Keywords In The Url: Good Or Bad? Options

[Dr Jerry Katzman]

Hello my name is DR Jerry Katzman and I had read that it is important for search engine ranking to incorporate keywords in the url stems (that it can be beneficial), like www.domain.com/my-keywords-here/and-keywords-here/etc-etc. But, then I read an article that said that it is bad to put keywords in the url stem; that it is in fact a negative. So what is the best way to structure the url, with or without the keywords in the URL stem?
Thank you for your help.

[Randy]

You're reading in the wrong places Jerry.

Keyworded URLs are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. Not good because they don't provide any meaningful gain with the search engines. Not bad because they don't attract any sort of penalty or even extra scrutiny, unless you go waaaaaaaay overboard with it.

[Leo Hanes]

So what is the best way to structure the url, with or without the keywords in the URL stem?
Thank you for your help.

My impression is much like the previous post....however a url that reads <domainnameremoved.com> gives a human being a pretty good idea what the site they are going to is about.....also can't hurt search engine eyes either

You need to find a balance between online SEO, and offline optimization as well as between free and paid web traffic sources - doing so will definitely improve your ROI and profits online.

Let me know how I can help you further

Sincerely;

This post has been edited by Randy: Dec 13 2007, 12:39 PM

[1dmf]

My impression is much like the previous post....however a url that reads creatingprofitsonline.com gives a human being a pretty good idea what the site they are going to is about.....also can't hurt search engine eyes either

This is IMO a misconception by some, I have done extensive testing of keywords in domain names / url's and here is my take on this.

1stly creatingprofitsonline.com is not SEO friendly, it is seen as one word not three if you want SE friendly domains you should go with creating-profits-online.com as hyphens are seen as word seperators.

it also makes it easier on the eye and a human to read!

2ndly, keywords in domain names / urls by themselves do not carry any weight for SEO, HOWEVER......

because as we all know the anchor link text carries SEO weight, and you cannot always control how people put links to your site, many use the domain name as the anchor text, therefore having keyword rich domain names, using hyphens as word separators and then a bunch of people using your domain name for the hyperlink anchor text now gives you the desired keyword relevant SEO / SE friendly weight you are looking for.

So my take on this is , yes use keywords in your domain name / urls (IF IT MAKES SENSE) , i have a site I am working on real-india-tours.co.uk, it is the name of the site and also keywords I want to be found for, same as another one I have, bargain-hunter.co.uk.

so if I get links to my site using my domain name I now have keyword weighted SEO/SE friendly links, all due to having keyword content domain names.

and at the end of the day, it isn't going to do me any harm!

my (IMG:style_emoticons/default/penny.gif)

This post has been edited by 1dmf: Dec 13 2007, 11:15 AM

[Ahmed]

I think the issue with "keyword domain names" is mainly branding (at least to me). You cant really distinguish yourself and make people remember you if you're called "www.canadian-search-engine.com" but "google.com" on the other hand.. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Randy]

While I certainly agree with your basic premise since it's in line with what I and others have been saying for years regarding keyworded URLs, the hyphen issue is a double-edged sword in the real world. Let's take a fake, albeit real world example just for fun. (And please don't think I'm ragging on your 1dmf, because you're right in my view. I'm just using your example to delve a bit deeper into the subject.)

Anyway.... Let's say you have a site that sells Red Lederhosen. That's all you sell and is all you're ever going to sell. You're never going to sell green lederhosen or anything else. And you want your domain name to truly speak to potential visitors. So you get to choose from a couple of obvious domain names. redlederhosen.com and red-lederhosen.com.

Which would be the best to choose to start your new business?

Accepting your (correct) theory from above, redlederhosen.com would be seen as all one word and thus carry no important value with the search engines for the two word phrase. Given this many, many people would reach the conclusion that red-lederhosen.com would be the best choice to make. Especially when they realize some idiot has bought the non-hyphenated version on a lark. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/jester.gif)

This is all well and good for the search engines. However, if you do any offline advertising --something everybody should be doing-- is the hyphenated version really the best simply because you may get some links that use only the domain name as the anchor text?

I think not.

Think of the TV and Radio commercials you hear these days that make mention of someone's web site. Do you ever hear one where the spokesperson has to say something like Our site is Red Lederhosen dot Com. That's WWW, Dot, Red, Dash, Lederhosen, Dot, Com. Those are always clunky at best. Worse if they have two or more hyphens.

The same is true for print ads, where there is no link available. People have to remember what to type in from hearing it or reading it. And will often forget where there are and aren't supposed to be hyphens.

So, from the strictly marketing (non SEO) perspective I would contend that redlederhosen.com is a much, much better choice. For print ads you can make it visually appear to be two words with simple capitalization. eg RedLederhosen.com For voice ads you simply say Go to RedLederhosen.com to get a great deal!

To try to peg everything to how the search engines may or may not handle something is simple folly in my view. It's always a matter of finding a happy, or at least an acceptable balance. When the balance is 50/50, let yourself be swayed by good business and good marketing decisions, not by what may or may not gain you a little bit of potential advantage with a search engine.

Or in plain English, let your common sense dictate. If everybody followed this one simple rule Common Sense would be a lot more common than it is these days. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink1.gif)

[torka]

Or get both...

Use the non hyphenated in your offline advertising where it will be easier to say/remember, and 301 redirect it to the hyphenated, where the site really lives.

On your "link to us" page and/or when requesting links, request them to the hyphenated version (but if you get some to the non-hyphenated, the 301 will eventually take care of transferring the link pop anyway, so no worries).

Since the hyphenated version is what will appear in the browser address bar, that's the one that people will likely cut-and-paste or otherwise copy out if they're going to link to the "bare" URL, so you'll get the benefits of the keywords in the anchor text of those links, too.

