Webmasters Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for pro webmasters. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

As you know, URL Length is important for SEO.

There is a ambiguity in URL length calculation for Unicode URLs.

How search engines view my Unicode URLs?

For Example the following URLs are same, which of them are calculated by search engines?

  1. http://aroushaafzar.ir/خدمات/طراحی-وب-سایت.html => Length: 47 characters
  2. http://aroushaafzar.ir/%D8%AE%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AD%DB%8C-%D9%88%D8%A8-%D8%B3%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%AA.html => Length: 120 characters
share|improve this question

migrated from stackoverflow.com Aug 21 '13 at 2:12

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

URL length has little impact on SEO. Google does not appear to have direct signals in their algorithm to prefer shorter URLs.

There are two possible SEO considerations with long URLs:

  1. Long URLs often get truncated when posted into forums and emails.
  2. Long URLs cause pages to be larger and take longer to download. Especially when there are hundreds of links in a page to long URLs.

When users copy and paste URLs from the browser bar, they will usually get the longer encoded URL. This can cause your URL to be truncated more readily than a URL that uses ASCII characters.

When using links in your pages, you can choose to link to the encoded version, or the un-encoded version. So there you could choose the shorter version.

share|improve this answer

As you know, URL Length is important for SEO.

Citation needed.

There is no particular hard limit for URI length. URIs should be kept manageable for usability (eg: can you easily copy-and-paste it? could you type it if you needed to?), and there is no gain in packing them with irrelevant keywords, but you should not be worrying about truncating titles to a specific number of units.


This an IRI; the %-encoded form is the version that is also a valid URI. Either version should be treated the same by browsers and search engines that have IRI support. Usually you would expect the IRI to be the version that appears on-screen (whichever version is used in the href itself; there are reasons to prefer the URI version there) and this seems like a perfectly reasonable IRI to me for what it's worth.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.