Webmasters Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for webmasters. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Many people shorten their URLs. But as per my understanding it creates overhead of extra redirection, other can not guess about the target article with their url, and it should be less friendly for "inurl:..." type search.
Should I shorten the URLs of my sites?
Is there any advantage with short URLs besides the fact that they take fewer characters in anchor tags on the page (good for site loading)?
You do not need to include a unique number in the URL. I don't see how that would improve SEO. An SEO-friendly URL is one that is user-friendly, e.g.
http://foo/artists/acid_bath/lyrics)A short URL doesn't create any extra overhead—at least not in the conventional usage of the word—it just obfuscates the URL and, if it doesn't use a 301 redirect, interferes with proper PageRank flow.
The only reason to use URL shorteners is for services like Twitter, where you have a low character limit, or for mobile users for whom it's difficult to type long URLs.
In most cases, you should just generate a slug from the page title. Doing so gets rid of any special characters and unnecessary articles or conjunctions. This shortens the URL while keeping it descriptive and user-friendly.
http://foo.com/artists/acid-bath-lyrics) is also ok. Matt also points out that you should use hyphens rather than underscores since an underscore is ignored and both words are combined. So acid_bath would be seen by Google as acidbath
/artists/acid_bath/lyrics, they know to go to /artists/acid_bath to find more on that artist or to /artists to browse other artists. But that's an interesting tip about underscores.
May 23, 2012 at 18:48
At MozCon last year there were a few presenters who indicated that the shorter the URL the better. You see a lot of retailers using http://example.com/product_id these days. Evidence has shown that keyword stuffing your URL ex. http://example.com/mens/shoes/opentoed/for/midgets/that/like/boxing/stupid_long_product_name offers no advantage.
Along the same lines, it seems that having a semantic URL is important but the article or product name might not be necessary. I need to find some references for this.
As an observation some retailers and magazine use a unique number in the URL and title to avoid duplicate title issues. Not sure if this actually works or not.
Those less characters won't speed up you page loading process for sure, but you can try and keep your links short in the first place. Also, a simple URL shortener is easy to build, so you can build one for every site you have.
Say a normal link on your website would look like:
http://example.com/computer-science/a-question-about-long-urls-seo-and-google
You can use your own shortener and transform that to:
http://example.com/long-urls-seo-and-google
That is the technical answer, meaning you can do shortening "longer" but "friendlier". SEO-wise, I suggest that as long as you have friendly (human-readable) URLs, keep them that way. Take the URL of this page as an example.
basically, the only somewhat important parts of the URL as far as SEO goes are the domain name, and the 'filename' (or last part of the path). The folder structure doesn't have any SEO impact.
