5 ms·
Which of the following URLS are clearer? 1a. https://foo.com/ 1b. https://www.foo.com/ 2a. https://foo.com/search/products/couches/color/red 2
by morecoffee 9y ago
Which of the following URLS are clearer?
1a. https://foo.com/
1b. https://www.foo.com/
2a. https://foo.com/search/products/couches/color/red
2b. https://foo.com/search?products=couches&color=red
3a. /posts?recent
3b. /posts?recent=
3c. /posts?recent=true
4a. /post/1234/products-couches-furniture-red-cheap-recent-ikea-tags
4b. /post/1234/
I can think of good reasons for picking each of these, and even good reasons for picking their alternatives. URL design is tricky to get right because realistically you can't change it later.
- klenwell 9y agoI'd be happy with any of these. What I'm meeting with my team next week to discuss is establishing some conventions to avoid stuff like this: 4c. /post/_level/modular/1234--Products--Couches%20red+cheap%20ikeaTags%28OLD%29.aspx
- zepolen 9y agoOf course you can change it later, that's what 301s are for.
- sametmax 9y agoIf you make money with it, 301s are going to hurt the wallet for some months.
- zepolen 9y agoYou obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
- sametmax 9y agoI had several websites where changing the URL schemas resulted in Google rank dropping, resulting in advertising revenue loss. I don't see I can be more honest than that. And frankly, you are not just unfair, you are being rude.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- sametmax 9y ago> 1a. https://foo.com/ https://foo.com/ > 1b. https://www.foo.com/ https://www.foo.com/ www for old folks, non www for all the rest. > 2a. https://foo.com/search/products/couches/color/red https://foo.com/search/products/couches/color/red > 2b. https://foo.com/search?products=couches&color=red https://foo.com/search?products=couches&color=red https://foo.com/search?products=couches&color=red https://foo.com/search?products=couches&color=red Those are parameters, not a path. The first one has only value as an SEO optimization. > 3a. /posts?recent > 3b. /posts?recent= > 3c. /posts?recent=true /posts/recent > 4a. /post/1234/products-couches-furniture-red-cheap-recent-ikea-tags > 4b. /post/1234/ Both should work on your website, 4b should redirect on 4a.
- romwell 9y agoI disagree with 2a. No reason why this shouldn't be a path that the user can edit to go one level "up" to /search/product/couches. That's kind of the point of the article - these are parameters for the programmer, but are UI to the user. Separating parameters by "&", except for the first KVP which is separated by "?" from the URL is not intuitive. On the other hands, they path editing is familiar.
- sametmax 9y agoUnless you have only one product that has color, or that color is the only thing you can filter your couches by, then no, it's not a hierarchy. There no nothing of "going up".
- RossM 9y ago> No reason why this shouldn't be a path that the user can edit to go one level "up" While I find it more visually pleasing, this is my issue with this style: traversing up would first include /search/product/couches/color, which doesn't make sense. I've seen alternatives like /color:red/ before - which takes away the pairing-problem but feels odd..
- sametmax 9y agoAnd imply you only have product and color. What about size, price, date, description, rating, etc. It is a "search" url after all.
- wav-part 9y agoI think this is more user friendly. https://foo.com/search?products=couches;color=red;show_recent;
- xyzxyz998 9y agoWow it does feel so much more readable than using an ampersand. I'd still prefer an ampersand because it plays well everywhere and the kind of people who'd look at url and try to understand would be too ingrained to ampersand anyway.