6 ms·
URL Design
- franze 16y agomy url rules, listed in priority 1) unique (1 URL == 1 ressource) 2) permanent (they do not change) 3) manageable (1 logic per site section, no comlplicated exceptions) 4) easily scaleable logic 5) short 6) with a targeted keyword phrase
- mathgladiator 16y ago7) Easy to manage 301s as marketing evolves and needs to target higher yield keywords. I built my WIN framework around enabling 1-7.
- drdaeman 16y ago> Underscores are just bad. Stick to dashes. I just wonder, why? Underscores, being located at baseline, make less distraction, so they should be more readable.
- mmastrac 16y agoI'be heard this from a few sources, including Matt Cutts' optimization sessions at Google I/O. If anything, dashes are more average-human-appropriate than underscores and you should always be designing for humans.
- selectnull 16y agoI believe the story goes something like this: in the google beginnings, a lot of search were in programming domain, and a lot of languages used underscores in functions names, variables and such. Therefore, it was decided that it wouldn't be used as word delimiter, the alternative was to use dash. I'm not sure if the same applies today, but historical reasons are powerful enough that most people use dashes.
- Pyrodogg 16y agoIf we're talking human usability a dash(-) is a single keystroke while an underscore (_) is a shifted keystroke. I find the former faster to type when actually entering URLs in the address bar.
- quicksilver03 16y agoOn a U.S. keyboard layout, perhaps. On other keyboard layouts, the French one for example, they both are a single keystroke.
- drdaeman 16y agoIndeed, but I can't remember any occasion I've ever manually typed the whole URL like "stackoverflow.com/questions/1234567/test-here-is-the-title". One can't be both descriptive and typing-friendly at the same time, so there's always room for URL shorteners and shortcuts ("/questions/1234567", but something like "/~1234567" is better).