Permalink problem

[Ryan]

Thanks Otto, that post is much appreciated :)

Firstly, it’s really not any better for SEO to have the category in there, or to have just the postname there by itself. And anybody who tells you differently is wrong.

You seem to be misinterpreting how it is beneficial I suspect. Shorter URLs are easier to remember, hence better for SEO. It doesn't matter if you have http://domain.com/?p=4 as a shorter version as most people will be looking at the pretty permalink and so they're more likely to remember it if it's pretty and short. Pretty and long is hard to remember, ugly and short is hard to remember, pretty and short is easy to remember. Remembered links are more likely to be linked to in the future and require less "dragging" to copy and paste so are more likely to be linked to as well, therefore pretty short URLs have potential SEO benefits. Maybe not a lot, but to say there aren't any (due to these reasons) is incorrect. There may or may not be SEO benefits in having other words in there, but that's a separate issue in itself.

Which is all academic as the difference will be relatively negligible.

At some point I'm now going to have to change my permalinks and make sure everything is pointing the correct direction again :(

[Ryan]

Do you guys think it would make sense for WordPress to give us a warning message about this problem when we attempt to use a less efficient permalink setup? If I'd seen a warning originally, I simply wouldn't have used /%postname%/ to begin with and I certainly wouldn't have gone around suggesting others used it. Or perhaps we should put a notice about it, and a link to Otto's article, somewhere prominent in the codex?

I'm sure there has to be many others who weren't aware of this situation.

[andrea_r]

The reasons I've read for the "better SEO" is that the keywords in the slug are closer to the domain name itself. Which is supposedly "better".

[Ryan]

The reasons I've read for the "better SEO" is that the keywords in the slug are closer to the domain name itself. Which is supposedly "better".

"closer" isn't the word I would use there. It's more that it helps if the keywords in the slug are related to the content on the page. Adding the year, date etc. in there aren't really helpful for search engines to gauge the type of content on the page. They're useful for search engines in other ways of course as it helps them gauge when date the content was made or is related to and probably a bunch of other stuff I'm not aware of.

I personally would expect the increase in linking rates to have more effect on SEO than the keyword issues relating to this, but again, the differences would be negligible in real world terms and I'd guess these performance issues Otto has pointed out will have far more negative effects on SEO than keywords and URL memorability. This is just my opinion, which may or may not be correct :)

[chipbennett]

Thanks Otto, that post is much appreciated :)



You seem to be misinterpreting how it is beneficial I suspect. Shorter URLs are easier to remember, hence better for SEO. It doesn't matter if you have http://domain.com/?p=4 as a shorter version as most people will be looking at the pretty permalink and so they're more likely to remember it if it's pretty and short. Pretty and long is hard to remember, ugly and short is hard to remember, pretty and short is easy to remember. Remembered links are more likely to be linked to in the future and require less "dragging" to copy and paste so are more likely to be linked to as well, therefore pretty short URLs have potential SEO benefits. Maybe not a lot, but to say there aren't any (due to these reasons) is incorrect. There may or may not be SEO benefits in having other words in there, but that's a separate issue in itself.

Which is all academic as the difference will be relatively negligible.

At some point I'm now going to have to change my permalinks and make sure everything is pointing the correct direction again :(

What does human ability to remember a URL have to do with <em>Search Engine</em> Optimization?

Google's robot doesn't care how easy a URL would be for a human to remember, but rather how relevant the link text is to the content to which it links.

[chipbennett]

"closer" isn't the word I would use there. It's more that it helps if the keywords in the slug are related to the content on the page. Adding the year, date etc. in there aren't really helpful for search engines to gauge the type of content on the page. They're useful for search engines in other ways of course as it helps them gauge when date the content was made or is related to and probably a bunch of other stuff I'm not aware of.

I personally would expect the increase in linking rates to have more effect on SEO than the keyword issues relating to this, but again, the differences would be negligible in real world terms and I'd guess these performance issues Otto has pointed out will have far more negative effects on SEO than keywords and URL memorability. This is just my opinion, which may or may not be correct :)

And I would think that the impact of permalink structure to linking rate is negligible. People don't link by typing a URL from memory, but rather from copying and pasting URL text. In fact, I would assume that the impact of permalink structure is so negligible as to be immeasurable. (How long did Instapundit Glenn Reynolds get by as pretty much the most-linked political blogger on the planet, without using "pretty" permalinks?)

Regardless, I think of SEO as completely separate from link rate. IMO, SEO would measure, content and link rate (etc.) held equal, how can a page present itself as more relevant and authoritative to search engines?

Good content takes care of itself, regardless (which is why most bloggers should concern themselves first and foremost with producing quality content).

[Ryan]

What does human ability to remember a URL have to do with <em>Search Engine</em> Optimization?

Everything. Search engines primarily base the importance of a page on the number of outbound links. The easier a URL is, the more likely someone is to link to it.

Google's robot doesn't care how easy a URL would be for a human to remember, but rather how relevant the link text is to the content to which it links.

That's irrelevant since humans are the ones that create the links which Google does take notice of.

And I would think that the impact of permalink structure to linking rate is negligible.

Yeah, pretty much.

