imho url structure is not as valuable as it was many years ago. url structure still has implications with setting your theme & siloing and it does impact seo.
there are over 200 items that impact google rankings. in general i just dont think url structure will give webmasters the biggest impact for the effort. for me it is way down on my to do list. as long as the url looks good to users who are browsing the serps, i am comfortable with it.
if you have a large & established website i really wouldnt want to make massive changes to the url structure. these types of changes can lead to big headaches.
|for me it is way down on my to do list |
Interesting, it's actually the first thing I do when constructing any site, I feel the directory structure is the most important and basic elements however I do agree with you that if it is working well now I wouldn't make any drastic changes, that really could do more damage than help.
thanks goodroi and HuskyPup
It's seems that so far everyone think that it's better not to mess with the current structure as it can bring more damage than benefit..
I'd be happy to hear more thoughts and opinions
HuskyPup, i do agree with you that is is important when planning a brand new site. i was referring more to ongoing maintenance and making changes to pre-exisiting urls.
If you are using a CMS that ties your URL structure to your internal linking structure, then it matters a lot. But it is the internal linking that matters, IMO - not the URL structure itself.
I've worked with several redesigns this past year that went to a very short and simple URL with no sub directories at all, or in some cases, just one. The new designs with short URLs are thriving.
i think the new structure domain.com/page
will give you high rankings for all of your pages, googlebot can easily find your page on the follow.
|I've worked with several redesigns this past year that went to a very short and simple URL with no sub directories at all, or in some cases, just one. |
How does the overall number of urls/pages in a site play into that?
Easier with a site that has say less than 100 urls/pages than for a site that has 10,000 or more urls/pages?
One redesign was for a site that launched with 20,000 pages and adds a couple hundred a week. The URL structure is:
Sort of a modified Wordpress thing. But yes, if the site is going to be immense, then there is more challenge.
So short urls are more important than sectioned url structure?
|But it is the internal linking that matters, IMO - not the URL structure itself. |
I agree. I put a lot of effort into the site sectioned to be highly usable. I believe my members don't even notice the different structure of the forum vs. other pages in the same section.
Right - but searchers DO notice a short and simplified URL in the SERPs, even if subliminally. I think a short URL says "this click will not lead you into chaos". Many long-time web users are still quite afraid of getting lost and confused.
I agree with Tedster that users have more confidence to click URLs that are concise and meaningful. I'm also convinced that other webmasters are more willing to link to such URLs.
Something else to consider: If your URLs are shorter you can save a lot of characters from your site navigation menus even with the same number of links. I can't prove whether that would have any effect on SEO, but it certainly wouldn't hurt, and anything that improves loading speed by even a tiny fraction has to be considered a positive.