A couple years back I read Nathan Anderson explain that urls with post id would rank as well or better than urls that actually contained the title tag within the pages url. I think he said the reason is that they are shorter, and to avoid keyword stuffing of urls, google would ignore them in terms of rank value. Any views based on evidential experience?
I think and the fact is post title with keyword better than post ID....you can search in google whatever you need to know, and look at the url!
that the majority of people use post title in the url means that any search in google will show most results with post title in url. That does not mean it is ranked higher than post id. Again, anyone with actual evidence? Split tests or so? Just been curious for a while as I had post-id and changed to post-title but not yet seeing any change.
Very difficult to provide split tests on this. Its not a big ranking factor. Although second or third tier engines might favor keywords in url as opposed to post id. Again I do not have any actual evidence to prove this. just my 2 cents.
I don't have any split tests or hard evidence that I can actually show you, but I do know that it is better based on experience. I was hired to redo the site structure on a blog a couple of years ago. The blog itself was about 2 and a half years old and had just over 400 posts all of which were in the post_id format. The owner had heard about keywords in URL's being better and thus had started trying to implement it himself, when he got stuck with the mod_rewrite he came to me. I implemented 301 redirection to the blog to transfer the link juice from the old format to the new format. I was also asked to setup a sitemap plugin and submit it to his Google Webmaster Tools account which gave me access to his analytics. I asked if I could watch his traffic to see if the change had any impact as I was also interested to see the outcome and he agreed to let me watch it for a month after the changes were complete. Due to the age of the web site it only took Google 3-4 days to fully index the new URL format. Initially the search engine traffic dropped quite considerably, after about 14 days the traffic levels were back to normal and within 21 days the traffic was increasing at a steady rate. I also monitored three of his blog posts and all of them followed a similar pattern by dropping initially, then getting back to their originally ranking before increasing. Obviously back then there were fewer ranking factors than there are today so it's plausible that it was easier to see the effect of this particular change. Based on this experience I have always opted to optimize with keywords in the URL, so long as they make sense to have them there (e.g. not keyword stuffing).
Wooww, I am really satisfied with this explanation MartinPrestovic.....Thanks for this matter. I have implemented keywords in url from long time ago till now, it means I have do the right thing, but the traffic I got still low...Is there anything I can do to increase my visitor's traffic?
Rather than hijack this thread and talk about things which aren't relevant to the thread starters topic I would suggest that you start your own thread in this forum to get specific advice about your individual web site like this guy did and where I provided a set of actionable points for his specific situation.
URL's with keyword's are more search engine and user friendly. These makes it easier for search engine spider to index and for user to understand what the page might be. As URL's contains keywords, these keywords get good boosting and the keyword density of the keywords upgraded.