/thread-name.htm versus /forum-name/thread-name.htm

[Marvin Hlavac]

When I started my site (a forum), I opted to use the following URL format:

example.com/forum-name/thread-name.html

I thought the "forum-name" part of the URL would benefit me by the additional keywords. However, now, almost 3 years later, I somehow regret that decision. The URLs are way too long, and the "thread name" alone almost always includes the needed keywords (no need for more keywords).

I also wonder if there is any SEO benefit in having the URL of the following simple format:

example.com/thread-name.html

All things equal, would the short form rank better than the long form?

[g1smd]

I try to avoid adding needless folders to URLs.

I'd prefer the latter format, but not for ranking. It's all about Duplicate Content elimination - something that is a big problem in sites with "faceted navigation".

That's been an important topic in several recent threads.

[jdMorgan]

I'd prefer "example.com/thread-name" myself -- No use carrying around that ".html" on every thread's URL, and search engines certainly don't care.

Jim

[Marvin Hlavac]

Thanks for the prompt replies.

g1smd, I will likely switch to a shorter version, but first I need to get help on the 301 redirect code for my htaccess file.

jdMorgan, would it be preferable to use or not use the trailing slash in "example.com/thread-name"?

[jdMorgan]

Trailing slash is a wasted byte.
Keep it short.

Jim

[Marvin Hlavac]

Jim, thanks. I checked a few sites, and it seems they all use trailing slashes. Why is everyone(?) using them?

I just got a help for my 301 redirect, and I will most likely do the change to the new URL format in a day or two. I'm just now undecided about the trailing slash.

It's an almost three year old forum in a very small niche. It ranks well, and I do realize the risk of affecting ranking and traffic. I'm hoping it will be a short-term pain for a hopefully a slight benefit.

[tedster]

Why is everyone(?) using them?

1. Their CMS uses them by default
2. Ignorance

However, it's no big thing when it comes to search engines. Having BOTH versions resolve can be a problem. however.

[Marvin Hlavac]

Thanks very much to all three of you for your very valuable information. Yesterday morning I changed the format

from

example.com/forum-name/thread-name.html

to

example.com/thread-name

So far I see no negative effects on ranking and traffic (a slight improvement, actually), but I think it is way too soon to see any effect.

The only thing I feel a bit un-easy about is the fact that a double 301 redirect needed to be used. I was told there was no way around the double redirect because I use an add-in that rewrites my URLs to include text instead of just the .......showthread.php?t=35397.

[BradleyT]

Do you use forum name or do you mean category name?

I would think for analytics it's much easier to look at everything in the category names - /google/ or /analtyics/ or /foo/.

[Marvin Hlavac]

BradleyT, yes, I mean category name. And, yes, you are absolutely correct, it does have advantages. I didn't like it, though. My "category names" (or "forum names"), look like this: "manufacturer name + product name". However, in many (most) cases the same product name and/or manufacturer name is also mentioned in the thread title. I didn't like seeing it twice in the URL. URLs looked too long, too.

[g1smd]

The double redirect will be a problem.

There should be no redirect when links within the site are clicked. It is links that 'define' URLs.

Redirects are there to guide searchengines to update the URL they hold in their database.

Those redirects should all be single step. There should be no chains resulting from any request.

[Marvin Hlavac]

g1smd, there are no redirects when users click links within my site. The redirects I referred to were the 301s in htaccess file to redirect old external links.

Unfortunately, I was told there was no way to avoid double redirects. However, I mostly care only about 6 or 7 main landing pages (product reviews), and for those specifically I created a proper "single" redirect.

[mack]

One possible reason to keep the /forum_name is people who hack the url to get back down a level. Even if you do use the shorter versions be sure to make full use of breadcrumbs.

Mack.

[g1smd]

Unfortunately, I was told there was no way to avoid double redirects.

There will be a way to do this. You were very likely told incorrect information. It could be quite a lot of work to fix it.

[tedster]

Exactly. I have consulted on projects where that kind of fix would have meant developing an entirely new architecture for a major enterprise. Sometimes practicality (and budget) have to carry the day. Still, a good developer should say that -- instead of saying "impossible". It's really "impossible within our current resources".

[edited by: tedster at 3:36 am (utc) on May 9, 2010]

[Marvin Hlavac]

Thanks very much for not letting me be happy with the double redirect. The issue has been solved, and now I have a proper single-301-redirect functioning for ALL of the URLs. Problem solved, and I'm a happy camper.

[graeme_p]

I now prefer the trailing slash.

I have been playing with django-staticgenerator (I am thinking of writing my fork or re-implementation, because it does not do exactly what I want, but that is another subject).

For a url path like /my/path/ it generates a file like /my/path/index.html, so the path still works with a standard server config.

For a url path like /my/path the file will be called /my/path which will require more server config. It would also cause problems if your original path was something like /my/this.path

On the other hand, /my/path can be replaced with /my/path/index.shtml or /my/path/index.xml or whatever your future requirements might require.

Also, as its the default for so many CMSs it saves some work when moving to another CMS.