26 ms·

Does anyone find it a bit ironic that these page URLs are NOT search engine friendly? Just a long string id... seriously Google? Maybe not irony because they ow

by jonpaul 15y ago

Does anyone find it a bit ironic that these page URLs are NOT search engine friendly? Just a long string id... seriously Google? Maybe not irony because they own the search engine... but still makes you scratch your head wondering why.

missing_cipher 15y ago
Same with the extensions, for example: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ejnkaeblpdcamcioiiabclakabcbjmbl https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ejnkaeblpdcamcioii... I don't understand why.
- Raphael 15y ago
  That's actually Icelandic.
- Andrex 15y ago
  For developers, the extension IDs are actually somewhat important. Plus, handling canonical URLs in a massive store could be a bit hairy (Android Market does it because all developers declare their own IDs, Chrome extension IDs are made by Chrome itself.)
tomkarlo 15y ago
In what respect are they not "search engine friendly"? Being human-readable or slugged doesn't necessarily make URLs more search engine friendly, nor does it necessarily improve their rank: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/09/dynamic-urls-vs-static-urls.html http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/09/dynamic-u...
- jonpaul 15y ago
  It's my understanding that making your URLs human friendly makes them more search engine friendly IF the url contains relevant keywords to the page. The link you provided is just about dynamic vs static urls, which is not what I'm referring to. http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.com/en/us/webmasters/docs/search-engine-optimization-starter-guide.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrust...
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- alinajaf 15y ago
  Whether or not they're more search engine friendly, if you're looking for Japanese Astrophysics Vocabulary you're more likely to click `/japanese-astrophysics-vocab.html` than `/p?id=47`
  - tomkarlo 15y ago
    That's true if you actually read and interpret the URL (I'd guess that most users don't.) But regardless, I was commenting on the earlier complaint that the URLs aren't "search engine friendly", not that they're not "user friendly." That's all I was trying to address.
  - mappu 15y ago
    Personally the first one would be a red flag for me and i'd be suspicious of autogenerated content. I'd be more likely to go with the second. But from a google results page, the summary is the part i pay the most attention to.
- robryan 15y ago
  I think it helps a lot in situations where you can't link. TV, radio, word of mouth etc. Currently you would have to tell people to search for your page rather than get them to remember a short /brand
Lewisham 15y ago
IIRC, people got upset with Google Profiles that your Gmail address was exposed from the URL (eg. profiles.google.com/dave would lead to dave@gmail.com). The URLs are thus anonymized to stop that leakage. They could/should have a system up for registering company names though.
donatzsky 15y ago
I suspect that Google will eventually do what Facebook did, and allow you to choose your own URL. With FB a standard profile link looks like facebook.com/profile.php?id=xxxxxxxx but can be changed to facebook.com/your.name.here
- Andrex 15y ago
  I'm hoping it's something like: google.com/+yournamehere
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

by jonpaul 15y ago

missing_cipher 15y ago

Same with the extensions, for example: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ejnkaeblpdcamcioiiabclakabcbjmbl https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ejnkaeblpdcamcioii... I don't understand why.

Raphael 15y ago
That's actually Icelandic.
Andrex 15y ago
For developers, the extension IDs are actually somewhat important. Plus, handling canonical URLs in a massive store could be a bit hairy (Android Market does it because all developers declare their own IDs, Chrome extension IDs are made by Chrome itself.)

tomkarlo 15y ago

In what respect are they not "search engine friendly"? Being human-readable or slugged doesn't necessarily make URLs more search engine friendly, nor does it necessarily improve their rank: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/09/dynamic-urls-vs-static-urls.html http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/09/dynamic-u...

jonpaul 15y ago
It's my understanding that making your URLs human friendly makes them more search engine friendly IF the url contains relevant keywords to the page. The link you provided is just about dynamic vs static urls, which is not what I'm referring to. http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.com/en/us/webmasters/docs/search-engine-optimization-starter-guide.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrust...
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
alinajaf 15y ago
Whether or not they're more search engine friendly, if you're looking for Japanese Astrophysics Vocabulary you're more likely to click `/japanese-astrophysics-vocab.html` than `/p?id=47`
- tomkarlo 15y ago
  That's true if you actually read and interpret the URL (I'd guess that most users don't.) But regardless, I was commenting on the earlier complaint that the URLs aren't "search engine friendly", not that they're not "user friendly." That's all I was trying to address.
- mappu 15y ago
  Personally the first one would be a red flag for me and i'd be suspicious of autogenerated content. I'd be more likely to go with the second. But from a google results page, the summary is the part i pay the most attention to.
robryan 15y ago
I think it helps a lot in situations where you can't link. TV, radio, word of mouth etc. Currently you would have to tell people to search for your page rather than get them to remember a short /brand

Lewisham 15y ago

IIRC, people got upset with Google Profiles that your Gmail address was exposed from the URL (eg. profiles.google.com/dave would lead to dave@gmail.com). The URLs are thus anonymized to stop that leakage. They could/should have a system up for registering company names though.

donatzsky 15y ago

I suspect that Google will eventually do what Facebook did, and allow you to choose your own URL. With FB a standard profile link looks like facebook.com/profile.php?id=xxxxxxxx but can be changed to facebook.com/your.name.here

Andrex 15y ago
I'm hoping it's something like: google.com/+yournamehere

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]