11 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
11 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

script name vs path

by Steviebone
9 replies
  • SEO
    • |
I am wondering about the relevance of what Google sees as the actual filename in a link. For example, on a scripted site the url structure might be:

Code:
/path/subpath/scriptname?querystr
Consider for a moment that although the path is completely unique for each link, the scriptname is the same. That is to say one script is handling the bulk of the traffic. The querystr tells the script what to do. The path indicates site structure.

Code:
For example: www.domain.com/products/mywebsite.php?querystr

or

www.domain.com/search/mywebsite.php?querystr

or 

www.domain.com/contact/mywebsite.php?querystr
I am thinking this may be disadvantageous and that in some cases the scriptname should be where the keywords are.

For example, consider the following two urls:

Code:
/products/dresses/green/getproducts.php?querystr

or

/products/green-dresses.php?querystr

or even maybe

/products/clothing/dresses/green-dresses.php?querystr
Wouldn't google prefer the scriptname that contains the keywords? If one scriptname is used for the bulk of the load on a dynamic site doesn't that muddle the issue somewhat?

Is it worth restructuring the script(s) to reflect a name that suits the content?
#path #script
  • Profile picture of the author MightyWarrior
    Seems you are talking about silo structuring in a general way.

    You are, of course, free to use any structure you want.
    You can always use .htaccess to reformat the url.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916407].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steviebone
      Originally Posted by MightyWarrior View Post

      Seems you are talking about silo structuring in a general way.

      You are, of course, free to use any structure you want.
      You can always use .htaccess to reformat the url.
      Actually I was being specific. What is the weight of the actual script/program name compared to the path and is there a demotion for a file/script that is nested deeper in sub-directory path?

      In other words does Google/Bing think a file has less importance based on it's depth in the site hierarchy/structure?

      (htaccess is not applicable in this deployment.)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916768].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author savidge4
        Originally Posted by Steviebone View Post

        Actually I was being specific. What is the weight of the actual script/program name compared to the path and is there a demotion for a file/script that is nested deeper in sub-directory path?

        In other words does Google/Bing think a file has less importance based on it's depth in the site hierarchy/structure?

        (htaccess is not applicable in this deployment.)
        as I see it and understand it... script URLS are not in Googles vocabulary so to speak. if they are bound in a script block I simply would not worry about them. Google will without question "Follow" a code side url, but wont go into the script file in any way. In regards to Bing... I think they just skip scripted blocks all together.

        The better answer here is this. When you look at a "regular" text link... what is Google looking at, the link URL or the Text that is used to create the link?

        The ONLY time I concern my self with URL's specifically is in regards to pages ( and posts for those using wordpress )
        Signature
        Success is an ACT not an idea
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916862].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Steviebone
          Originally Posted by savidge4 View Post

          as I see it and understand it... script URLS are not in Googles vocabulary so to speak. if they are bound in a script block I simply would not worry about them. Google will without question "Follow" a code side url, but wont go into the script file in any way. In regards to Bing... I think they just skip scripted blocks all together.

          The better answer here is this. When you look at a "regular" text link... what is Google looking at, the link URL or the Text that is used to create the link?
          I think maybe you are talking about a url that is scripted within a javascript code block and in that case you would be right. At least for the moment, most people think Google doesn't execute client side javascript. Personally, I'm not so sure about that. (that's another topic altogether)

          But what I'm talking about is the URL that is stored for the SERP. For example:

          Code:
           <p><a href="www.domain.com/script.php?se=brain+injury">
Brain injuries</A> in these cases can be quite severe.</P>
          as opposed to:

          Code:
           <p><a  span onClick="somejavafunction('brain+injuries');">
Brain  injuries</span> in these cases can be quite severe.</P>
          In the second case the actual url is not followed by Google (supposedly).

          My question really has to do with whether:

          Code:
           <p><a  href="www.domain.com/script.php?se=brain+injury">
Brain  injuries</A> in these cases can be quite severe.</P>
          or

          Code:
           <p><a  href="www.domain.com/brain-injuries.php?se=brain+injury">Brain  injuries</A> 
in these cases can be quite severe.</P>
          or even

          Code:
           <p><a  href="www.domain.com/Trauma-Victims/brain-injuries.php?se=brain+injury">
Brain  injuries</A> in these cases can be quite severe.</P>
          I know that the path helps bots (along with breadcrumbs) to understand the structure of your site and the relationships of various pages to each other. I expect that google might prefer in some small measure to see the keywords in the path and/or file name. My question was whether one was more significant than the other (path or filename).

          In other words, theoretically, setting aside the querystr for a moment:

          is

          Code:
           <p><a  href="www.domain.com/Trauma-Victims/Brain-Injuries.html>
Brain  injuries</A> in these cases can be quite severe.</P>
          better than

          Code:
           <p><a  href="www.domain.com/Trauma-Victims/Brain-Injuries/index.html>
Brain  injuries</A> in these cases can be quite severe.</P>
          ?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919192].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author savidge4
            Originally Posted by Steviebone View Post

            My question really has to do with whether:

            Code:
             <p><a  href="www.domain.com/script.php?se=brain+injury">
Brain  injuries</A> in these cases can be quite severe.</P>
            or

            Code:
             <p><a  href="www.domain.com/brain-injuries.php?se=brain+injury">Brain  injuries</A> 
in these cases can be quite severe.</P>
            or even

            Code:
             <p><a  href="www.domain.com/Trauma-Victims/brain-injuries.php?se=brain+injury">
Brain  injuries</A> in these cases can be quite severe.</P>
            I know that the path helps bots (along with breadcrumbs) to understand the structure of your site and the relationships of various pages to each other. I expect that google might prefer in some small measure to see the keywords in the path and/or file name. My question was whether one was more significant than the other (path or filename).

