(I am attempting to repond to both Xurinos and romaniv in a single reply here.) My clean URL example was just an example. I did not intend to infer that the wo

(I am attempting to repond to both Xurinos and romaniv in a single reply here.) My clean URL example was just an example. I did not intend to infer that the world is primarily navigating via URL manipulation, but it came across that way. Rather, I meant that it can be a nice touch for usability, in certain cases. For example, power users are going to quickly notice, "Hey, I can find a vehicle by manipulating the URL by using the 'manufacturer_carmodel' pattern." Of course, the site would have normal search functionality, so that traditional users could locate vehicles in that manner as well. In the end, it is more about SEO, but with the clean URL paradigm, you get both (again, in some cases), so it can be a win-win. Also, the URLs look nice when they appear in search results (i.e., nice keyword-based URLs instead of URLs with query strings and IDs) which can lend itself to readability/usability. Of course, even with clean URLs, a case where it probably does not work is a blog (as noted by romaniv). For example, no one is going to manipulate a long URL string for a blog posting; they will simply navigate the site for the information. Although, here is a real-world example that I have encountered: I have come across multi-part blog postings via Google searches. In many cases, "Part X" displays in the search results, but not "Part 1." In these cases, it is always nice when these sites are designed with clean URLs, making it a breeze to simply copy the URL from the search results, and change the "X" to "1". Clearly, this is not easy (or possible) to do if the URL is a query string with an unintuitive article ID. Ultimately, I think that clean URLs are about SEO, but I think they can have a usability factor, again, in some cases and well, for "power users" at least. I probably should have said "power users" instead of "users" in my original post.