Length of URL

[JasonGomez]

Are long URLs bad for SEO?

Our website is organized based on folders.

For example
domain.com/product1/county/city/neighborhood

We've done it based on usability and programing
Is this harmful for SEO or should we consider a better way to show URL?

Would like to hear your thoughts.

 

[ellis163]

Hi,

Yes, It's really harmful for SEO Purpose. I suggest you to make it short by URL Rewriting Method. It's best method and you can use some targeted keywords in your URL by URL Rewriting Method and it will give you best result in SEO.

 

[RevaxMedia]

Couple of things; long URL's are not always bad however I would consider restructuring those;

Keep the less variable option last;

Domain.com/Area/Place/Product

I take it the product changes per area? you may get duplicate content issues by leaving the area in, do you really need that area specific traffic?

Domain.com/area/product would be ideal if different products however I would need to look at what you do to give more accurate advice.

 

[DotNetWebs]

...I take it the product changes per area? you may get duplicate content issues by leaving the area in, do you really need that area specific traffic?...

Totally agree with this.

I would be far more worried about unnecessary and potential harmful duplication than the length of the URL per se.

Regards

Dotty

 

[frida_adams]

Long URL's are not at all bad for SEO. But if you put your URL related to your keyword then it helps to get traffic to your website.

 

[softwaredevelopersuk]

URL length Keep it minimized - use somewhat less than the 2,000 characters allowed by IE - less than 100 is good, less is even better

 

[gauravmultiplex]

Are long URLs bad for SEO?

Our website is organized based on folders.

For example
domain.com/product1/county/city/neighborhood

We've done it based on usability and programing
Is this harmful for SEO or should we consider a better way to show URL?

Would like to hear your thoughts.

Long URL's are not at all bad for SEO. If the URL of the website is in between 2000 characters then its ok but if you keep the url small than its easy for the users to keep the URL in mind (easily memories it).

 

[fairestcape]

It's amazing the amount of rubbish that gets written about URL's and "SEO".

In truth, the URL itself is negligible in terms of "SEO". It can be LONG, in can be SHORT, it can be DYNAMIC, it can be STATIC...

The important thing is NOT the URL, but what lies BEHIND it !!! What does it reveal to the search engine, once it is "opened"?

It is nothing more than a front door. It is the GATEWAY to specific PAGE CONTENT, and complementary site NAVIGATION.

What search engines want, is that when a URL is accessed, does that URL deliver good, logical content and on-linking, and meaningful, clear FUNCTIONALITY?

Does the URL generate (or reveal) a page that provides a good, valuable user experience, that is easy to follow, is of importance to the visitor, and that loads quickly and has all its resources properly compiled and displayed.

The URL itself has absolutely NO INFLUENCE on the Search Engines' subsequent indexing and ranking of the page.

A BADLY COMPOSED URL - (such as a "dynamic" url that does not offer up (generate) complete content, or from which FUNCTIONS may seem confusing or irrelevant, or through which other links do not seem to follow a logical pattern) - will need attention, NOT because it is "badly named" but because it is delivering BAD CONTENT.

 

[DotNetWebs]

...The URL itself has absolutely NO INFLUENCE on the Search Engines' subsequent indexing and ranking of the page...

I agree with the sentiment of your post but not with "absolutely NO INFLUENCE".

e.g a URL includes the domain and if you have an exact match domain for your query that will almost certainly have some influence (all other things being equal).

Regards

Dotty

 

[fairestcape]

Sorry... don't agree. May have been the case prior to PANDA, but no longer relevant.

Type BRITISH into Google.co.uk

Of the first 20 results, only 5 contain the word "british" and TWO of these are for british airways, even though their first result is BA.COM


Here are the 20...

ba.com (www.britishairways.com/travel/global/public/en_)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_people

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom

telegraph.co.uk

www.britishmuseum.org/

www.britishcouncil.org/

www.royal.gov.uk/

www.bl.uk/

www.bps.org.uk/

www.bgs.ac.uk/

www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/britain.html

www.bmj.com/

www.antarctica.ac.uk/

www.vogue.co.uk/

www.britac.ac.uk/

www.britishwaterways.co.uk/

www.britishairways.com/travel/home/public/en_gb

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army

 

[MASSEY]

...The URL itself has absolutely NO INFLUENCE on the Search Engines' subsequent indexing and ranking of the page...

What a load of ****.

 

[DotNetWebs]

...Of the first 20 results, only 5 contain the word "british" and TWO of these are for british airways, even though their first result is BA.COM...

That's irrelevant. I said "all other things being equal"...

Suppose BA had two versions of their site. One with britishairways.com in the domain and another that didn't use a domain but was only addressable by it's IP address...

Which version would rank higher???

Regards

Dotty

 

[DotNetWebs]

The influence of keyword in url has decreased, however it is still important.

This has been my experience and why I questioned the "absolutely NO INFLUENCE" statement.

Regards

Dotty

 

[j600com]

I believe it does make a difference, but like every other detail of SEO it's just 1 tiny factor within the bigger picture. I've found that SEO is about ticking lots of boxes an that combination is why gives results, no single factor (such as a URL) will make a significant difference without other elements in place. So in my opinion it's still wise to have friendly urls.