If you had to chose: filename length vs. kw in filename

which is better for SEO?

[baze22]

I've recently modified my message board to make it more SEF. Part of that was to make URLs SEF. I've made them so that the URL will be t999threadtitle.html. (999 is thread number)

Works fine, however the filename can get quite long doing it this way. Will SEs ignore the link if the filename gets too long? Would it be better to make the file name something like t999.html to ensure that the filename isn't too long. I could go a step further and trim the thread title to make for a shorter name, but then I would want to parse out non keywords (the, and, it, to, an, this, etc) as best possible to keep it more to the point. Obviously this could be a serious performance bottleneck and is it even worth it.

Is it worth the hassle to have KW's in the filename?

thanks,

baze22

[pageoneresults]

Works fine, however the filename can get quite long doing it this way. Will SEs ignore the link if the filename gets too long?

No. But, shorter is definitely the way to go from a usability and maintenance standpoint.

Would it be better to make the file name something like t999.html to ensure that the filename isn't too long.

Yes. If this would make the most sense from a maintenance standpoint, then your suggestion above would be appropriate.

I could go a step further and trim the thread title to make for a shorter name, but then I would want to parse out non keywords (the, and, it, to, an, this, etc) as best possible to keep it more to the point. Obviously this could be a serious performance bottleneck and is it even worth it.

Not worth the troubles that you describe, especially the serious performance bottleneck.

Is it worth the hassle to have KW's in the filename?

Based on a large scale site message board style, it may not be worth the additional maintenance required to target keywords in the URI.

If you have a short URI with a shallow structure, that will perform the best. And it also depends on how you have internal linking set up within the site. How many clicks away before you reach your destination?

Can you at least get one primary and/or one secondary word in the URI?

www.example.com/primary/t999.html
www.example.com/primary/secondary/t999.html

I might even suggest going one step further and eliminate the file extensions altogether. Use Content Negotiation and trim it down to...

www.example.com/primary/secondary/t999

[baze22]

Can you at least get one primary and/or one secondary word in the URI?

www.example.com/primary/t999.html
www.example.com/primary/secondary/t999.html

I've gone ahead and changed it to

www.example.com/forum/t999.html

Thought about making it:

www.example.com/forum/primary/t999.html, but still don't know if the benefits justify the code mods and addition url length. I need to keep it under /forum/ to keep things simple for main part of the site.

Thanks for your input,

baze

[pageoneresults]

www.example.com/forum/t999.html

Good choice and one that I'm sure you will be happy that you made as you continue forward with the site.

[DerekH]

But, shorter is definitely the way to go from a usability and maintenance standpoint.

I'm not sure what tools you are using, but URL length and maintenance are not even slightly related on most modern website tools.
The tool handles it.
Period.

Useability, however, is different and a URL that looks remotely memorable is much more likely to be bookmarked by Joe Public than a long-winded one, even if the computer does the heartache of bookmarking it.
why? Because a long URL doesn't look permanent- it looks served up.
A short URL looks permanent and hence looks a good thing to bookmark...
DerekH

[pageoneresults]

I'm not sure what tools you are using, but URL length and maintenance are not even slightly related on most modern website tools.

From my viewpoint, they are siamese twins. ;)

Do mean to say that the length of the URI has no impact on maintenance of the site? Maybe I'm using the wrong tools. What do you have up your sleeve?