Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!


Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 




From the folks who brought you High Rankings!

- - - - -

New Cms Allows 'skipping Directory Names In Sequential Order"

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 ttw


    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Location:San Mateo, California

Posted 18 April 2012 - 09:31 AM

I have a client who is relaunching their website with a new CMS. Their new site structure will give them URLs that look like this:


They say that their new CMS system allows them to skip a directory and display a URL that looks like this:


As far as the search engines are concerned there is no problem with either URL but they are asking if the new option is better. I'm telling them it doesn't matter.

Any comments?

#2 torka


    Vintage Babe

  • Moderator
  • 4,825 posts
  • Location:Triangle area, NC, USA, Earth (usually)

Posted 18 April 2012 - 11:58 AM

I don't think it would matter, either, as long as they 301 the old URLs to the corresponding new ones.

The "standard" URL you gave doesn't look all that bad. The shorter one is, well, shorter -- which could constitute a non-SEO reason to favor it, assuming people might see or use the "bare" URLs on a regular basis -- but other than that I can't see a huge advantage (or disadvantage, for that matter) to it. I'd say they could go for whichever one they want without it making a lot of difference either way.

My :02: adjusted for inflation.

--Torka :propeller:

#3 Jill


    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 12:15 PM

I can't remember where I saw it or if it was true, but I could have sworn I saw either a study or perhaps even MC saying that shorter URLs trumped longer ones, even ones that had no keywords...if they were shorter, they were better.

Take this for what it's worth, given that I can't remember the source. It stuck with me as credible, however, which is unusual.

#4 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 10

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,325 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 18 April 2012 - 01:08 PM

Shorter URLs are more user-friendly, for sure. The search engines could have collected a ton of statistical data about the performance of shorter URLs versus longer URLs. Hence, any number of their algorithms *could* be looking at URL length as a "signal" in some sort of multiple correlation regression blah blah blah.

I typically advise people to use the shortest URLs possible for people's sake and not worry about search engines.

But they definitely want to make sure they are CONSISTENT and that they implement good redirect mapping.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

We are now a read-only forum.
No new posts or registrations allowed.