URL Structure's Effect on SEO

[maxcarnage]

Hello all,

I have a client who currently has a very poor URL structure. As it stands, their URLs are formatted in the following manner:

http://www.domain.com/category/subcategory/page

In all my years of SEO, however, I have always tried to implement the following format:

http://www.domain.com/category/page

The web designer for this particular project has been very reluctant to change the structure for obvious reasons, but I'm convinced that by modifying the URL structure, SEO will improve.

I am correct in thinking this?

Likewise, if I am able to get the URL structure changed, what do I need to look out for to make sure we don't lose any traction for our keyword terms?

Any and all insight/suggestions is greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading!

[Bob_van_Biezen]

HI J.P.,

When chancing URL’s always keep the redirecting (301) in mind.

About the URL structure:

From this example I can’t tell you if you’re right or wrong about your approach. In general I think about the following things while I format URL structures:

1. If I would read this URL in the SERP’s, is it clear on what section of the website I enter?
2. Does it contain any keywords?
3. Doesn’t it repeat  any words?
4. Isn’t the URL too long / hard to read?

Depending on those criteria I decide on the amount of folders in an website. For example, I own an review website which has an URL structure of /industry/city/company. Three layers, but the make sense to me.

I hope this helps!

[Christy-Correll]

Hi J.P., you've received some solid advice from Bob. Like he said, though, it is difficult from the example given to tell if your suggested approach is solid. However, detailed answers to these 2 questions should help us get a clearer picture of the situation:

1. Why do you think the existing URL structure is a poor one?

2. Why do you  think the proposed one would be more effective for this particular site in terms of SEO performance?

And, of course, if you are able to provide examples of URLs that provide a bit more detail (and show any differences between the existing and proposed URL structure beyond the addition of a subfolder), that would be great, too!

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Christy

[maxcarnage]

Christy,

So my client is a plastic surgeon and the URLs have the following structure: http://www.domain.com/procedures/breasts/augmentation

however, most of her competitor's URL structure follows a much different format. Generally, their site pages are either:

1. http://www.domain.com/breastaugmentation, or

2. http://www.domain.com/procedures/breastaugmentation

I was just thinking that because the page is so 'deep', search engines might have a difficult time finding it. Likewise, I was under the impression that by separating the URL like this: /procedures/breasts/augmentation, the SEs may have a hard time discerning whether the page is related to augmentation (as a generalized term) or something completely different. I hope I'm making sense.

[Christy-Correll]

Hi J.P.,

Page depth refers to the number of clicks it takes a user (or search engine) to get to a page from the home page. And yes, this can negatively impact SEO, as well as usability, if it takes too many clicks for users and search engines to get to a page. (Search engines may use up their crawl budget, while users may simply leave your site and go to one that is easier to find what the are looking for.)

However, the number of clicks it takes to navigate to a page doesn't necessarily mirror the URL structure. So, in the example you give, the existing URL makes sense - http://www.domain.com/procedures/breasts/augmentation. It is readable, includes keywords, does not use special characters, avoid stop words, and isn't too long.

If you were going to change the URL structure, I would go with http://www.domain.com/procedures/breastaugmentation over http://www.domain.com/breastaugmentation, unless the only procedure your client does is breast augmentation. But, seeing as there is not a compelling reason to change the URL structure, I would leave it as-is. Even if you perfectly plan and execute all 301-redirects and update every link, you are creating a lot of work for yourself (as well as anyone who links to you, as best practice would be to ask them to update the new link). Furthermore, 301-redirects are known to pass slightly less value over time. Of immediate concern, you should expect fluctuations in the site's performance in the SERPs when making any sitewide change such as this.

For more information on best practices for URL structure, I recommend checking out this post by Rand Fishkin: <a>https://moz.com/blog/15-seo-best-practices-for-structuring-urls</a>.

I hope that helps!

Christy