Say I have a TitleCase directory name, but call an item within that directory using a lowercase url.
Does that have any effect or impact?
For example, does the server need to do a redirect from the incorrect lettercase to the correct lettercase?
Example
A file here: /PlugIns/CMSPages/Images/my-image.jpg
Called with: /plugins/cmspages/images/my-image.jpg
The routing engine isn't case sensitive.
One thing to be wary of, if you are referring to page urls - Google treats lowercase and uppercase urls as different pages, so you want to make use of rel="canonical" to ensure Google and other search engines know it is one page, no matter whether the url is upper or lowercase.
Related
I'm validating one of my web pages and its throwing up errors as below :
& did not start a character reference. (& probably should have been escaped as &.)
This is because on my page I am linking to internal webpages which has &'s in the URL as below:
www.example.com/test.php?param1=1¶m2=2
My question is that if I change the URLs in the a hrefs to include & as below:
www.example.com/test.php?param1=1¶m2=2
Will Google and other search engines treat the 2 URLs above as separate pages or will they treat them both as the one below:
www.example.com/test.php?param1=1¶m2=2
I dont want to loose my search engine rankings.
There is no reason to assume that search engines would knowingly ignore how HTML works.
Take, for example, this hyperlink:
…
The URL is not http://example.com/test.php?param1=1¶m2=2!
It’s just the way how the URL http://example.com/test.php?param1=1¶m2=2 is stored in attributes in an HTML document.
So when a conforming consumer comes across this hyperlink, it never visits http://example.com/test.php?param1=1¶m2=2.
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.
If an extra character (like a period, comma or a bracket or even alphabets) gets accidentally added to URL on the stackoverflow.com domain, a 404 error page is not thrown. Instead, URLs self correct themselves & the user is led to the relevant webpage.
For instance, the extra 4 letters I added to the end of a valid SO URL to demonstrate this would be automatically removed when you access the below URL -
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/194812/list-of-freely-available-programming-booksasdf
I guess this has something to do with ASP.NET MVC Routing. How is this feature implemented?
Well, this is quite simple to explain I guess, even without knowing the code behind it:
The text is just candy for search engines and people reading the URL:
This URL will work as well, with the complete text removed!
The only part really important is the question ID that's also embedded in the "path".
This is because EVERYTHING after http://stackoverflow.com/questions/194812 is ignored. It is just there to make the link, if posted somewhere, if more speaking.
Internally the URL is mapped to a handler, e.g., by a rewrite, that transforms into something like: http://stackoverflow.com/questions.php?id=194812 (just an example, don't know the correct internal URL)
This also makes the URL search engine friendly, besides being more readable to humans.
I've seen that IIS has a problem with letting colons into URLs. I also saw the suggestions others offered here.
With the site I'm working on, I want to be able to pass titles of movies, books, etc., into my URL, colon included, like this:
mysite.com/Movie/Bob:The Return
This would be consumed by my MovieController, for example, as a string and used further down the line.
I realize that a colon is not ideal. Does anyone have any other suggestions? As poor as it currently is, I'm doing a find-and-replace from all colons (:) to another character, then a backwards replace when I want to consume it on the Controller end.
I resolved this issue by adding this to my web.config:
<httpRuntime requestPathInvalidCharacters=""/>
This must be within the system.web section.
The default is:
<httpRuntime requestPathInvalidCharacters="<,>,*,%,&,:,\,?"/>
So to only make an exception for the colon it would become
<httpRuntime requestPathInvalidCharacters="<,>,*,%,&,\,?"/>
Read more at: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.web.configuration.httpruntimesection.requestpathinvalidcharacters.aspx
For what I understand the colon character is acceptable as an unencoded character in an URL. I don't know why they added it to the default of the requestPathInvalidCharacters.
Consider URL encoding and decoding your movie titles.
You'd end up with foo.com/bar/Bob%58The%20Return
As an alternative, consider leveraging an HTML helper to remove URL unfriendly characters in URLs (method is URLFriendly()). The SEO benefits between a colon and a placeholder (e.g. a dash) would likely be negligable.
One of the biggest worries with your approach is that the movie name isn't always going to be unique (e.g. "The Italian Job"). Also what about other ilegal characters (e.g. brackets etc).
It might be a good idea to use an id number in the url to locate the movie in your database. You could still include a url friendly copy of movie name in your url, but you wouldn't need to worry about getting back to the original title with all the illegal characters in it.
A good example is the url to this page. You can see that removing the title of the page still works:
ASP.NET MVC Colon in URL
ASP.NET MVC Colon in URL
Colon is a reserved and invalid character in an URI according to the RFC 3986. So don't do something that violates the specification. You need to either URL encode it or use another character. And here's a nice blog post you might take a look at.
The simplest way is to use System.Web.HttpUtility.UrlEncode() when building the url
and System.Web.HttpUtility.UrlDecode when interpreting the results coming back. You would also have problems with the space character if you don't encode the value first.
I am reworking on the URL formats of my project. The basic format of our search URLs is this:-
www.projectname/module/search/<search keyword>/<exam filter>/<subject filter>/... other params ...
On searching with no search keyword and exam filter, the URL will be :-
www.projectname/module/search///<subject filter>/... other params ...
My question is why don't we see such URLs with back to back slashes (3 slashes after www.projectname/module/search)? Please note that I am not using .htaccess rewrite rules in my project anymore. This URL works perfect functionally. So, should I use this format?
For more details on why we chose this format, please check my other question:-
Suggest best URL style
Web servers will typically remove multiple slashes before the application gets to see the request,for a mix of compatibility and security reasons. When serving plain files, it is usual to allow any number of slashes between path segments to behave as one slash.
Blank URL path segments are not invalid in URLs but they are typically avoided because relative URLs with blank segments may parse unexpectedly. For example in /module/search, a link to //subject/param is not relative to the file, but a link to the server subject with path /param.
Whether you can see the multiple-slash sequences from the original URL depends on your server and application framework. In CGI, for example (and other gateway standards based on it), the PATH_INFO variable that is typically used to implement routing will usually omit multiple slashes. But on Apache there is a non-standard environment variable REQUEST_URI which gives the original form of the request without having elided slashes or done any %-unescaping like PATH_INFO does. So if you want to allow empty path segments, you can, but it'll cut down on your deployment options.
There are other strings than the empty string that don't make good path segments either. Using an encoded / (%2F), \ (%5C) or null byte (%00) is blocked by default by many servers. So you can't put any old string in a segment; it'll have to be processed to remove some characters (often ‘slug’-ified to remove all but letters and numbers). Whilst you are doing this you may as well replace the empty string with _.
Probably because it's not clearly defined whether or not the extra / should be ignored or not.
For instance: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport and http://news.bbc.co.uk//////////sport both display the same page in Firefox and Chrome. The server is treating the two urls as the same thing, whereas your server obviously does not.
I'm not sure whether this behaviour is defined somewhere or not, but it does seem to make sense (at least for the BBC website - if I type an extra /, it does what I meant it to do.)