this please? Are there are risks that we should look out for or any alternatives to this approach? At the moment I'm struggling to combine the needs of SEO with making the website more effective.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RG_SEO0 -
Google's Exact Match Algorithm Reduced Our Traffic!
Google's first Panda de-valued our Web store, www.audiobooksonline.com, and our traffic went from 2500 - 3000 (mostly organic referrals) per month to 800 - 1000. Google's under-valuing of our Web store continued to reduce our traffic to 400-500 for the past few months. From 4/5/2013 to 4/6/2013 our traffic dropped 50% more, because (I believe) of Google's "exact domain match" algorithm implementation. We were, even after Panda and up to 4/5/2013 getting a significant amount of organic traffic for search terms such as "audiobooks online," "audio books online," and "online audiobooks." We no longer get traffic for these generic keywords. What I don't understand is why a UK company, www.audiobooksonline.co.uk/, with a very similar domain name, ranks #5 for "audio books online" and #4 for "audiobooks online" while we've almost disappeared from Google rankings. By any measurement I am aware of, our site should rank higher than audiobooksonline.co.uk. Market Samurai reports for "audio books online" and "audiobooks online" shows that our Web store is significantly "stronger" than audiobooksonline.co.uk but they show up on Google's first page and we are down several pages. I also checked a few titles on audiobooksonline.co.uk and confirmed they are using the same publisher descriptions we and many other online book / audiobook merchants do = duplicate content. We have never received notice that our Web store was being penalized. Why would audiobooksonline.co.uk rank so much higher than audiobooksonline.com? Does Google treat non-USA sites different than USA sites?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lbohen0 -
Dynamic 301's causing duplicate content
Hi, wonder if anyone can help? We have just changed our site which was hosted on IIS and the page url's were like this ( example.co.uk/Default.aspx?pagename=About-Us ). The new page url is example.co.uk/About-Us/ and is using Apache. The 301's our developer told us to use was in this format: RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/Default.aspx$
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GoGroup51
RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^pagename=About-Us$
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.domain.co.uk/About-Us/ [R=301,L] This seemed to work from a 301 point of view; however it also seemed to allow both of the below URL's to give the same page! example.co.uk/About-Us/?pagename=About-Us example.co.uk/About-Us/ Webmaster Tools has now picked up on this and is seeing it a duplicate content. Can anyone help why it would be doing this please. I'm not totally clued up and our host/ developer cant understand it too. Many Thanks0 -
What's the best theme for seo if you are going to use yoast anyway
I am going to edit my theme myself so I don't need something like thesis for that. But people say that the thesis framework is amazing for seo, and it's hard to edit it manually. Does using the thesis theme do anything for you if you are going to use yoast anyway? Thanks William
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | willie790