Dynamic URLs vs. static URLs - Google Webmaster Central Blog

[AlphaHot1]

As I've said before, the people convinced this works wouldn't believe even those running the engines telling them it doesn't. Of course, I rather trust that those who work daily on the search engines know what they are talking about. If they say that rewriting isn't helpful and can be bad, I'll trust they are speaking with knowledge that allows them to say that.

The only reason for search engines owners to tell you to do something is to ensure that people will write websites with legit contents and not try to trick the ranking algorithm. This doesn't mean necessarily that what they say will benefit your ranking.
Google says to not cloak sites, but we all know that you can gain rank with it.

So, I see the point and I agree to some extent, but I wouldn't take everything google blog says for granted.

After all they only care about one single thing: the relevancy of their search results.

It also helps when several people have done proper studies in the past showing the exact same thing.

Oh I don't think you can show data for that studies, there are too many variables in place, and google algorithms changed quite a lot in the past. The only one who can make a proper study is google or someone paid by google to make that study. But if it's so we are in case number one: they will show you what's they want to show you.
We just can guess or have empiric data.
Even google says to not invest money in SEO.

As for the user-friendly part, I'm rather unconvinced. Take this topic for example. Would it be easier to remember:

hxxp://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=263753

or

hxxp://www.simplemachines.org/community/SMF_Development/SMF_Feedback_and_Discussion/Dynamic_URLs_vs._static-URLs_-_Google_Webmaster_Central_Blog.html

I posit that remembering a six-digit number would be much easier than remembering that obscenely long text "friendly" URL.

It should be rewritten to something like that:
http://www.simplemachines.org/Dynamic-URLs-vs.-static-URLs-Google-Webmaster-Central-Blog

and the point is not to remember the url, something that nobody does anyway, but to show a descriptive link.

Also, what if the topic moves? That would be worthless.

See this document: http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI  "cool URIs don't change"

I'm not even saying that friendly URLs will make a site to rank higher but as the article says:

"So different users might link to URLs with different parameters which have the same content. That's one reason why webmasters sometimes want to rewrite their URLs to static ones.
That's one reason.

"static URLs might have a slight advantage in terms of clickthrough rates because users can easily read the urls"
That's another reason.

Then he continues:
"the decision to use database-driven websites does not imply a significant disadvantage in terms of indexing and ranking."
Ok.

But:
"Providing search engines with dynamic URLs should be favored over hiding parameters to make them look static."
this is in no way a logical conclusion of what has been said before.

The only thing I got from this article is that google has a new algorithm to index dinamyc links, and suddenly wants everyone to ditch static ones so they can test their new algoithm

[青山 素子]

It also helps when several people have done proper studies in the past showing the exact same thing.

Oh I don't think you can show data for that studies, there are too many variables in place, and google algorithms changed quite a lot in the past. The only one who can make a proper study is google or someone paid by google to make that study. But if it's so we are in case number one: they will show you what's they want to show you.
We just can guess or have empiric data.
Even google says to not invest money in SEO.

I know of a few studies that used hundreds of data points to determine the behavior of things. Even if it is the case that things have changed and there are constant changes, I can't point to any kind of change that loosens restrictions. At worst, the effect of a "hot" technique will be tuned towards neutral.

It should be rewritten to something like that:
http://www.simplemachines.org/Dynamic-URLs-vs.-static-URLs-Google-Webmaster-Central-Blog

and the point is not to remember the url, something that nobody does anyway, but to show a descriptive link.

And how does that help SEO in any way if the URL is ignored?

Also, what if the topic moves? That would be worthless.

See this document: http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI  "cool URIs don't change"

Yep. This why even dynamic URLs like index.php?topic=263753 are good. If you spell out the board name (as SEO4SMF does at least), what happens when the topic moves to a new board? Do we remove the old link? Do we keep it working but 301 it? Do we just show the same content (which causes big search engine issues and possible duplicate content issues)?

