There are several reasons to remove extensions from URLs:
To make the URLs look cleaner
To make URLs easier to type
To make URLs easier to remember
To make URLs more SEO keyword friendly
To be able to change technologies -- if you ever want to move your site from one technology to the other, its easiest to do so without users even knowing if there are no ...
Is it better to not have ':' or ',' in the URL for SEO?
Although colons and commas are reserved characters, they shouldn't impact SEO directly since they'll be URL encoded by browsers and bots.
The second URL would be much more familiar and easier to read for search engine users though, as apparent in links and search engine snippets, so would increase ...
All web servers have one or more "default files". It's the file that will be displayed whenever a visitor goes to a URL that ends in a slash /, i.e. a folder.
If the default file name on your web server is index.php and a visitor goes to www.example.com/pagename/, they are actually accessing www.example.com/pagename/index.php.
If there is no trailing /, ...
From the SEO prospective, i bet there might be a difference:
In you first example, the ID is separated from the title, making it clear to the crawler it is a different resource (as the / character does it naturally).
In your second example, the ID is mixed with the title. It requires more brains from the crawler to determine the meaning of it.
Imagine the ...
Putting the ID near the beginning of a URL is better than putting it near the end.
URLs often get truncated in emails or by CMS systems that show them to users. When the ID is at the end the truncation will often lop it off and cause 404 errors on your site. When it is near the beginning, your site can still redirect to the full URL.
When Googlebot ...
You only need to redirect the "ugly" URL if you had changed the URL structure and the "ugly" URLs had already been indexed by search engines and/or linked to by third parties. In this case, it is essential to redirect the old "ugly" URLs in order to preserve SEO and possibly prevent duplicate content issues.
However, if you implemented the "pretty" URLs ...
For SEO, I would say an id doesn't permit to easy remember the URL for users. Therefore, no matter on which URL you choose; an id in the middle or at the end of an URL doesn't change anything regarding SEO.
However, an id in an URL can be very useful in case of you would have two pages with the same URL. This is the case for StackOverflow because the URL is ...
This is the type of “cool” URI scheme that I aim for on my own personal website.
Personally, the reason that I started to do so (and probably many more web designer/developers too!) was after reading the article “Cool URIs don't change” – this document was written by the World Wide Web's founding father, Tim Berners-Lee.
In Tim Berners-Lee's famous article,...
Sure it will work,
You can consider any of the one link as canonical parent (Means original). and other one as duplicate.
If the url is different in parameter or its order is not an issue.
You can just point one url as its original, SEO Crawlers will identify that.
<link href="http://shoes.com/compare/adidas/vs/nike/" rel="canonical" /&...
Search engines see both dashes and slashes as word separators, so they will be able to parse either of your URLs.
Traditionally slashes in URL paths represent directory structures. Because of this, some users may expect that if you use /blue/suede-shoes/ they should be able to find a page at /blue/ with information about all your blue products. I would ...
For the most part, Google doesn't really care how you structure your URLs (as long as they're reasonably stable & crawlable; with the exception of country-targeting). Think about what you'd want out of your URL structure instead:
need to do country-targeting? Use subdomains or high-level folders, e.g., uk.domain.com/... , domain.com/uk/... (this is the ...
You don't want to replace a slash with an underscore. Google views slashes as word separators but underscores are parts of words. See http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/dashes-vs-underscores/
When slashes represent physical directories on the webserver, many slashes in a URL indicate that the file is stored many folders deep on the server. This often means ...
Should I care about those non-user friendly links already in the index
and hope that Google will correct itself soon?
This depends on what you want search engine users to see in your search results: the clean URLs: example.com/1234 or URLs with parameters: example.com/page.php?id=1234
Clean URLs are generally more understandable and recognizable to ...
It looks like your current URL paths are of the form /category/redundant-descriptive-title/id, where only the category and id parts are actually needed to identify the content. (For example, I can link to http://www.soundplaza.co.uk/speakers/blah-blah-who-reads-this-anyway/10 and see the exact same content as on the page you linked in your question.)
