URL structure

[Forsh]

Does having SEF Url's with words actually carry any weight? I read someplace recently that the search engine "highlighter" just highlights the text, that it may not actually count for anything.

I.e. a URL reading...

.com/new/message/

versus

.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=11=fdfkdjhfkd

I know this is probably basic seo 101, just wondering if it is really worth my time to SEF all of my non-SEF links. (If weight is given.)

[Joaquin Maldonado]

.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=11=fdfkdjhfkd

I know this is probably basic seo 101, just wondering if it is really worth my time to SEF all of my non-SEF links. (If weight is given.)

Forsh,

I don't remember the last time I clicked or Google actually ranked a valuable keyphrase or keyword with such ugly link, so letting go by Google and the remaining top search engines I assume there's lots of weight in it. Having a blog with e.g 4535tofollow/03sep similarity never got me nowhere in the SER's. But having sub-pages with the keywords being added in the extension actually had big time weight when adding Google sitemap in one of my not yet so burned affiliate sites.

Try adding at least a word that goes with the keyword that you want to target and optimize for the sub-page, you might get it in the top 10 soon (depending in the competition as I am sure you know quite a bit.)

Joaquin

[scorpionagency]

Originally Posted by Forsh

Does having SEF Url's with words actually carry any weight? I read someplace recently that the search engine "highlighter" just highlights the text, that it may not actually count for anything.

I.e. a URL reading...

.com/new/message/

versus

.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=11=fdfkdjhfkd

I know this is probably basic seo 101, just wondering if it is really worth my time to SEF all of my non-SEF links. (If weight is given.)

As far as weight goes, I believe that even though a search engine may not highlight the URL for the search term used, it Does cross reference a domain name list that may also be using the same terms in it.

Even if the weight of that is only 1%-5% of the total algorithm equation I think its worth it.

The most important issue would be the ease of Indexing the page due to its URL. I have found that my Dynamic auto generated pages that uses gibberish URLs like you posted sometimes don't get indexed at all.

Now whether this has to do with the actual text content in the URL or more of the "2 clicks theory" - Keeping each page 2 clicks from the Home page due to limitations of Onsite algorithm following - I'm not sure.

To compensate for the 2 clicks theory I place category links in the footer to ease the spidering process. Ever since I did that I haven't had any issues with indexing at all.

I would have to say that the Page Title / Description has more weight (Besides inbound anchors). I would still try & optimize the URLs as much as possable to add to the total equation though (If possible).

(Just my opinion)

[Forsh]

Cool thanks. My gallery software doesn't work with my SEF software, which means I am going to be making hundreds of these SEF links. I guess if I want them indexed, I should just bite the bullet and do it.

[Cricket]

It's worth the time.

[scorpionagency]

well, your other option is what I did.. as long as your main categories are 2 clicks from the home page you are fine.

The sub-categories however you can place in the footer.. Example:

1 Click from home page categories:
Flowers | Buildings | People

2 Click from Home page categories:(These normally break down into 3rd clicks categories like:
Buildings: Midwest | Victorian | Colonial

if you Place "Buildings: Midwest | Victorian | Colonial" <~~ With each subcategory hyperlinked to the exact category location in your footer, then the contents of those categories now become 2 clicks away from the home page & help solve the indexing issue.

Up to you. Just my thoughts on it.

[Seo Madrid]

Forsh, in the example that you put, I think that more important than putting the targeted keywords in the URL (which is always good) you need to make the URL to read static. Google doesn´t deal too good with dynamic URLs.