Every URL ends with the same pattern, "Part-123456789" where the "Part" is a constant and the "123456789" is a part number. I want to run an adwords campaign targetting every part # and directing to the unique url for that part. Is there a simple way to do this?
Note: Adwords Editor is giving me ambiguous rowtype errors whenever I try to upload the keywords and URL's together in the same line of a .csv file.
The available value track parameters for AdWords tracking templates offers both the keyword ID and matched keyword:
https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/6305348?co=ADWORDS.IsAWNCustomer%3Dfalse&hl=en
You could use this to determine the part number in the URL but it may require some mapping in the content management system.
Related
I have a field in an RSS item that includes a URL such as:
https://www.facebook.com/9999249845065110
https://www.yelp.com/biz/bix-berkeley-2?hrid=TaFUhHhVrhEJdCPjaB6RUQ
https://www.google.com/search?q=hello%20Signs%20&%20Graphics&ludocid=1720220414695611454#lrd=0x0:0x17df735a614e9c3e,1
I'm trying to setup a Zap in Zapier using the Formatter tool to essentially extract the root domain without the .com. So:
facebook
yelp
google
I have no clue how to use the Formatter Extract Pattern tool though. Can't figure out the syntax.
Best case scenario, it can look at any URL and extract the name of the site (e.g. facebook/google/yelp). If that's too complicated, then I could provide a finite list of what terms to look for and have it return the first (and only) one found. So it would check if the URL contained facebook or google or yelp and if so return that name as a value.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
David here, from the Zapier Platform team.
This is totally possible. The input is the text you want to search (the full url) and the pattern is your regular expression.
In your case, you want to find the word between www. and .com. Use the regular expression www\.(\w+)\.com.
That worked for me, and pulled out yelp.
You can see each part of the regex explained here: https://regex101.com/r/KmwMAV/1
Let me know if you've got any other questions!
Our SaaS app, currently in beta, allows users to generate conversations. A conversation's URL currently looks like this:
http://example.com/conversations/view/4c6a4ab4-4795-4a13-a3d9-d9d22cac28e5
I'd like to change the URL to something search engine friendly like this:
http://example.com/conversations/this-is-a-great-conversation-that-you-need-to-join
However, since conversation can potentially have the same title, we'll need the conversation's ID in there. But, that would give us a really nasty looking URL:
http://example.com/conversations/this-is-a-great-conversation-that-you-need-to-join/4c6a4ab4-4795-4a13-a3d9-d9d22cac28e5
Does anyone have any ideas on how to include a smaller unique ID in the URL so that we don't have to include the UUID?
believe me, it's not seo friendly at all:
http://example.com/conversations/this-is-a-great-conversation-that-you-need-to-join
it's more spammy than seo friendly url. since google reduced value of keywords in url
http://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-on-keywords-in-the-url-16976
keywords in url should not be more that 4 or 5 keywords.
i think you should reduce you url size and depth levels. for instance:
http://example.com/c584501
can work for you. "c" in the beginning means "conversations" you can identify your url by a character without using more levels like:
http://example.com/conversations/584501
the shorter url the more chance of sharing it on social medias.
you can use id of your table in database or use uniqueId if you use php:
http://php.net/manual/en/function.uniqid.php
i usually use my table id and i convert it to base36 with base_convert()
http://php.net/manual/en/function.base-convert.php
is there an API in blackberry that can validate URL ?
i'm using stupid method startsWith(http://)
and read the Index of the string to make sure it contain ".com/" and other strings to ensure it look like a validate URL.
but i feel like it's a stupid and long way to use.
is there any API that can make it easier ?
I'm looking for away to make it within blackberry APIs not external packages
In the API the only classes are:
URLTextFilter: Useful only to add it to a text field (Call EditField.setFilter). It will discard invalid chars.
URI: It lets you to validate a URI by calling URI.create. Of course, not all URIs are URLs, but URLs should be URIs.
I am using ColdFusion 9.