The only thing I got from this article is that google has a new algorithm to index dinamyc links, and suddenly wants everyone to ditch static ones so they can test their new algoithm

Last I knew, Google has been reliably indexing dynamic URLs for years. Since the whole "rewriting" thing is a hot topic and a big problem if done badly, I see the article as a timely notice that the SEO "experts" are wrong in preaching conversion to static-looking URLs to "help indexing".

[Dannii]

I just uninstalled Pretty URLs thanks for this topic.

I don't recommend that at all. From the points mentioned in this topic I think the only one that is possibly relevant is that my mod can produce rather long URLs... though if that's a problem it can be changed.

If you uninstall it make sure you install the reverter package!

Please do explain specific problems with my mod if you know any...

Now Motoko-chan, please stop saying they're pointless. You know they're not.

Here are some reasons why I think textual URLs are useful:

• If you just add a link to a forum by posting a plain URL the URL's text will be used as it's link text, and so keywords could help
  
• Many people don't like clicking random links sent to them via IRC or IM, so have a textual URL will give them an idea of what the page is, and they might be more likely to open it
  
• Textual URLs are definitely easier to remember with FF3's awesomebar - you may not remember the whole URL, but you don't need to. It would work just as well without because the page title is the same... but if a topic title is changed it wouldn't anymore.
  
• Depending on what you're doing with your site, there's the possibility of changing software without changing URLs. I plan to move my blog from SMF to DokuWiki, and because I use pretty URLs I can recreate the same structure in DokuWiki and all my links will remain intact.

[AlphaHot1]

I know of a few studies that used hundreds of data points to determine the behavior of things. Even if it is the case that things have changed and there are constant changes, I can't point to any kind of change that loosens restrictions. At worst, the effect of a "hot" technique will be tuned towards neutral.

Ok, can I see those studies? And I didn't even said that friendly URLs will help SEO... I can't really see what's your point.

And how does that help SEO in any way if the URL is ignored?

There URL is ignored? What do you mean.

Yep. This why even dynamic URLs like index.php?topic=263753 are good. If you spell out the board name (as SEO4SMF does at least), what happens when the topic moves to a new board? Do we remove the old link? Do we keep it working but 301 it? Do we just show the same content (which causes big search engine issues and possible duplicate content issues)?

You made me dig this issue and I found something really interesting.

Dannii really made a wonderful mod (pretty urls: http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=636).

I explain: I just moved a topic in my dev forum.

case 1 without friendly URLs:
If you move a topic, a new topic with a new URL is created, and the old one still remains but the content is changed ("topic moved" etc. etc.)

case 2 with friendly URLs:
If you move a topic, a new one is created, with a different URL (just the category part changes). The old topic url (where the content is just "topic moved" etc. etc.) changes too: it's the same as the old one but with "moved-" added.
And here is the great thing: if you use the original URL you will be rewrited to the new one!

It's bettere explained with an example:
original post url: *ttp://italianlair.com/richieste-consigli/dubbi-dell'universo-rafc/
original category: "richieste e consigli"

moved post url: *ttp://italianlair.com/generale/dubbi-dell'universo-rafc/
moved category: "generale"

redirection post: *ttp://italianlair.com/richieste-consigli/spostato-dubbi-dell'universo-rafc/

Now, if you use the original post url you'll be rewrited to the new one. So those who knew the old link still will reach the same content.
The redirection post instead changes url, something that doesn't happen if you use dynamic. This is the right thing to do beacause the content is effectively changed.

This is clean, consistent and user-friendly and totally automatic: no maintenance from users or admin.

SO...

Last I knew, Google has been reliably indexing dynamic URLs for years. Since the whole "rewriting" thing is a hot topic and a big problem if done badly, I see the article as a timely notice that the SEO "experts" are wrong in preaching conversion to static-looking URLs to "help indexing".

Well, this contradicts what's is posted in that very same article: they state that google HAD problems indexing dynamic URLs.
I agree that there was a lot of fuss on this URL-rewritng thing and probabily it's not as hot as someone might believe, but I still believe that they are helpful for SEO.

