4 ms·

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] htt

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
  Actually the EMD update targeted EMD with low-quality backlinks to them. EMD that didn't have low-quality backlinks didn't seem to get hit. The goal of the update wasn't to penalize people with keywords in their domains.
  - rockdiesel 14y ago
    Agreed. I was just simplifying, albeit poorly. Sure, you can still build a high quality site on an EMD, but the main reason for the update was because it was a spammer's paradise. The majority of people registering them were doing so with the intent of abusing the EMD's power at the time. In many cases, spam will get you to the top of the SERPs. But during EMD's heyday, spam + an EMD almost guaranteed a #1 ranking for the target keyword. People were selling EMD starter packages that would include EMD, 5 articles, and some link spam for good measure. It was fairly easy because of the weight EMDs were getting in the algorithm. I have no data to back this up. Purely my observations from being in the space during that time. So yeah, I should have clarified a bit. I wasn't trying to imply EMDs were all penalized.

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
Actually the EMD update targeted EMD with low-quality backlinks to them. EMD that didn't have low-quality backlinks didn't seem to get hit. The goal of the update wasn't to penalize people with keywords in their domains.
- rockdiesel 14y ago
  Agreed. I was just simplifying, albeit poorly. Sure, you can still build a high quality site on an EMD, but the main reason for the update was because it was a spammer's paradise. The majority of people registering them were doing so with the intent of abusing the EMD's power at the time. In many cases, spam will get you to the top of the SERPs. But during EMD's heyday, spam + an EMD almost guaranteed a #1 ranking for the target keyword. People were selling EMD starter packages that would include EMD, 5 articles, and some link spam for good measure. It was fairly easy because of the weight EMDs were getting in the algorithm. I have no data to back this up. Purely my observations from being in the space during that time. So yeah, I should have clarified a bit. I wasn't trying to imply EMDs were all penalized.