3 ms·

No, healthy sites should not have 30-50% search traffic. If that's what you have, you have too few regular users and are at high risk to lose a huge chunk of yo

No, healthy sites should not have 30-50% search traffic. If that's what you have, you have too few regular users and are at high risk to lose a huge chunk of your traffic and consequently business at the next <random animal name> Google update. Also, bear in mind that Google has acknowledged that keywords in URLs "help a little", so this is a good SEO win that has (arguably) nothing to do with how useful people find your content. It's much easier than putting effort into better content, too.

joelrunyon 14y ago
> No, healthy sites should not have 30-50% search traffic. I'd argue this really depends on what type of set you're running (and what the purpose is).
- walshemj 14y ago
  I agree even well know brad site say BBC NYT etc still get people searching for brand terms "BBC" or "NYT" cos they are to lazy to type it in.
itsprofitbaron 14y ago
bear in mind that Google has acknowledged that keywords in URLs "help a little" Actually, Google released an EMD update[1] in order to fix that issue. [1] https://twitter.com/mattcutts/status/251784203597910016 https://twitter.com/mattcutts/status/251784203597910016
- rockdiesel 14y ago
  Having keywords in your URLs is different than having an EMD. The EMD update targeted the people who see the search volume for a specific keyword and then purchase exactkeyword.com to rank for that keyword. But if I write a blog post about "red widgets in texas", it is still beneficial to have all, or some, of those keywords in my URL. mywhateverblog.com/red-widgets-in-texas/ is better than mywhateverblog.com/?p=545
  - itsprofitbaron 14y ago
    Actually your examples: mywhateverblog.com/red-widgets-in-texas/ and mywhateverblog.com/?p=545 isn't comparing keywords in URLs but Static vs. Dynamic URLS - and static URLs e.g. /red-widgets-in-texas/ is NOT better than /?p=545 - This is something that Google have even said so themselves[1] [1] http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/dynamic-urls-vs-static-urls.html http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/dynamic...
    - rockdiesel 14y ago
      I'm still comparing keywords in URLs vs. no keywords in URLs, but with no regard to static or dynamic. To your point, I could have used static vs. static and dynamic vs. dynamic examples such as: mywhateverblog.com/page1.html is not as good as mywhateverblog.com/red-widgets-in-texas.html mywhateverblog.com/?p=595 is not as good as mywhateverblog.com/red-widgets-in-texas?id=595 From Google's own SEO Starter guide [1]: "Use words in URLs! URLs with words that are relevant to your site's content and structure are friendlier for visitors navigating your site. Visitors remember them better and might be more willing to link to them. Avoid using lengthy URLs with unnecessary parameters and session IDs; choosing generic page names like "page1.html"; using excessive keywords like"baseball-cards-baseball-cards-baseballcards.htm" And from Google's Webmaster Tools page regarding URL structure [2]: "A site's URL structure should be as simple as possible. Consider organizing your content so that URLs are constructed logically and in a manner that is most intelligible to humans (when possible, readable words rather than long ID numbers). For example, if you're searching for information about aviation, a URL like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation will help you decide whether to click that link. A URL like http://www.example.com/index.php?id_sezione=360&sid=3a5ebc944f41daa6f849f730f1 http://www.example.com/index.php?id_sezione=360&sid=3a5e..., is much less appealing to users." [1] 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... [2] http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=76329 http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&#38...
  - scottkrager 14y ago

joelrunyon 14y ago

> No, healthy sites should not have 30-50% search traffic. I'd argue this really depends on what type of set you're running (and what the purpose is).

walshemj 14y ago
I agree even well know brad site say BBC NYT etc still get people searching for brand terms "BBC" or "NYT" cos they are to lazy to type it in.

itsprofitbaron 14y ago

bear in mind that Google has acknowledged that keywords in URLs "help a little" Actually, Google released an EMD update[1] in order to fix that issue. [1] https://twitter.com/mattcutts/status/251784203597910016 https://twitter.com/mattcutts/status/251784203597910016

rockdiesel 14y ago
Having keywords in your URLs is different than having an EMD. The EMD update targeted the people who see the search volume for a specific keyword and then purchase exactkeyword.com to rank for that keyword. But if I write a blog post about "red widgets in texas", it is still beneficial to have all, or some, of those keywords in my URL. mywhateverblog.com/red-widgets-in-texas/ is better than mywhateverblog.com/?p=545
- itsprofitbaron 14y ago
  Actually your examples: mywhateverblog.com/red-widgets-in-texas/ and mywhateverblog.com/?p=545 isn't comparing keywords in URLs but Static vs. Dynamic URLS - and static URLs e.g. /red-widgets-in-texas/ is NOT better than /?p=545 - This is something that Google have even said so themselves[1] [1] http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/dynamic-urls-vs-static-urls.html http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/dynamic...
  - rockdiesel 14y ago
    I'm still comparing keywords in URLs vs. no keywords in URLs, but with no regard to static or dynamic. To your point, I could have used static vs. static and dynamic vs. dynamic examples such as: mywhateverblog.com/page1.html is not as good as mywhateverblog.com/red-widgets-in-texas.html mywhateverblog.com/?p=595 is not as good as mywhateverblog.com/red-widgets-in-texas?id=595 From Google's own SEO Starter guide [1]: "Use words in URLs! URLs with words that are relevant to your site's content and structure are friendlier for visitors navigating your site. Visitors remember them better and might be more willing to link to them. Avoid using lengthy URLs with unnecessary parameters and session IDs; choosing generic page names like "page1.html"; using excessive keywords like"baseball-cards-baseball-cards-baseballcards.htm" And from Google's Webmaster Tools page regarding URL structure [2]: "A site's URL structure should be as simple as possible. Consider organizing your content so that URLs are constructed logically and in a manner that is most intelligible to humans (when possible, readable words rather than long ID numbers). For example, if you're searching for information about aviation, a URL like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation will help you decide whether to click that link. A URL like http://www.example.com/index.php?id_sezione=360&sid=3a5ebc944f41daa6f849f730f1 http://www.example.com/index.php?id_sezione=360&sid=3a5e..., is much less appealing to users." [1] 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... [2] http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=76329 http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&#38...
- scottkrager 14y ago