I agree, and it's often said that there should be one, and only one, URL for each resource. How does googlebot (and other spiders/SEO- related concerns) feel about redirects? I presume they would all handle '301 moved permanently' quite well, but what about '302 found' or '307 temporary redirect' responses? If those are handled well, they could be employed to allow, for example, shorthand convenience URLs that ultimately point at the canonical resource URI
On Aug 31, 7:14 am, mdmcginn <michael.d.mcgin...@gmail.com> wrote: > A more important SEO consideration than dashes/underscores (since > search engines usually treat them the same) is duplicate content/ > canonical content. Googlebot doesn't like being fed an infinite number > of URLs that all point to the same content. Ideally, there should be > logic that would send HTTP 200 for myschool.edu/students/study-tips > and HTTP 404 for myschool.edu/alumni/study-tips - but that doesn't > often happen. Or you could insert <link rel="canonical" href="/ > students/study-tips" /> so Googlebot could index only the canonical > URLs and not the bogus ones. But that isn't as good. > -- > Michael McGinnis > > On Aug 26, 11:19 am, villas <villa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 26, 1:38 am, Kevin <extemporalgen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I personally consider hybridized URLs like <http://myblog.com/articles/5/ > > > net-neutrality-and-you> to be junk because there are two unique > > > identifiers in the URL). > > > Hi Kevin, > > > Your post was interesting and I was curious about your strong view in > > your comment above. > > > I always thought this kind of URL was most useful for SEO. You can > > correct misspelt slugs, and even improve slugs, without any previously > > indexed URLs giving 404s. That's a huge benefit, isn't it? In any > > case, in your URL example, I would say there's one identifier, the id. > > The slug is redundant. > > > Just wondering if I missed something... > > Thanks, David > >