Best of both worlds.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

--Torka (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mf_prop.gif)

[1dmf]

Hey Torka , trust you to want your cake and eat it!

It would be the best approach, and I hear what your saying Randy, but, it also depends on the amount of words, any printed documentation or a radio advert, for my example 'bargain hyphen hunter' doesn't sound to bad.

But if you had a domain name, I-sell-only-red-lederhosen , then saying all those hyphens gets a bit much.

Also it depends on whether you intend (which with my two domain examples I do) to be Web only.

TV, Radio, Magazines even if I was to 'eventually' afford these advertising media, my website would have had to become successful and profitable enough to pay for these media.

If your target audience and only means of advertising is web based, the hyphens become irrelivant from a visual/speakable point of view, seings most will simply click a link / advert / image or search for the words.

But thanks for reminding me Torks, just bought the non-hyphenated version.

P.S. - Randy is there something you need to tell us about your fixation with Lederhosen?

This post has been edited by 1dmf: Dec 14 2007, 05:23 AM

[webd]

Hello my name is DR Jerry Katzman and I had read that it is important for search engine ranking to incorporate keywords in the url stems (that it can be beneficial), like www.domain.com/my-keywords-here/and-keywords-here/etc-etc. But, then I read an article that said that it is bad to put keywords in the url stem; that it is in fact a negative. So what is the best way to structure the url, with or without the keywords in the URL stem?

Keywords in URLs are a good thing, but don't overdo it. You don't need keywords in the URL to rank well, but Google recognizes keywords in URLs.

By "stem" do you mean directory path?

[Randy]

but Google recognizes keywords in URLs.

And you have tests to support this theory webd? Or have you simply read it somewhere and are repeating what others have said.

The reason I ask is that some of have indeed tested the theory you're espousing and have come to a completely different answer.

[webd]

And you have tests to support this theory webd? Or have you simply read it somewhere and are repeating what others have said.

The reason I ask is that some of have indeed tested the theory you're espousing and have come to a completely different answer.

No need to be patronizing. Why do you assume I am just parroting someone else?

Example: search Google for a keyword like content1006

[Randy]

Why do you assume I am just parroting someone else?

Because if you believe Google gives significant weight to keyworded urls I have to assume you've not actually tested the theory. All those I know who have actually tested it (some 500+ people now, including myself) have all come to the opposite conclusion you have.

There are very specific instances when keywording a url helps. But then it's because of anchor text, not the keyworded url.

Test it for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

[webd]

Because if you believe Google gives significant weight to keyworded urls I have to assume you've not actually tested the theory.

It sounds like you are assuming that anyone that disagrees with you must be clueless...

All those I know who have actually tested it (some 500+ people now, including myself) have all come to the opposite conclusion you have.

Where is the keyword content1006 in these pages?
http://www.google.com/search?q=content1006

(Only in the URL.)

[Randy]

I think we must be talking about different things, or one of us is very confused.

Of course Google knows the text in a url address. They have to know this! Not only to get to the page but their inurl: operator wouldn't work at all if they didn't.

But you seemed to be saying above that you believe having keywords in the url is some sort of significant ranking factor. This is simply not the case. And pointing to something that is a made-up word that has all of 102 results among the billions and billions of pages out there proves exactly nothing. Other than what we all can agree to, that the search engines have to at least be aware of text strings in a url, whether they make up words or not.

Plus it's quite possible some or all of those have a single link to them somewhere out there in the wild that uses the url address as the anchor text. Frankly I don't have time to check each one for that on Christmas Eve.

Perhaps another unscientific example would make it easier to see. Let's take a nice generic phrase like "click here", but narrow things down by using exact match.

An inurl: example.
A normal exact match search.

Under the theory of keywords in URLs mattering much for ranking purposes one would expect the Top 10 for the inurl: search to at least crack the Top 100 for the exact match search. Yet the only one that does is where the Brand is the exact phrase, where they surely have numerous links pointing to their domain with that exact phrase as the anchor text. None of the rest make an appearance in the Top 100 SERP listings.

Given that several of those Top 100 listings are incredibly low content, low quality login type pages, one would expect the keyworded url pages to be able to compete pretty easily.

The above is not a valid test, but at one point I did actually test on this exact phrase. The keyworded url never would rank, but simply mentioning the exact phrase on a page wihtout a keyworded url could get a test page into the Top 100 fairly easily if the domain had anything going for it and I linked to the page using "click here" anchor text.

See what I'm getting at now?

[webd]

...or one of us is very confused.

It doesn't sound like you are referring to yourself. No need to talk down to people to have a discussion about SEO.

Of course Google knows the text in a url address. They have to know this! Not only to get to the page but their inurl: operator wouldn't work at all if they didn't.

Google is matching pages based on keywords in the URL. It is not a major factor, but it is read by Google and Google returns results based on it. Why ignore the factor and say it carries no weight? I am only saying that it does not carry "no weight".

You can rank for competitive keywords without optimizing your URLs, titles, h1s, etc. That doesn't mean that they should be ignored. Keywords in the URL is better than no keywords in the URL. Even Matt Cutts has said it (for whatever that is worth). Don't change an existing URL structure over it, but if building a new site from scratch, or rewriting URLs for other reasons, use keywords in the URLs.

But you seemed to be saying above that you believe having keywords in the url is some sort of significant ranking factor. This is simply not the case.

I said that Google reads keywords in the URL. It is not "significant" in the way that title element text is. Google also reads alt text and other elements and attributes of lesser importance. The technique of using keywords in URLs is just another tool for the toolkit.