In the end what the article says is that  that rewrinting URLs is bad if is done bad. I'm thankful to google for this unbelievable eye-opener...

[brianjw]

Dannii, I will reinstall the mod. But I want to be sure that it won't cause problems with Google... This is a big debate and debates never end with facts, they end with opinions...

[karlbenson]

Indeed Brian.

Search Engine Optimization has almost always been about 'beliefs, guestimates, estimates, guess work, trial and error".
It is very rare that search Engines come out specifically to be catagorical on something.

This Google article does dispel alot of the negative myths about dynamic urls.  But does suggest there can be a very slight advantage on a couple of occasions (as pointed out by Dannii).  Although it would be debatable and personal preference whether its worth it for your site.

[Charles Hill]

You are wise, karl.  My personal preference is that it just isn't worth the trouble.... Time spent on getting rewriting to work effectively and consistently would be better spent developing other things.

[brianjw]

You are wise, karl.  My personal preference is that it just isn't worth the trouble.... Time spent on getting rewriting to work effectively and consistently would be better spent developing other things.

But if it is already developed for you as an SMF Mod. Such as pretty urls.

[Charles Hill]

It does not convert all pages of my site.  The forum on my site is not the only thing that makes dynamic URLs so  I would have to modify that mod to work with the other dynamic parts of my site... and the mod conflicts with all other things that I try to do with .htaccess.

[AlphaHot1]

I agree with karlbenson.

Charles, so we aren't going to see your blog mod with static urls anytime soon? I hoped...

[Charles Hill]

I'm afraid not.  I have much more useful features to develop first.

[brianjw]

Charles Hill, it does interfere with the .htaccess you currently have set. But all you have to do is go into Subs-PrettyUrls.php in ./Sources/ and find

Code Select Expand

Build the new .htaccess file and add the .htaccess contents in that area. It works fine on my site.

[Dannii]

He might have individual rules that actually are incompatible with the mod's rules too...

[wildcat180]

Let me preface this by saying I'm a beginner when it comes to web stuff.  I'm just someone trying to build my own website and have it do something more than cost me monthly in hosting.  SEO is such a hot topic right now, my head is spinning from all I've read lately.

That said, I use Google's webmaster tools.  I have been having an issue with the Googlebot not doing anything more than indexing the index page of my forum.  In trying to read their help files to find out why, I came across this from Google's own site regarding their bot:  (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=70897&hl=en#1)

"Indexing     

Googlebot processes each of the pages it crawls in order to compile a massive index of all the words it sees and their location on each page. In addition, we process information included in key content tags and attributes, such as Title tags and ALT attributes. Googlebot can process many, but not all, content types. For example, we cannot process the content of some rich media files or dynamic pages. "

I may have misunderstood that, but taking that to mean "dynamic URLs", I did a search to see if SMF uses dynamic URLs (hey, I said I was new at this! ) and I came across this topic here.  After reading this and feeling like this topic totally went against what I *thought* Google was saying, I did some more digging on Google's site and came across this in their "creating a Google friendly URL structure":  (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=76329&query=dynamic+URLs&topic=&type=)

" 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 will help you decide whether to click that link. A URL like http://www.example.com/index.php?id_sezione=360&sid=3a5ebc944f41daa6f849f730f1, is much less appealing to users.

Consider using punctuation in your URLs. The URL http://www.example.com/green-dress.html is much more useful to us than http://www.example.com/greendress.html. We recommend that you use hyphens (-) instead of underscores (_) in your URLs.

Overly complex URLs, especially those containing multiple parameters, can cause a problems for crawlers by creating unnecessarily high numbers of URLs that point to identical or similar content on your site. As a result, Googlebot may consume much more bandwidth than necessary, or may be unable to completely index all the content on your site."

