Hello everyone!! A few days ago I found myself in a interesting dilemma that I would like to share with you... Like the title anticipates, it's about URL's. The question is simple but I found many different opinions... From a SEO point of view. Which is the best approach, long or short URL's? Is better to have a long, descriptive URL (with keywords) or a short URL easy to copy and paste and more functional? I think the long URL is a better approach because it has more content and keywords and I think is more consistent than a short URL. Let me give you and example, Imagine that my web has like 9 deep levels, which will be the best approach? Long URL - www.site.com/level1/level1.1/level1.1.1/level2/level3 Short URL - www.site.com/level1.1.1/level2/level3 Hope you find interesting this dilemma and we can have a nice discussion about it Merry Chrismas!
It does not really matter that much you know, especially from SEO perspectives which nowadays are hugely affected by the off page elements mainly links. It is always great to use SE friendly URLs, containing the main keywords talked about in the title tags plus page bodies but the impacts as mentioned won't be huge on the rankings. Using a lot of folders may complicate the indexing though.
Hi all and thanks for answering me!! I think that a short URL is preferred but when is about to promote an specific page like a niche page is better to have as many keywords as you can placed at the URL to be more consistent with your Off Page strategies in terms of concordance For the other hand, regarding the user, is better to be descriptive or direct? The better for the user the better value for Google right? It's a tricky question but interesting don't you think?
I do prefer a short one for now. I was used to think a long url with rich keyword would be an excellent srategy. I found that too long url is caused some troublesome for its own ranking. Too many dashes will cause a spam looking from Google perspective. This is not only applied to url but to domain as well. Have you ever seen domain with more than 3 dashes ranked well for competitive keywords? I never seen it.
There is little evidence that a longer, "keyword stuffed" URL enjoys any advantage over a concise one. And your SEO benefit -- should there be any at all -- is probably not worth the crap user experience. Can you imagine telling someone to visit "http://www.site.com/level1/level1.1/.../level2/level3?" You could try splitting it up and seeing what kind of results you get, by using long URLs for SEO purposes but shortened URLs for promotion and linkbuilding (ie. install something like yoURLs so that domain.tld/keyword directs to domain.td/level1/level1.1/.../level2/level3) That way you could test both strategies and see what happens. Frank
www.site.com/level1 www.site.com/level1.1 www.site.com/level1.1.1 www.site.com/level2 www.site.com/level3
I still quite convinced that long, clean and rich content URL's have SEO value. Although I agree a short URL is better for the user and also for the SEO off page strategies. I would say in general, to have this structure is good because we have to consider that those extremely long URL won't attract much traffic at the end of the day because they are for very specific queries. Short but also descriptive and keyword rich URL's will be preferred to the off page strategies. Like I would use these kind of URL's to promote because they will attract more traffic just because they are more generic http:// www .site.com/level1//level2/level3 And not the more specific ones which in principle should attract less traffic http:// www .site.com/level1/level1.1/.../level2/level2.2/level3
Short URL with primary keyword is better than long keyword. It'll be better if you use more keywords on content instead of urls.