Showing posts 1 - 10 of 16
  1. David Bashford

    Principal at myITdirector

    13 September 2006 09:52am

    avatar

    I'm seeing conflicting opinions on the value/relevance of having easily-readable URL's on sites (as I write the URL on this forum is not particularly user-friendly).

    Does anyone have any evidence (empirical or otherwise) whether Google and/or Users have any preference what the URL string is ?

  2. Jonathan Davey

    Director at LiaiseOnline Limited

    13 September 2006 19:27pm

    avatar

    Google reads code, not logical words... it just wants a good meal in a top restaurant!

    On 09:52:11 13 September 2006 DavidGB wrote:

     

    I'm seeing conflicting opinions on the value/relevance of having easily-readable URL's on sites (as I write the URL on this forum is not particularly user-friendly).

    Does anyone have any evidence (empirical or otherwise) whether Google and/or Users have any preference what the URL string is ?

     

  3. David Bashford

    Principal at myITdirector

    14 September 2006 09:00am

    avatar

    Thanks ... interesting analogy .... do we know its taste - as in "good" and "top" ?

     

    On 19:27:42 13 September 2006 JonathanDavey wrote:

     

    Google reads code, not logical words... it just wants a good meal in a top restaurant!

    On 09:52:11 13 September 2006 DavidGB wrote:

     

    I'm seeing conflicting opinions on the value/relevance of having easily-readable URL's on sites (as I write the URL on this forum is not particularly user-friendly).

    Does anyone have any evidence (empirical or otherwise) whether Google and/or Users have any preference what the URL string is ?

     

     

  4. Jonathan Davey

    Director at LiaiseOnline Limited

    14 September 2006 10:44am

    avatar

    e-consultancy.com and BusinessinBerkshire.co.uk are 3 star michelen style restaurants...

    if you prefer takeaways Ecademy.com can help you get a quick hit but it tends not to remain on the search engines tongue for more than a day or two!

    happy to talk in real time... 01753 852904

    On 09:00:54 14 September 2006 DavidGB wrote:

     

    Thanks ... interesting analogy .... do we know its taste - as in "good" and "top" ?

     

    On 19:27:42 13 September 2006 JonathanDavey wrote:

     

    Google reads code, not logical words... it just wants a good meal in a top restaurant!

    On 09:52:11 13 September 2006 DavidGB wrote:

     

    I'm seeing conflicting opinions on the value/relevance of having easily-readable URL's on sites (as I write the URL on this forum is not particularly user-friendly).

    Does anyone have any evidence (empirical or otherwise) whether Google and/or Users have any preference what the URL string is ?

     

     

     

  5. dj barker Bronze

    Online Marketer at Large

    19 September 2006 10:52am

    db.gif according to the horse's mouth, google prefers user-friendly urls:

    http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/guest-post-vanessa-fox-on-organic-site-review-session/

    the section on urls is towards the end.
  6. David Bashford

    Principal at myITdirector

    19 September 2006 15:11pm

    avatar
    Very helpful - thanks !

     

  7. Ashley Friedlein Diamond

    CEO at Econsultancy

    19 September 2006 16:45pm

    ashley-friedlein-favourite.jpg

    Hi David

    You said "as I write the URL on this forum is not particularly user-friendly" - but you'll notice that once you post it is then readable?

    How do we do this?

    - First read this "RE: Search Engine Optimisation - dynamic product content"

    - Then read this "Forums and Search Engines" - including the bit about underscores and how Google interprets them.

    And does Google have any preference?

    You bet it does.

    Try searching Google on "readable URL's" and you'll see.

    Regards

    Ashley Friedlein
    CEO
    E-consultancy.com

  8. David Bashford

    Principal at myITdirector

    19 September 2006 19:11pm

    avatar

    Awesome - thanks.

     

  9. Stephen Pratley

    Managing Director at Shine Marketing

    21 September 2006 10:29am

    avatar This has been around for a little while, and it seems to work well on 2 levels:

    1) For the user, they can see the URL in Google listings and it confirms that the page is about what they are looking for

    2) For Google it 'pegs' the page to a subject.
    Unlike a title tag or the page content, a URL can't be changed.  If you do, it effectively becomes a new page. It's like a sign of commitment to the subject.

    About 2 years ago I saw the technique provide some pretty spectacular results. Now more people are using it it has less effect, but it should certainlly be part of your box of SEO tricks for on-site optimisation

     

  10. Anonymous

    Senior Marketing Executive at BMRB

    22 September 2006 18:26pm

    Avatar-blank-50x50 There are many reasons why human readable URLs are better for both users and search engines.

    Firstly, they are just easier to remember.  For example, http://www.mydomain.com/products/gizmo is much easier to remember http://www.mydomain.com/shop.php?cid=675&pid=2&sid=11660242rflkwetklretepoert6235.
    If you notice the first example on on a search engine or on another site, you may well just remember it, but you definitely wouldn't remember the second one.

    Secondly, it's never a good idea to expose the underlying workings of your site to the user.  If we take the example above, they don't need to know that your site runs on PHP, and they don't need to know the category id, product id, and definitely not the session id. (The session id can be particularly problematic as if the user bookmarks the page with the session id in, when they return they more often than not get an error or get thrown back to the homepage of the site).

    The added benefit of keeping your URLs readable and non-technology specific is that in five years time when your site gets a complete overhaul and is created in a different or new technology, your URLs will still be useable and current as far as search engines are concerned. 

    What I mean is, imagine you've spent tens of thousands of pounds over the years getting your URLs (the ones that end with .php?id=35135&blahblahblah) high up in Google.  If you change the technology your site is built on and those urls become different, Google will more than likely wipe them clean from their database the next time they crawl your site as they will no longer be valid - all back to square one*!

    *OK, the bit about square one is not strictly true because Google will reindex your pages again and if  you have good content and good links coming in to your site you'll get ranked accordingly again.  But it's a scenario that needn't happen if you have human readable URLs.

Reply to this thread

Log in to reply to this thread or join Econsultancy for free so you can post to our forums along with other benefits.