Then this towards the end of that same article:

"To avoid potential problems with URL structure, we recommend the following:

    * Consider using a robots.txt file to block Googlebot's access to problematic URLs. Typically, you should consider blocking dynamic URLs, such as URLs that generate search results, or URLs that can create infinite spaces, such as calendars. Using regular expressions in your robots.txt file can allow you to easily block large numbers of URLs. "


To me, and granted I'm very much the newbie, it sounds like Google is advocating the use of text based URLs, not going against it and favoring dynamic URLs like this blog suggests.  Can someone clarify for me, because at this point, I'm SUPER confused and that's not going to help my site any...

[青山 素子]

In the first article, Google is just stating that they can't parse all content. Since dynamic URLs sometimes generate some special content, they can't guarantee that will be indexed. SMF uses plain HTML, so it is fine.

In the second article, they are talking about bad dynamic URLs that can lead to infinite loops, broken pages, etc. SMF avoids adding superfluous parameters, and actively lets Google know which pages should be indexed (via noindex tags on certain URLs) to avoid this problem.

[wildcat180]

So, dynamic URLs that aren't messed with are usually OK?

[青山 素子]

The dynamic URLs SMF uses should be perfectly fine. Some systems go rather crazy with parameters, and that is where the problems can occur.

[Nao 尚]

Thanks to Motoko-chan for pointing me to this topic. I don't have much to add on the subject, but you're starting to know me -- I will still post a 52-page book about my thoughts. Feel free to skip it, eheh

First of all, my position about Pretty URLs. I'm pretty fond, if I may say, of the Pretty URLs mod myself. I wanted that kind of mod on my board, I found Pretty URLs, Dannii was kind enough to share his knowledge of regular expressions with me (which really made me become fond of them as well -- and without that, I wouldn't be maintaining Aeva today), and even though I was totally ignorant of SVN and mod making at the time (which made me unable to work correctly with Dannii, which I deeply regret), I often wonder whether or not I should go back and start helping again.

Now, regarding the pointlessness of URL prettification.

I quickly read through the topic, and it occurs to me that, maybe I was too quick and I missed it, but there was no mention of one of Pretty URLs' peculiarities. (Although Motoko-chan's latest posts are going in the same direction as I will be going.)

Basically, what the mod does, is turn some specific parameters into static URLs. action=xxx will generate a specific URL for these. board=xxx will do the same. action=profile;u=xxx will do the same. Apart from these, the rest of the URL is untransformed.

Which means that this kind of URL:

ttp://noisen.com/index.php?topic=4997.105;action=markasread;sa=topic;t=228046;sesc=xxx

Will become:

ttp://nao.noisen.com/4997/chapeau-bas-docteur-who/105/?action=markasread;sa=topic;t=228046;sesc=xxx

(Mind you, this is a custom implementation of the mod.)

Basically, I think Google would be bothered if the URL looked like this instead:

ttp://nao.noisen.com/4997-chapeau-bas-docteur-who-105-action-markasread-sa-topic-t-228046-sesc-xxx.html

Which could then confuse Google, because it couldn't determine what is the topic's title, and what is the specific action to do. In PrettyURLs' case, the URL only turns the most important settings (topic ID + topic title + page number) into static content. The "small details" that change the way the contents are shown, remain in the query string. Additionally, measures can be taken (actually, I did) to ask Google not to index such pages that are variations on the same URL and return the same contents, such as 4997.msg228039 -> that way, even less pages will be recorded, and Google will have a better chance to figure out the site's structure.

All I mean is -- Dannii thought of it all, I think. His system is solid, and it's not in my nature to praise someone's work when I don't truly believe it's commendable. Actually, I think the Google blog post made me even more confident that Pretty URLs is an excellent mod for users who would like to help Google find their way inside their website.

If you made it through here, congrats!

[青山 素子]

I still hold by my stance that this proves that SMF's default URLs are quite fine as they are.

[Dannii]

Of course they're quite fine. And mods like these won't make a direct impact on SEO.

But I think my mod (and others like it) will help your forum indirectly. Do not discount how often people post straight URLs into forums. And additionally, they're much more people-friendly. If someone sends me random numbered URLs (especially on something like IRC) I'm unlikely to open it. If they send me a textual URL maybe I will.