Urls have dates - bad? terrible?
-
My URLs include dates: example.com/2009-05/post-about-something.html
I know this isn't the 'best', but is there any reason to be concerned? Some panda, duplicate content, google hates date in URLs, I should know about?
-
Hi!
Michael pretty much summed it up for you. There's no concern of anything bad. Plenty of blogs etc have the URL as part of the date structure (even mine!).
If I were to start over I would not use dates - or I would put the dates at the end of my URL like: domain.com/blog/post-about-something/06/08/2012
But no need to switch now that you've already started that way - especially if you have like more than 10 posts.
Its argued in some cases they are good to have for analytics purposes. Almost like Michael is talking about with URLs having product IDs.
But you're not in danger of a penalty or unusual algorithmic filter or anything that I'm aware of.
-Dan
-
Heck no you shouldn't be concerned. If someone told you that Google hates "dates"-- that is just wrong. How is that a date? What if that was the category number for a line of products? So all of the parts from 79-86 get their own section.
i.e.-- chevynovacarparts/01-1979-06-1981/steeringwheels.html
That's called good site organization and Google will reward you for that.
I don't see how you could have duplicate content, unless you wrote the same post. Duplicate content is most definitely NOT having something in the same category or "taxonomy." I have 20 mosts under a given month on one of my blogs... And they all go in that month category / taxonomy.
In this case, your posts are organized by date. There's nothing wrong with that.
With the HTML extension, I am assuming you are not using a content management system. (Or, you are using a WP plug-in that adds the HTML extension-- smart!) If you were using a content management system, like Wordpress-- much of the content is organized just like this and Google loves it.
I have a number of websites on page one across many different industries. All of them are in Wordpress and all of them have dates in the URL.
It's just a way of organizing your content. I think the opposite of what you think is true: I think the dates may help you-- but never harm you.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Should we include URLs with parameters in the sitemap?
Hi, I wanted to know whether we can include URLs with search parameters in the sitemap. Currently, we are trying to append structured data for our job listing page. There happens to be a large number of job listings around 1000 pages with unique job-id and location. Should we add these pages in the sitemap or is there any other solution to this? Regards, Tejas
Algorithm Updates | | tejasbansode0 -
Folders or no folders in url?
What's best for SEO: a folder or no folder? For example: https://domain.com/arizona-dentist/somecontent or just https://domain.com/somecontent. The website has 100+ pages with "dentist" within the content of the somecontent pages, as well as specific pages for /arizona-dentist/. Also, the breadcrumb for the somecontent page would appear something like follows: Arizona Dentist > Some Content ... you can find the somecontent page from the Arizona Dentist page. I didn't include folders in the path because I did not want the url to be too long. In terms of where it is showing up on google search results...it is within the top 3-4 on the first page when searching Arizona dentist come content. The website is pretty organized even without subfolders because it was made using Umbraco. I am wondering if using folders will increase the SEO ranking, or if it really doesn't and could hurt it if paths become too long; especially since it's not doing too bad in the search ranking right now. -Thanks in advance for any help.
Algorithm Updates | | bellezze0 -
Is it bad from an SEO perspective that cached AMP pages are hosted on domains other than the original publisher's?
Hello Moz, I am thinking about starting to utilize AMP for some of my website. I've been researching this AMP situation for the better part of a year and I am still unclear on a few things. What I am primarily concerned with in terms of AMP and SEO is whether or not the original publisher gets credit for the traffic to a cached AMP page that is hosted elsewhere. I can see the possible issues with this from an SEO perspective and I am pretty sure I have read about how SEOs are unhappy about this particular aspect of AMP in other places. On the AMP project FAQ page you can find this, but there is very little explanation: "Do publishers receive credit for the traffic from a measurement perspective?
Algorithm Updates | | Brian_Dowd
Yes, an AMP file is the same as the rest of your site – this space is the publisher’s canvas." So, let's say you have an AMP page on your website example.com:
example.com/amp_document.html And a cached copy is served with a URL format similar to this: https://google.com/amp/example.com/amp_document.html Then how does the original publisher get the credit for the traffic? Is it because there is a canonical tag from the AMP version to the original HTML version? Also, while I am at it, how does an AMP page actually get into Google's AMP Cache (or any other cache)? Does Google crawl the original HTML page, find the AMP version and then just decide to cache it from there? Are there any other issues with this that I should be aware of? Thanks0 -
Ecommerce SEO: Is it bad to link to product/category pages directly from content pages?
