File Naming

Are there any tips?

[jweighell]

I have a site that hasn't ranked too well so far since most of my content is dynamically generated from a database. To get around this problem, I have setup URL ReWriting for my website to fool search engines into thinking that they are static pages.

I used to have URLs such as:

http*//www.myserver.com/category.asp?cat=123

I have moved this to be:

http*//www.myserver.com/category/123.html

But I plan to go one step further and use:

http*//www.myserver.com/category/widgets.html

My question is really, do file names effect page ranking, and if so, how should I handle spaces?

http*//www.myserver.com/category/bluewidgets.html
http*//www.myserver.com/category/blue_widgets.html
http*//www.myserver.com/category/blue-widgets.html

I could also easily configure it so that .html isn't required...

http*//www.myserver.com/category/bluewidgets
http*//www.myserver.com/category/blue_widgets
http*//www.myserver.com/category/blue-widgets

Thanks in advance!

[edited by: pageoneresults at 5:30 pm (utc) on Dec. 26, 2003]
[edit reason] Delinked Examples [/edit]

[pageoneresults]

Personally, I would choose this one...

http*//www.myserver.com/category/blue-widgets

It is friendly to both visitors and bots alike. The hyphen is treated as a space so the two words are separated.

Also, for those reading this thread, the removal of file extensions is something that all of us may want to start considering as technology moves forward and we design more for the visitors. Removing the file extensions is referred to as Content Negotiation. You'll notice that new pages of the W3C now utilize this feature.

[MHes]

Hi

I don't think using keywords in file names will do any good as far as ranking is concerned. Perhaps it used to, but I doubt it does now.

The real fear is that it is a sign of 'optimisation'. I know many here do not believe in the 'over optimisation' theory, but if it is true, and there are triggers which suggest a site is over optimised, this could be one.

Many non optimised sites use keywords for file names and it is perfectly natural to do so. But google is getting kinda ruthless these days and they make their own rules. They may have found that the worst 'spam' offenders used this technique, so they look for it.

Making static pages I'm sure is good, but I would steer away from using competitive keywords in file names. I say this because one of my sites did this and I cannot get back no matter how much I change the page content. The only thing I haven't changed is the file names...... hmmmm

Anybody seen exact match file names ranking well on a highly competitive search phrase?

[pageoneresults]

I don't think using keywords in file names will do any good as far as ranking is concerned. Perhaps it used to, but I doubt it does now.

What about users? What about site maintenance?

File and directory naming are a very important part of the overall equation. If you feel that this is going to be targeted by some guessed over-optimization filter, then come up with a naming strategy that works for everyone.

I've found that the best way to name pages and directories is to name them based on the page or directory content. Some may use numbers (news sites), others may use abbreviated names. I like to use specific names and have been for over 7 years.

I will not allow Google or any other SE determine how my sites are structured. I do know that getting carried away with certain techniques may cause some problems. You just need to come up with a balance that works for everyone.

[GoldDust]

Very true Indeed

[edited by: GoldDust at 9:00 pm (utc) on Dec. 26, 2003]

[GoldDust]

I have to agree with you - I have started to change my page files names and have run into many new problems.....It's about building page file names around your page content and creating a keyword balence..So I have decided to keep my method of nameing pages specifically for the page content..and has helped me reach the top 5 on the SERPS on my keyword.

[jweighell]

Now you mention it, removing the file extension from the URL does seem a lot friendlier from a user point of view.

I'm sure that Google won't penalise a site because they give their pages meaningful names!

Thanks for all your help.

[MHes]

Hi

"I'm sure that Google won't penalise a site because they give their pages meaningful names"

I really hope you are right. However, adding 'erthgfj' to every file name would easily avoid any risk.

Europevision -
I agree from a webmaster perspective it makes sense, but how does it help a user? 99% of users have problems filling out simple forms and reading file names will never have occured to them! I think sometimes we assume our knowledge and habits which appear obvious are used by the average user, but I suspect not. I am constantly making our pages idiot proof and astounded by how simplistic users are. We run a call centre and get daily feedback, the questions asked by the average user on how to use the site is unbelievable, and believe me, our sites are incredibly simple to use!

I just wonder if a common demoninator between spammy sites is keyword filename. I know it sounds crazy, but google has to make filters of some kind and if they are faced with the fact that spammers do this then so be it, it becomes a trigger for a more agressive filter. After all, making assumptions on keyword frequency is equally flawed and penalises innocent sites, but they rank sites with this in mind.

[pageoneresults]

I just wonder if a common demoninator between spammy sites is keyword filename.

I'm not too sure I would generalize them as spammy sites. Yes, I would agree with you that keyword-file-names are one of many common denominators of sites that are SEO'd.

But then you have the sites that name their URIs from a maintenance and user perspective. I find it much easier to name the pages according to their content. My goal is to use the shortest URI possible while targeting the overall topic for that page. For example...

www.example.com/naming/directories.asp
www.example.com/naming/files.asp
www.example.com/naming/images.asp

[superpower]

My 2 cents:

I've done quite a bit of testing with this (on the over 50,000 pages on my main site) and I have found no identifiable pattern on what works and what doesn't as far as keywords in filename.

I have the gamut of filenames from keywords dashes in the root directory, subdomains (just a couple) to filenames with passed variables.

Some of the files I have with keywords seem to be doing really well. Others are disappointing (but are also newer so it's hard to guage at this point). Just when I think it is helping me I find examples of pages that seem far less optimized but are ahead of me in SERPs! I'm not sure why.. is it some sort of penalty where they only count a certain amount of dashed files per directory? Confusing... may be special conditions for a certain number of files in the same directory with more than a certain amount of dashes?

I'm going to keep things mixed up: dashes, underscores, etc.

As for people saying it is spammy--I disagree.

Should we all name our files like "swerd12d34fprt.php"? It makes sense to me to call the file whatever it is. If I'm selling purple round widgets then why shouldn't I just call the page that?

In the long run I don't think it can be penalized but it may not help you in SERPs either.

[superpower]

One more thing: When passing varibales I have found that passing one variable like?word=Widget DOES NOT hurt your ranking as far as I can tell.

I am near the top (from #1-5 depending on the term) for some competitive keywords with filenames exactly like that.