Dynamic URLs vs. static URLs Written by Juliane Stiller and Kaspar Szymanski, Google Search Quality Team Monday, September 22, 2008
Yeah, I was just reading this on the Google blog and was pretty stunned! Certainly a blow for conventional wisdom! I would still be in favour of rewriting my URLs though - it seems Google is trying to discourage people from clumsily rewriting them and potentially preventing the GoogleBot from properly crawling content. If you have a consistent url structure, I don't see why that should cause a problem. Maybe the GoogleBot tries to navigate sites according to the apparent url structure, like http://mysite.com/item/fruit/banana -> http://mysite.com/item/fruit, even though there is no actual "fruit" page... I would still use "friendly" urls though because: - they look nicer - they are friendlier to human beings - there may still be a SEO benefit in the placing full titles etc. in the URL - surely item/fruit/banana is more indicative of the content than item.php?foodstuff=fruit&delicacy=banana..! If Google wants to crawl my site, they can look at the sitemap, or follow the links for goodness' sakes!
Thats a good read- thanks for sharing this. I often wondered why dynamic URLs were such an (apparent) issue since they're generally unique and easy to read so no real issues. I think it's like most things - don't go nuts with your dynamic URLs (like having hundreds of parameters) but don't be afraid to use them! Having said that - I still like simple URLs!
So, does this mean instead of creating keyword friendly urls, I should create keyword friendly parameters? In the past, I created keyword friendly urls such as: www.example.com/blue-example.html So does this now mean that www.example.com/product.html?type=blueexmaple is a better url than www.example.com/product.html?type=12
No. It means youi don't need to and probably shouldn't do anything to the URL. More information: New study: which web page elements lead to high Google rankings? 22 May 2007
OK, I get the idea they are trying to communicate but I still said "Oh my GOD" when I read it. What do they think we are idiots? Did they look at the example they were providing at the end? Who would rewrite their URLs in that fashion anyway? I still say that we should rewrite dynamic URLs whenever possible as the article clearly states there is an advantage even though minimal. Yet, we need to ensure that the rewrites are done without causing any issues like the ones stated above. This article does not say "do not rewrite your dynamic URLs" as some people are taking it.
So Google is telling you now not make SEO friendly URLs. Pretty soon they'll be telling webmasters how to wipe their @$$es.
Major Google SEO Change: Google Prefers You Don't Use URL Rewrites September 23, 2008 SEO RoundTable See also http://cre8pc.com/blog/archives/662
awesome article. I've heard both sides of the fence on this one. I currently use re-write for everything now, but it's good to know my full dynamic sites from the past arent really effected!
Is this a good URL - http://trekshare.com/members/johnnyiceland/Iceland-Jeep-tour-Winter-2000/ OR this one - http://trekshare.com/member=johnnyiceland&trip=Iceland-Jeep-tour-Winter-2000
Old news? Sure, it does not matter if you change an URL like this: http://url.com/index.php?member=john&group=SEOs to http://url.com/index/member/john/group/SEOs but of course it still matters if you change an URL like http://url.com/index.php?uid=2398&ugr=4 to http://url.com/index/member/john/group/SEOs