Static URLs vs URLs with query strings

[londrum]

Ive been looking through my MOZ suggestions and a lot of the pages are flagging up a "problem" with dynamic URLs. It wants me to swap them all out for static URLs instead.

I know this is pretty easy to do with an htaccess file, so it isn't a problem doing it, but im looking at thousands of pages

Is that something that you think is really worth doing? ...I can imagine it causing big problems with google if i start changing thousands of URLs. I'd have to get a pretty big benefit to my rankings to risk that. Has anyone seen a ranking rise just be changing to static URLs?

PS. All of my query string URLs have canonicals on, and they don't cause any problems with duplicate content, and i only have a maximum of three query strings on any one URL, so they seem okay to me

[lucy24]

a maximum of three query strings on any one URL

You meant a maximum of three parameters in any one query string, right? :)

I was talking about this recently in a different venue, asking the same question: Is it still worth it? On the one hand, sure, URLs that look static (i.e. no visible query string) are prettier, and easier to remember and type in. But on the other hand

-- increasing numbers of users never look at the address bar, and may not even know what it's for; they just follow links
-- increasing numbers of browsers don't display the full URL by default, just the hostname

Does that put us into "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" territory?

[londrum]

Yeah, I think im going to give it a miss. Its just annoying having that "problem" showing up in the suggestions -- i want it to be perfect!