People don't link by typing a URL from memory, but rather from copying and pasting URL text.

Most of the time, yeah.

In fact, I would assume that the impact of permalink structure is so negligible as to be immeasurable. (How long did Instapundit Glenn Reynolds get by as pretty much the most-linked political blogger on the planet, without using "pretty" permalinks?).

I'm fairly sure using pretty permalinks would be measurable (based on nothing more than a guess and assuming you had a very popular site to test it on), but the difference between having a number on the front and not, would be hard to measure I imagine.

Regardless, I think of SEO as completely separate from link rate. IMO, SEO would measure, content and link rate (etc.) held equal, how can a page present itself as more relevant and authoritative to search engines?

I think you are referring specifically to on-page SEO, as opposed to SEO in general. A lot of the time when people think of "SEO", they are referring only to the on-page side of things, but there's a lot of issues surrounding a page which effect it's ranking within a search engine than just what can be seen on the page. Those external influences can have significant influence (if not more) on the rankings than what you do directly on your own site to appease the search engines directly (as opposed to appeasing them indirectly being more user friendly).

Good content takes care of itself, regardless (which is why most bloggers should concern themselves first and foremost with producing quality content).

Yeah. Although if you go to an SEO forum you will find bazillions of "SEO experts" (aka SEO morons) espousing otherwise.



For anyone reading this who is thinking "hmmm, maybe I should change my permalinks for SEO purposes" ... don't. Chances are it will not cause any meaningful difference at all. Just make sure your permalinks make some sort of logical sense (ie: aren't some demented, convoluted mess) and that everything is redirecting appropriately. The rest of this stuff is just nitpicking the details, which in reality are far less important SEO wise than anything else you might do to your site.

[andrea_r]

"closer" isn't the word I would use there. It's more that it helps if the keywords in the slug are related to the content on the page.

No, I meant physically closer. :)

Like mydomain.com/keyword-post-slug/ is "better" than mydomain.com/2010/april/keyword-post-slug/ because the keyword post slug is closer to the left of the whole URL.

Didn't say I agreed, cuz I think Google doesn't care. But a lot of people are told this, hence the proliferation of people using these permalinks structures.

[chipbennett]

I'm pretty sure we're mostly saying the same thing, ultimately - but it's a fun discussion.

Everything. Search engines primarily base the importance of a page on the number of outbound links. The easier a URL is, the more likely someone is to link to it.

That's irrelevant since humans are the ones that create the links which Google does take notice of.

I'm fairly sure using pretty permalinks would be measurable (based on nothing more than a guess and assuming you had a very popular site to test it on), but the difference between having a number on the front and not, would be hard to measure I imagine.

I think you are referring specifically to on-page SEO, as opposed to SEO in general. A lot of the time when people think of "SEO", they are referring only to the on-page side of things, but there's a lot of issues surrounding a page which effect it's ranking within a search engine than just what can be seen on the page. Those external influences can have significant influence (if not more) on the rankings than what you do directly on your own site to appease the search engines directly (as opposed to appeasing them indirectly being more user friendly).

Don't most SEO plugins, and SEO articles by SEO "experts" focus on the so-called "on-page SEO"? That's because it's all they can really address. And because of that, I would think that most people would likewise consider "on-page SEO" to be interchangeable with "SEO".

Here's my thinking, though:

1) If you write good enough content, other sites will link you, regardless of your permalink structure.
2) If you have enough sites linking to you, Google will rank you highly, regardless of your on-page SEO.
3) You can tweak that ranking - optimize, as it were - by implementing on-page SEO.

I really only see search engine optimization in the last point - that is, the on-page SEO.

Yeah. Although if you go to an SEO forum you will find bazillions of "SEO experts" (aka SEO morons) espousing otherwise.

For anyone reading this who is thinking "hmmm, maybe I should change my permalinks for SEO purposes" ... don't. Chances are it will not cause any meaningful difference at all. Just make sure your permalinks make some sort of logical sense (ie: aren't some demented, convoluted mess) and that everything is redirecting appropriately. The rest of this stuff is just nitpicking the details, which in reality are far less important SEO wise than anything else you might do to your site.

I changed my permalinks some time back, but not for SEO. I just, aesthetically, didn't like seeing "index.php" in the middle of the permalink.

Only recently, I spent maybe a day or two, implementing many of the SEO suggestions for my personal theme. I really only did so in order to make it meet as high a standard as possible (for my eventual release date) - since I intend to release it as a teaching tool, I want to make sure I'm using best practices.

I can't say that I've noticed a difference in my SEO ranking or listing at all. My content got me where I am (for any given search term), and I've not seen any difference in the weeks since "optimizing" for search engines.

For a "long tail" blogger like me, I'm just not a big believer in the importance of SEO. I took a very little amount of time to implement best practices, and don't intend really to re-visit SEO again. (Famous last words?)

[Ryan]

No, I meant physically closer. :)

Like mydomain.com/keyword-post-slug/ is "better" than mydomain.com/2010/april/keyword-post-slug/ because the keyword post slug is closer to the left of the whole URL.

Oh, I see. I totally misunderstood then.

I've never heard of that before.

Do you know what the reasoning was?