I am creating a brand new site that uses three templates. The first template is the home page, where users are prompted to select a brand or a specific model. The second template is where the user can view all of the models of the selected brand. The third template shows all of the specific information on a specific model.
A long time ago... I would make the URLs like this:
.com/Index.cfm // home page
.com/Brands.cfm?BrandID=123 // specific brand page
.com/Models.cfm?ModelID=123 // specific model page
Now, for SEO purposes and for easy reading, I might want my URLs to look like this:
.com/? // home page
.com/?Brand=Worthington
.com/?Model=Worthington&Model=TX193A
Or, I might want my URLs to look like this:
.com/? // home
.com/?Worthington // specific brand
.com/?Worthington/TX193A // specific model
My question is, are there really any SEO benefits or easy reading or security benefits to either naming convention?
Is there a best URL naming convention to use?
Is there a real benefit to having a URL like this?
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7113295/sql-should-i-use-a-junction-table-or-not
Use URLs that make sense for your users. If you use sensible URLs which humans understand, it'll work with search engines too.
i.e. Don't do SEO, do HO. Human Optimisation. Optimise your pages for the users of your page and in doing so you'll make Google (and others) happy.
Do NOT stuff keywords into URLs unless it helps the people your site is for.
To decide what your URL should look like, you need to understand what the parts of a URL are for.
So, given this URL: http://domain.com/whatever/you/like/here?q=search_terms#page-frament.
It breaks down like this:
http
what protocol is used to deliver the page
:
divides protocol from rest of url
//domain.com
indicates what server to load
/whatever/you/like/here
Between the domain and the ? should indicate which page to load.
?
divides query string from rest of url
q=search_terms
Between the ? and the # can be used for a dynamic search query or setting.
#
divides page fragment from rest of the url
page-frament
Between the # and the end of line indicates which part of the page to focus on.
If your system setup lets you, a system like this is probably the most human friendly:
domain.com
domain.com/Worthington
domain.com/Worthington/TX193A
However, sometimes a unique ID is needed to ensure there is no ambiguity (with SO, there might be multiple questions with the same title, thus why ID is included, whilst the question is included because it's easier for humans that way).
Since all models must belong to a brand, you don't need both ID numbers though, so you can use something like this:
domain.com
domain.com/123/Worthington
domain.com/456/Worthington/TX193A
(where 123 is the brand number, and 456 is the model number)
You only need extra things (like /questions/ or /index.cfm or /brand.cfm or whatever) if you are unable to disambiguate different pages without them.
Remember: this part of the URL identifies the page - it needs to be possible to identify a single page with a single URL - to put it another way, every page should have a unique URL, and every unique URL should be a different page. (Excluding the query string and page fragment parts.)
Again, using the SO example - there are more than just questions here, there are users and tags and so on too. so they couldn't just do stackoverflow.com/7275745/question-title because it's not clearly distinct from stackoverflow.com/651924/evik-james - which they solve by inserting /questions and /users into each of those to make it obvious what each one is.
Ultimately, the best URL system to use depends on what pages your site has and who the people using your site are - you need to consider these and come up with a suitable solution. Simpler URLs are better, but too much simplicity may cause confusion.
Hopefully this all makes sense?
Here is an answer based on what I know about SEO and what we have implemented:
The first thing that get searched and considered is your domain name, and thus picking something related to your domain name is very important
URL with query string has lower priority than the one that doesn't. The reason is that query string is associated with dynamic content that could change over time. The search engine might also deprioritize those with query string fearing that it might be used for SPAM and diluting the result of SEO itself
As for using the URL such as
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7113295/sql-should-i-use-a-junction-table-or-not
As the search engine looks at both the domain and the path, having the question in the path will help the Search Engine and elevate the question as a more relevant page when someone typing part of the question in the search engine.
