| 9:47 pm on Nov 10, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I don't think it makes all that much difference from an SEO perspective.
One consideration, though, is that if you have subdirectories like widget.com/food/recalls and you decide to move an individual page from one category to another, the URL of the page will change. That's not a huge deal, especially if you can easily do a 301 redirect, but it's something to think about.
With the flatter structure, the URL doesn't necessarily have to change when content changes category, so there's no need to do a 301 (which results in a tiny loss of link juice).
Another consideration is the effect on site management -- that's going to depend on your setup, whether you're using a CMS and which one, etc.
| 10:09 pm on Nov 10, 2011 (gmt 0)|
IMHO website structure is much less important for SEO reasons. The search engines are looking at so many different quality signals that url structure often does not make a significant impact to your ranking score.
I would be much more concerned about building a url structure that #1 - will be easy to maintain in the long term and #2 - will help branding and usability efforts. A very long url with special characters makes it less likely for a user to pass it along to their friends.
ps hypens have been abused by spammers for so many years that I would suggest you be overly cautious and avoid them as much as possible
| 10:21 pm on Nov 10, 2011 (gmt 0)|
URLs ending in a trailing slash should represent either a folder or the index page in a folder.
| 11:17 pm on Nov 10, 2011 (gmt 0)|
^ what he said.
Plus I agree, the actual name has pretty much zero impact on SEO these days but does help a user recognise relevance.
Personally, I'd use the trailing slash version and make sure that calls to the versions without a trailing slash resolve to add it to avoid potential duplicate URL issues.
| 11:27 pm on Nov 10, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Do the proposed directories each represent a single article or a group of articles? One article per directory seems a bit over the top; it would then make more sense to have (with actual filenames)
which can be rewritten to taste. It's really two questions, not one: the "real" file structure, and what the user sees.
g1?! What are you doing here? Why aren't you whooping it up in Las Vegas?
| 5:31 am on Nov 11, 2011 (gmt 0)|
With no doubt, go for this structure:
I'd eliminate this one:
What type of article you put in this category that you wouldn't put in the other 3?