Best structure for URLs

[pyro]

I've recently upgraded a blog on my site, and have created all the software used to publish it. The old version (also created by me) used URLs like this: http*//www.example.com/archives/00027.php while the new one would look like this: http*//www.example.com/archives/form_highlighting_redux. Note: due to the fact that I didn't want to break old URLs (for obvious reasons) the PHP will read both of the URL's above the same. However, all linking on my site is now done with the second method. Now my question is google doesn't seem to be indexing any of these new pages, and I'm wondering if it is due to the way the URLs are structured. I would think it would index them better now, as I've changed the way the <title> element is written on each page. The old system used one title for all pages, while the new one uses separate titles for each page, based on the entry title. Would it perhaps be better to use a URL like http*//www.example.com/archives/form_highlighting_redux/?

[edited by: pageoneresults at 4:51 pm (utc) on Mar. 2, 2004]
[edit reason] Removed URI - Please refer to TOS, thanks. [/edit]

[pyro]

[edit reason] Removed URI - Please refer to TOS, thanks.[/edit]

My apologies. I've read them, now. :)

[Hissingsid]

http*//www.example.com/archives/form_highlighting_redux

Hi,

I'm in the middle of doing something similar in Perl. Your .php file ends are fine anyway. There is a bit of discussion about?query-string=query type URL endings. I was planning to use the same kind of URLs as your new ones to get data into my script without query strings using PATH_INFO and splitting it at the / then using the varables released in my script, so I'm a bit concerned about your comments.

Can anyone here shed any light on this?

By the way this form_highlighting_redux is one word as far as Google is concerned this is three form-highlighting-redux. Always use hyphens rather than underlines in your URLs!

Best wishes

Sid