I am not an SEO expert, but the company I work for has a dedicated dept to managing the SEO of our site. They much prefer the params to be in the URI, rather than in the query string, and I'm sure they prefer this for a reason (not simply to make the web team's job slightly trickier... all though there could be an element of that ;-)
That said, the bulk of what they concern themselves with is the content within and composition of the page. The domain name and URL are insignificant compared to having good, relevant content in a well defined structure.
What should I use:
/findby/name/{first}_{last}
/findby/name/{first}-{last}
/findby/name/{first};{last}
/findby/name/first/{first}/last/{last}
etc.
The URI represents a Person resource with 1 name, but I need to logically separate the first from the last to identify each. I kind of like the last example because I can do:
/findby/name/first/{first}
/findby/name/last/{last}
/findby/name/first/{first}/last/{last}
You could always just accept spaces :-) (querystring escaped as %20)
But my preference is to just use dashes (-) ... looks nicer in the URL. unless you have a need to be able to essentially query in which case the last example is better as you noted
Why not use + for space?
I am at a loss: dashes, minuses, underscores, %20... why not just use +? This is how spaces are normally encoded in query parameters. Yes, you can use %20 too but why, looks ugly.
I'd do
/personNamed/Joe+Blow
I like using "_" because it is the most similar character to space that keeps the URL readable.
However, the URLs you provided don't seem really RESTful. A URL should represent a resource, but in your case it represents a search query. So I would do something like this:
/people/{first}_{last}
/people/{first}_{last}_(2) - in case there are duplicate names
It this case you have to store the slug ({first}_{last}, {first}_{last}_(2)) for each user record. Another option to prepend the ID, so you don't have to bother with slugs:
/people/{id}-{first}_{last}
And for search you can use non-RESTful URLs:
/people/search?last={last}&first={first}
These would display a list of search results while the URLs above the page for a particular person.
I don't think there is any use of making the search URLs RESTful, users will most likely want to share links to a certain person's page and not search result pages. As for the search engines, avoid having the same content for multiple URLs, and you should even deny indexing of your search result pages in robots.txt
For searching:
/people/search?first={first}&last={last}
/people/search?first=george&last=washington
For resource paths:
/people/{id}-{first}-{last}
/people/35-george-washington
If you are using Ruby on Rails v3 in standard configuration, here's how you can do it.
# set up the /people/{param} piece
# config/routes.rb
My::Application.routes.draw do
resources :people
end
# set up that {param} should be {id}-{first}-{last}
# app/models/person.rb
class Person < ActiveRecord::Base
def to_param
"#{id}-#{to_slug(first_name)}-#{to_slug(last_name)}"
end
end
Note that your suggestion, /findby/name/first/{first}/last/{last}, is not restful. It does not name resources and it does not name them succinctly.
The most sophisticated choice should always and first of all consider two constraints:
As you'll never know how skilled the developer or the device being implemented on is regarding handling of urlencoding, i will always try to limit myself to the table of safe characters, as found in the excellent rant (Please) Stop Using Unsafe Characters in URLs
Also - we want to consider the client consuming the API. Can we have the whole structure easily represented and accessible in the client side programming language? What special characters would this requirement leave us with? I.e. a $ will be fine in javascript variable names and thus directly accessible in the parsed result, but a PHP client will still have to use a more complex (and potentially more confusing) notation $userResult->{'$mostVisited'}->someProperty... that a shot in your own foot! So for those two (and a couple of other programming environments) underscore seems the only valid option.
Otherwise i mostly agree with #yfeldblum`s response - i'd distinct between a search endpoint vs. the actual unique resource lookup. Feels more REST to me, but more importantly, the two have a significant cost difference on your api server - this way you can easier distinct and i.e. charge a higher costs or rate limit the search endpoint - should you ever need it.
To be Pragmatic, as opposed to a "RESTafarian" the mentioned approach /people/35-george-washington could (and should imho) basically respond to just the id, so if you want a named, urlsafe-for-dummies-link, list the reference as /people/35_george_washington. Other ideas could be /people/35/#GeorgeWashington (so breaking tons of RFCs) or /people/35_GeorgeWashington - the API wouldn't care.