            In other words, theoretically, setting aside the querystr for a moment:

            is

            Code:
             <p><a  href="www.domain.com/Trauma-Victims/Brain-Injuries.html>
Brain  injuries</A> in these cases can be quite severe.</P>
            better than

            Code:
             <p><a  href="www.domain.com/Trauma-Victims/Brain-Injuries/index.html>
Brain  injuries</A> in these cases can be quite severe.</P>
            ?

            Again I don't think it matters. I think URL is onpage only, and not a site variable. If you place the same question pointing from one URL A to URL B is it an issue? I believe again that the factor is the Text that "Is" the link, and NOT the link itself.
            Signature
            Success is an ACT not an idea
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919260].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Steviebone
              Originally Posted by savidge4 View Post

              Again I don't think it matters. I think URL is onpage only, and not a site variable. If you place the same question pointing from one URL A to URL B is it an issue? I believe again that the factor is the Text that "Is" the link, and NOT the link itself.
              Interesting... I'm not sure I totally agree. SItes with keywords in the domain seem to rank higher with more regularity although I think this significance is less than it once was. However, to be sure, paths/urls notwithstanding the most important thing is page content. All of it has to line up. The days of a page being ranked simply on name and/or title went away ions ago. Today it's a game of a thousand tiny increments.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919277].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author savidge4
                Originally Posted by Steviebone View Post

                Interesting... I'm not sure I totally agree. SItes with keywords in the domain seem to rank higher with more regularity although I think this significance is less than it once was. However, to be sure, paths/urls notwithstanding the most important thing is page content. All of it has to line up. The days of a page being ranked simply on name and/or title went away ions ago. Today it's a game of a thousand tiny increments.
                You and I are agreeing here. Be it keyword.com/whatever or whatever.com/keyword the keyword in the URL is of value for the PAGE. I personally in regards of SEO hold Page URL, Page Title, and Page Description to the highest level of my overall strategy.

                The moment you get away from that aspect, and start talking about a link, I think the actual path ( URL ) matters little. An example would be again a link from Site A to Site B. if you used a tiny url as the link path the same amount of authority is going to pass as if you used the actual path. It is the location of the link in conjuction with the text label of the link that add the SEO benefit.

                Another way to look at this. There are kind of 2 types of links ( I know there are more ) but you have an image link, and you have a text link. The text link is passing the benefit based on the text tag. With an image the benefit remains with the alt tag as on page, and then the link is just a link. That is why it is important to have a text link when "back linking" and or inner site linking. Anything else creates the link, but it is the text that passes the maximum amount of "Juice"

                I really believe that the overall relevance and CONTEXT of the link is coming from the text itself and not the URL.
                Signature
                Success is an ACT not an idea
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919461].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steviebone
    I need to construct a sitemap for a very large dynamically scripted site with a ridiculous number of pages. I've been reading what I can find and so far it's been a little confusing.

    I'm not interested in using a program to generate a map, for a host of reasons. For one the site is too large to crawl (millions of links to follow). For another, I have my own ideas about page relevance factors.

    I am familiar with XML and will write a program to generate my own set of sitemaps on a regular basis. I need to understand how to:

    use multiple maps together

    decide which pages to include/exclude

    automate periodic submission of updated and/or added pages

    I'm looking for any input, especially from anyone who has constructed such an animal on their own (no third party programs). I don't need help with coding, but i would like to see some working examples of the XML involved (excerpts would be fine).

    Thanks.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919288].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author savidge4
      You are straight up crazy you know that right? LOL As stated before... on a smaller level... I do custom XML for my Silo sites. As much as possible.. well to the point of anal, I want to keep context in relation to context at any and every level I can. By letting a "plugin" do this it is going to create the XML in relation to date of entry or what ever, and that basically puts a wrench in the whole thing.

      In regard to how to use multiple maps together, I actually link based on structure. I will have a primary file, that will consist of the top layer linking.. and then each of these link down to their specific silos. Again an anal attempt at maintaining that autonomous separation that is "Silo Structure".

      I do have dynamic built pages, but no where in the realm that you do. I am currently developing my XML files by hand as it were. - you mention writing something to pull that and that is without question something I need to look into ( kinda one of those AH HA moments ) I know MY structure will be easy to deal with...

      Now I am starting to grasp the above question a bit better? You are thinking the URL will give you benefit, but more importantly you are looking ahead to this step? if that is the case I would say YES develop the link structure you are thinking above and make your life easier! LOL

      Originally Posted by Steviebone View Post

      I need to construct a sitemap for a very large dynamically scripted site with a ridiculous number of pages. I've been reading what I can find and so far it's been a little confusing.

      I'm not interested in using a program to generate a map, for a host of reasons. For one the site is too large to crawl (millions of links to follow). For another, I have my own ideas about page relevance factors.

      I am familiar with XML and will write a program to generate my own set of sitemaps on a regular basis. I need to understand how to:

      use multiple maps together

      decide which pages to include/exclude

      automate periodic submission of updated and/or added pages

      I'm looking for any input, especially from anyone who has constructed such an animal on their own (no third party programs). I don't need help with coding, but i would like to see some working examples of the XML involved (excerpts would be fine).

      Thanks.
      Signature
      Success is an ACT not an idea
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919490].message }}

Trending Topics