SEO Class in Chicago, IL
Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Blog Url Optimization
Posted 14 January 2008 - 08:15 AM
Should my blog article URL be www.blog.com/date/day/category/post name
or without the category? date?
Posted 15 January 2008 - 05:19 AM
Posted 15 April 2008 - 08:48 AM
I wont comment on the comments made, but say that the url structure of your blog posts mattes a LOT!
I mean think about it, what will google index higher, the same post about dogs with a url blog.com/dogs or blog.com/date/day/category/dogs
You know what I mean?
Anyway to get a blog.com/post url structure, all you do is log into your admin panel, go to permalinks and select the custom field, then add /%postname%/ there. That's it.
I would also fix your title, replace your tittle tags and what's in between to
Sorry I just had to disagree with the everyone else in this instance because url structure is a huge factor in improving ones blog post rankings
Posted 15 April 2008 - 09:33 AM
But I assume you have evidence? I'd love to get the facts!
Posted 15 April 2008 - 09:49 AM
Anyway, whatever word you want to use, link structure has an effect on that said blog posts rank, period. Sure I have proof, but i'm sure you would not appreciate me slapping this thread with a ton of links and keywords and the likes.
If you have the time let's each setup new blogs, on fresh new sites, write about the same subject using the same blog post titles and relatively same keyword density in our posts, heck lets use the exact same content! You use the ugly link structure and I will use the pretty link structure =]
Whoever ranks higher within a set period of time gets the others blog/domain? Of course, I doubt you'll have the time to go forth with this experiment right? It's ok, i'm not trying to prove anything, just stating facts, or should i say, my opinion here :P
Challenge stands as is though if anyone wants to take it ;)
Posted 15 April 2008 - 10:15 AM
I'll disagree right along with Scottie.
Posted 15 April 2008 - 10:47 AM
So what you;re saying is that url structure in blog posts is not a HUGE factor, but is a factor none the less?
Also,k sure, if I run into a se engineer, i'd love to learn more about this sort of thing, I'm more than open to learning and being proven wrong, but to simply disagree with someone and not provide proof is something I wont learn from, nor something I'd take seriously at all. Right? probably not but oh well... =]
EDIT: Does it not make sense to have the blog post as close as possible to the _root? Don't search engines believe a user would have to navigate loads of pages to find the information with a 4 level directory deep link? Correct me if I'm wrong but (with something other than you're wrong) but is blog.com/postname not better than blog.com/date/day/category/postname ???
I'm not talking voodoo here just applying common sense and se know how really to this matter, how many of you see multi directory links ranking for half-decent keywords these days? meh who knows i just might be full of crap but what i'm preaching in a sense here has worked for me is all i'm saying *smirk*
Edited by M.Kane, 15 April 2008 - 10:54 AM.
Posted 15 April 2008 - 11:08 AM
Posted 15 April 2008 - 03:16 PM
Are you actually talking about URL structure? Like the number of directories that a URL appears to have?
Or are you talking how the URLs are linked within the site architecture of the website?
Because these are very different things. One is important (the latter), while one is not (the former).
Do you think that the search engines would assume that a post with a url that had number apparent directories like /dir1/dir2/dir3/dir4/dir5 etc. was actually buried within the website just because of that type of URL?
Sure, in the old days when we created static pages and directories on our servers that's exactly what happened. But today, the URL structure is just a URL and has no actual meaning in terms of the depth of the directories.
If you linked that URL that went 5 dirs deep from your main navigation so it was linked to from every page of your site, it would be given a ton of importance by the search engines.
But if one had to actually go to the dir1 page first, then click a link to the dir2 page, then click a link to the dir3 page and so on and so forth, then the page would actually be buried and not be given much weight.
It's all in the linking, however, not the URL itself. Lots of people get confused by that (including me many years ago!) as it's a common mistake.
Posted 04 May 2008 - 05:28 PM
Man that was a late reply but i'm abroad so have not been as active.
Posted 04 May 2008 - 05:49 PM
Can you explain what you mean by those?
The short answer (related to my previous answer) is that the URL in and of itself is NOTHING. It's meaningless.
It's all in how it's linked to from the rest of the site. I don't know how to make that any clearer for you.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users