Google cares not one whit. Really. All non-alphanumeric characters are essentially ignored. From a programmers point of view, the URI is parsed and indexed using word boundaries and anything that is not a word, is ignored. It is that simple.
If you asked which one I personally prefer using, I would say - over +. I think it is more human friendly and the ...
When having the username at the beginning of the path, you would have to make sure to avoid name clashes with non-user pages (and, for sites that allow custom templates and forms, phishing potentials), and you lose some usability.
Reserved filenames: A user could choose the username robots.txt, favicon.png, .well-known, etc.
Internal pages: Your ...
Two pages should use the same canonical URL only if the contents of the pages are substantially the same.
In your case, it doesn't sound like any of your proposed pages will have the same content.
venues for Boston vs Boston-region. There will be some overlap, but won't the region page have many more on it? If users care enough about the distinction, ...
Ideally all URL changes would be tracked and you would implement redirects from any old URL to a new URL. Doing so is important so that inbound links to your site don't break and so that search engines continue to index and rank your content when it moves.
I love semantic URLs, but I'm not a fan of deep hierarchies in URLs. URLs should:
Uniquely identify ...
SOLVED! Thanks to you guys. Solution:
# Turn Rewrite Engine On
# Set the base to /games/ so we need not include it in the rules
#Rewrite for achilles.php?games_path=xxxxxxxxxx.yyy&category_id=zzz
RewriteRule ^([0-9a-zA-Z_-]+)/([0-9]+) $1.php?games_path=$1.swf&category_id=$2 [NC,L]
The URL does not need to contain such level of detail.
It is perfectly fine to have the url you propose: example.com/user/freddy-double-barrel for Freddy Double-Barrel.
From a SEO point of view, the url should cover two aspects:
be appealing to users
describe what the page is about
A url like example.com/user/freddy-double--barrel or example.com/user/...
To find the answer, right-click one of the URLs in question and select Export > Crawl Path Report
You will then get an excel file that will show you the different URLs it crawled through from the starting URL until it discovered the URL in question.
An example of an URL that might be 5 clicks from a home page could be something like:
example.com/ > links ...
As it was mentioned in the first answer, look at crawl path. The cause of what you are seeing, is, that on the site there could be different crawl pathes to the same target.
You, and the crawler, can reach a certain page through different ways: canonical, navigational menu, a content link, a footer link, a link block "most read" and the like...
Having no path is definitely best practice.
When people type your domain into their web browser, you will want to immediately show them your homepage without redirecting them. Having your home page at a separate URL is not only semantically confusing but also unnecessary.
It is OK.
Consider two things:
use the all+active filters as defaults. that way you can omit them.
use breadcrumbs rich snippet so in search engines results pages (SERPs) the URL will be structured to represent the actual hierarchy.
Page depth has less to do with site hierarchy, and more to do with how many clicks it takes the user to get to their desired destination. If it takes 1 click to go from yoursite.com to yoursite.com/this/that/everything/else/ then technically that's only 1 page deep.
I wouldn't tinker with the small stuff like this, as it will likely return little if any ...
I would change it so that the final part of the path is tannoy-revolution-signature-dc4t-10
This way if Google is breaking down the parts of the path in your URL the final part has the most relevant keywords and isn't just the number
I completely agree to all the answers put above. Just adding that one of the reasons why extensions are hidden in URL is to security. Putting it simply, if you don't expose the extension in the URL, it is little hard to figure out the technology on which the application has been built. So lets say a page in made in PHP and the extension is not hidden, then a ...
Remember, there's ALOT more to seo than the URL. If you have 'apple' in there and it's a relative term, great, you have a SEO friendly URL in my opinion.
Ideally, your whole URL would be relevant.
What does '123' correspond too? It might be worth displaying what it references (for example 'foods') in the URL instead of the number, but ONLY if it is of ...
I don't think there is necessarily a right or wrong answer here, but thinking about it logically, if i'm looking for a restaurant, I would most likely be looking for one within a certain local area.
So with that in mind, I'd say www.example.com/new-york/restaurants/abc-restaurant would be the most logical and user friendly approach.
You might want to ...