| 9:58 pm on Dec 16, 2012 (gmt 0)|
In my experience, it doesn't matter much these days. Keywords in the filepath are a kind of reinforcing signal in today's algorithm, not a direct signal the way they used to be. In fact, lots of sites do well with simply:
| 2:41 am on Dec 17, 2012 (gmt 0)|
again if a website need to use them
which one would be better?
the problem with using example.com/directory/pagename is some page names in the same directory could cross over the required length and google starts to show ellipsis (...) in the URL
| 10:23 pm on Dec 17, 2012 (gmt 0)|
With regard to ranking, it really doesn't make much difference which you use.
The main benefit you get by have the keyword in your filepath is that it gets bolded in the serps if you rank on a keyword that's part of the query. If "directory" turns out to be a very long word, you might want to keep it short for reasons you state. I've abbreviated both directory names and filenames. IMO, ranking effects by having the keyword in the path are miniscule.
Having the url truncated in the Google snippet area is a problem only if someone copies and pastes it, not likely to happen, but I suppose possible.
| 10:48 pm on Dec 17, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Having the url truncated in the Google snippet area is a problem only if someone copies and pastes it, not likely to happen, but I suppose possible. |
I found this to be a problem because of scrapers, in which case Google actually picks up such URLs and requests them.
Now, such URLs *should* be returning 404, but I also found that this is not always the case - depending on where ... are, some CMS incorrectly return a page which is then a duplicate.
| 4:34 am on Dec 18, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|The main benefit you get by have the keyword in your filepath is that it gets bolded |
does that give an advantage as far as ranking a page/directory is concerned?
| 4:38 am on Dec 18, 2012 (gmt 0)|
No, but it does attract the user's eye. That may improve the number of Google users who actually click on your listing, wherever you rank.