Forum Moderators: not2easy
So, which over-all is better for indexing and usability.
I know this subject has been broached and discussed but it's been more than few years. Can I get an update on the current "Best Practices" concerning this? Thanks. ;)
A space is pretty bad, as they change into %20, confusing people - and it looks ugly.
Of the options you offer, blue-widgets is far and away the best. It is consistent, it does not look ugly, it is read by SEs as both "blue-widgets.html" and "blue widgets.html".
It works.
You could also use "blue.widgets.html", but I suspect many would find it confusing.
"bluewidgets.html" still has a major fan base, though, like most boy bands, the fans are tending to leave it behind. It does work, as SEs are increasingly able to parse "bluewidgets" effectively - but few will ever search for "bluewidgets", so it still risks second place to "blue-widgets.html"
I hope all that makes sense? ;)
http://example.com/widgets/blueI've found that I can eliminate most hyphenation by using a more intuitive taxonomy. Most sites are going to have at least one sub-directory level. I say most...
If, like me, you don't make use of subdirectories in the way p1results describes, then hyphens are indeed a good choice.
The need for a 'flat' site is overestimated; folders help in site management, and do no harm.
But what matters is not the structure, but the internal navigation. If that's ok, then 'depth' probably does not matter.
But that being the case, I'd definitely avoid underscores for all *new* files. I have not heard that Google parses them happily, but I'd probably still not change the existing files.
2000 + URL's and as far as "site management" goes, really no problem.
YET! What a nightmare you are going to create for yourself. I've tried that totally "flat" structure before with everything at the /root and it didn't work out too well. In fact, it limited us severely in organizing and naming files appropriately. That is why I stated above that most sites will have at least one level in the taxonomy. This is "almost" mandatory to allow proper naming and growth moving forward.
I really hope you are addressing all the other things that were pointed out in your site review. ;)
As you have seen, spaces turn in to %20 which makes%20the%20URL%20very%20hard%20to%20read.
Underscores are not treated as word separators by search engines. They also visually 'disappear' in underlined links.
Use dots or hyphens. They are treated as you would expect.
Underscores are not treated as word separators by search engines. They also visually 'disappear' in underlined links.
Google does treat underscores as word separators.--I've seen this confirmed somewhere official. Sorry, can't remember where. I researched this a couple of years ago--I have some pages with an underscore in the name and I was deciding if I should change them. I decided not to, since they were getting traffic. But I do avoid using underscores now.
Your second point is another good reason not to use them.
I've tried that totally "flat" structure before with everything at the /root and it didn't work out too well. In fact, it limited us severely in organizing and naming files appropriately.
It is interesting you would say this. My own site uses a flat structure, which worked well for a while, but now it is getting so big that it is becoming a pain, especially when I want to promote a URL in print and don't want to put something like...
www.myexample.com/exampleservice.html
It is much easier to do...
www.myexample.com/service
which I have been able to do by creating a sub-directory and the main landing page in that directory is called index.htm which works well when promoting a print ad or direct mail piece for promotion, which I do somewhat regularly.
Outside of this I am finding it easier to look at a list of folders for various sections of the site and go in each to see particular pages that need to be modified rather than one long list of every page in the site.
However I have noted that some of the programs I use that create XML site maps for Google and/or Yahoo have trouble following all the links into these sub-directories and adding all of those pages to the map as well. I am not sure why.
I use "short" URLs for advertising. There is no "page" on the server at the short URL. The "short" URL is simply one of several entries in a list of 301 redirects in the .htaccess file. The user therefore sees the "real" URL for the page once they arrive at the site.
[edited by: Andreas8 at 6:46 pm (utc) on Jan. 18, 2009]
But there'll still be some who will vote for ANYTHING in preference to hyphens. Consensus, yes; total agreement, no. ;)
:)
P.