Hi ! In Moz' Whiteboard friday video Headline Writing and Title Tag SEO in a Clickbait World, Rand is talking about (among other things) best practices related to linking between search, clickbait and conversion pages. For a client of ours, a cosmetics and make-up retailer, we are planning to build content pages around related keywords, for example video, pictures and text about make-up and fashion in order to best target and capture search traffic related to make-up that is prevalent earlier in the costumer journey. Among other things, we plan to use these content pages to link directly to some of the products. For example a content piece about how to achieve full lashes will to link to particular mascaras and/or the mascara category) Things is, in the Whiteboard video Rand Says:
Algorithm Updates | | Inevo
_"..So your click-bait piece, a lot of times with click-bait pieces they're going to perform worse if you go over and try and link directly to your conversion page, because it looks like you're trying to sell people something. That's not what plays on Facebook, on Twitter, on social media in general. What plays is, "Hey, this is just entertainment, and I can just visit this piece and it's fun and funny and interesting." _ Does this mean linking directly to products pages (or category pages) from content pages is bad? Will Google think that, since we are also trying to sell something with the same piece of content, we do not deserve to rank that well on the content, and won't be considered that relevant for a search query where people are looking for make-up tips and make-up guides? Also.. is there any difference between linking from content to categories vs. products? ..I mean, a category page is not a conversion page the same way a products page is. Looking forward to your answers 🙂0 -
Anchor name URLs & anchor blocks: how Google sees them?
Hi guys, Anchor name URLs & anchor blocks: how Google sees them? As far as I know Google hasn't ever recommended anchor name URLs and anchor blocks, mostly when you have one page site, but I have ran into an organic result with an hyper-link to an anchor name URL. anchor name link There is a proper link and there aren't on the page and the code the words "Jump to". It means Google has put those words there and it has also taken the header of that block as anchor text. Why has Google placed that link? The query is "faqs umbrella company", so I thought that Google has seen "faqs umbrella company" like "what is the most popular faq about umbrella companies?" and therefore perhaps the correct answer could be "Is an umbrella company the only option I have? What are the alternatives?". Although, IMHO the most popular FAQ on Umbrella Companies should always be "what is an umbrella company". Unfortunately, that page is only worthy of third Google organic result page and there is no hint of rich snippet or any kind of conversational/KBT optimisation on its source code. no-rich-snippet Someone has any idea of why Google shows that link and if it's something that we can optimise in our pages? Cheers Pierpaolo IhwGwkb.jpg VWORt5F.jpg
Algorithm Updates | | madcow780 -
Is having an identical title, h1 and url considered "over optimization"? Is it better to vary?
To get some new pages out without over-thinking things, I decided to line up the title tag, h1 tag and URLs of my pages exactly. They are dynamically generated based on the content the user is viewing (internal search results pages) They're not ranking very well at the moment, but there are a number of factors that are likely to blame. But, in particular, does anyone know if varying the text in these elements tends to perform better vs. having them all identical? Has there been any information from Google about this? Most if not all of the "over optimization" content I have seen online pertains to backlinks, not on-page content. It's easy to say, "test it!" And of course, that's just what I'm planning to do. But I thought I would leverage the combined knowledge of this forum to see what information I could obtain first, so I can do some informed testing, as tests can take a while to see results. Thanks 🙂
Algorithm Updates | | ntcma0 -
Sitemap Question - Should I exclude or make a separate sitemap for Old URL's
So basically, my website is very old... 1995 Old. Extremely old content still shows up when people search for things that are outdated by 10-15+ years , I decided not to drop redirects on some of the irrelevant pages. People still hit the pages, but bounce... I have about 400 pages that I don't want to delete or redirect. Many of them have old backlinks and hold some value but do interfere with my new relevant content. If I dropped these pages into a sitemap, set the priority to zero would that possibly help? No redirects, content is still valid for people looking for it, but maybe these old pages don't show up above my new content? Currently the old stuff is excluded from all sitemaps.. I don't want to make one and have it make the problem worse. Any advise is appreciated. Thx 😄
Algorithm Updates | | Southbay_Carnivorous_Plants0 -
Google webmaster tool content keywords Top URLs
GWT->Optimization->Content Keywords section... If we click on the keyword it will further shows the variants and Top URLs containing those variants. My problem is none of the important pages like product details pages, homepage or category pages are present in that Top URLs list. All the news, guides section url's are listed in the Top URLs section for most important keyword that is also present in my domain name. How to make google realize the important pages for the important keyword?
Algorithm Updates | | BipSum0