Is using hyphens in a URL to separate words good practice?
-
Hi guys,
I have a client who wants to use a hyphen to separate two words in the URL to make each work stand out.
Is is good or bad practice to use a hyphen in a URL and will it affect rankings?
Thanks!
-
Just to be clear, here we are talking about URLs and not the domain name because when it comes to domain name my personal advice is not to go fir hyphens as this is not a common practice plus its usually a practice of spammers to use shady domain names.
As far as URLs are concern it’s a wonderful idea as Lina said they are better than underscores.
Hope this helps!
-
Yes, no hyphens in the domain name. Thanks for clarifying, Donna.
-
Agree with what LindaLV has said, but want to be sure you're not talking about a domain name. Hyphens used when referencing a file or folder name is good. Hyphens in a domain name is less than ideal.
So, for example,
http://www.domainname.com/folder-name/file-name.html is good,
http://www.domain-name.com/foldername/filename.html is not so good.
Domain names should be short, memorable, preferably branded, and use no special characters.
-
Hyphens are definitely a good idea. They make the URL easier to read and more user-friendly. (See more about it from Webmaster Tools Help here.)
"Consider using punctuation in your URLs. The URL http://www.example.com/green-dress.html is much more useful to us than http://www.example.com/greendress.html. We recommend that you use hyphens (-) instead of underscores (_) in your URLs."
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
-
How do I carry out a redirect? Is there a code I need to use?
How do I carry out a redirect? Is there a code I need to use? Thank you in advance.
On-Page Optimization | | laurentjb0 -
Strange Key Word Results on Google
I'm trying to rank for the keywords "Chicago General Contractor" My landing page is https://3fconstruction.net/chicago-general-contractor/ However, in Google a variant page on my site (How to apply for a General Contractor's license - https://3fconstruction.net/how-to-apply-general-contractors-license-chicago/) that is optimized for "General Contractor License Chicago" is coming up first and the target page does not even seem to appear. I've forced a google crawl of my site and the page still does not appear. I've used the moz on-page grader and results of the target page are good. I'm perplexed and wonder if google is preventing the target page from appearing. Any thought on how to fix this?
On-Page Optimization | | Drew.Friestedt0 -
Stong Tags still useful in 2016
Hello, Are strong tags still beneficial in 2016? A few co-workers feel they look spammy on our site and that they are no longer really used by the search engines. However, we can't find any real significant info for no longer implementing them or saying they're outdated. Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | STP_SEO0 -
Are the prepositions and separate letters in URL bad for website optimization?
Is it ok for website optimization to use prepositions and separate letters in URL ? Examples: -i-series ; -salad-with-avocado etc.
On-Page Optimization | | adrecom0 -
Best practice for Portfolio Links
I have a client with a really large project portfolio (over 500 project images), which causes their portfolio page to have well over the 100 links that are recommended. How can I reduce this without reducing the number of photos they can upload?
On-Page Optimization | | HochKaren0 -
Similar URLs
I'm making a site of LSAT explanations. The content is very meaningful for LSAT students. I'm less sure the urls and headings are meaningful for Google. I'll give you an example. Here are two URLs and heading for two separate pages: http://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat-69/logical-reasoning-1/q-10/ - LSAT 69, Logical Reasoning I, Q 10 http://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat-69/logical-reasoning-2/q10/ - LSAT 69, Logical Reasoning II, Q10 There are two logical reasoning sections on LSAT 69. For the first url is for question 10 from section 1, the second URL is for question 10 from the second LR section. I noticed that google.com only displays 23 urls when I search "site:http://lsathacks.com". A couple of days ago it displayed over 120 (i.e. the entire site). 1. Am I hurting myself with this structure, even if it makes sense for users? 2. What could I do to avoid it? I'll eventually have thousands of pages of explanations. They'll all be very similar in terms of how I would categorize them to a human, e.g. "LSAT 52, logic games question 12" I should note that the content of each page is very different. But url, title and h1 is similar. Edit: I could, for example, add a random keyword to differentiate titles and urls (but not H1). For example: http://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat-69/logical-reasoning-2/q10-car-efficiency/ LSAT 69, Logical Reasoning I, Q 10, Car efficiency But the url is already fairly long as is. Would that be a good idea?
On-Page Optimization | | graemeblake0 -
Canonical URL Tag
Hi, I have two pages that are identical on my site: http://www.absolutepower.nl/creatine-monohydraat and http://www.absolutepower.nl/CREATINE/creatine-monohydraat Should I use the canonical URL tag in this case? Thanks, Jasper
On-Page Optimization | | Japking0 -
Meta refresh - nojavascript url
seomox is telling me that I am getting a page that is not being indexed or crawled and since the crawl status code is 200 and there are no robots the meta-refresh url must be the problem. the meta refresh url is different than the on page report card url as it's the nojavascript url which my developer says should be ok. see his comments below. The is redirecting to http://mastermindtoys.com/store/nojavascript.html only in case if the JavaScript is disabled in the client browser. This is the right way to do it, I don’t understand why this might be a problem, otherwise MM has to implement Noscript pages that have a real content. I didn’t get what’s wrong about accessibility. The code 200 means it is accessible, and yes there is nothing to access if JavaScript is disabled on browser. I think there are no modern retail sites that would do any sensible business with the scripting disabled in browsers.The H1 is really present 2 times and second occurrence can be removed, though I highly doubt about importance of this change.Regarding duplicates – what URLs are considered duplicates? Can you please send me examples?I am not aware of canonical URL problem for MM site unless we consider old .asp links as duplicate links of the canonical product pages. I would appreciate if SEOMoz gave us an example what they mean.I suspect that the page is not getting indexed as a result of this or I'm just not getting a good score. Which is it?
On-Page Optimization | | mastermindtoys0