[Judge On] Are these links better or worse?

Hello, so I only recently learned that after building my site, uploading it and submitting it all over the place that my links were kind of sucky for SEO purposes.

I was using things such as:

site.com/claim
site.com/compensation
site.com/services
site.com/newsarchive

I never understood why the sites I researched were using url#s in the style of:
site.com/start-a-new-claim

But now I know that this is apparently better for SEO reasons and helps search engines better document your pages. With that in mind I wanted to change my links to:

site.com/start-a-claim
site.com/what-is-my-claim-worth
site.com/what-services-we-offer-you

and so on.

I was just interested in the opinion of the more knowledgeable people here whether these links would be better before I resubmit a sitemap and use redirects. From what I’ve read it seems to be worth it, I also went back and figured out how to do dynamic titles for my news stories instead of just ‘Story 1’, ‘Story 2’, etc.

It’s only a shame I learned this late into production.

Any advice is appreciated, thanks in advance.

I’m kind of new at optimization, but I am pretty sure that adding non-keyword links isn’t going to do much for you other that let humans read what your page does. I think the idea is to have page names that are keyword loaded, like site.com/dallas-personal-injury-lawyer-services.

I don’t know how well that works, either, but I am pretty sure that whatever indexes you page will ignore words like “a” and “what”.

Hmm…so instead of:

site.com/what-services-we-offer-you

A better alternative may be:

site.com/accident-services ?
or maybe /injury-services

A URL should, ideally, be easy to read and type, and give some clue as to what the page is about. The URLs you’ve got look absolutely fine to me.

URLs that are stuffed with keywords fail for real people, because they are much harder to type in correctly, and they look spammy and scammy and just plain desperate. No reputable internet company would ever dream of a URL like site.com/dallas-personal-injury-lawyer-services, ergo any site that does have URLs like that is probably not going to be worth looking at.

Hmm…Ok thank you very much for the input, saved myself some trouble there :smiley:

I think your example is a bit exacerbated? You don’t want to stuff all your possible keywords into a URL but clearly Google and users want to see something more relational to the page than :
… /claim
If it’s for an injury claim this is far better:
… /injury_claim
Certainly I’d say everything in moderation, and agree that this would spook me as a user:
… /dallas_personal_injury_claim
But if I was a spider and trying to sort out the relevance, that’s a great start for getting linked to a long tail search like “dallas personal injury claim”.

Plus if all the competition in my locale and customer bracket was madly chasing after “personal injury claim” I’d be doing better by default on the SERPs for long tail searches in my area.

Prior to the last Google update I may have sided closer to your conclusion Stevie, and as much as I hate SEO harming site experience, users are not likely to type out, or read that URL, so given the significance to a spider/crawl, I’d lean towards trying it.

If you’re relying on keywords stuffed in the URL to tell Google what your site is about, you’re going to struggle to win the game. There should be enough clues elsewhere - in the headings, in the page title, in the main text, in the site navigation, around the inbound links - that Google can figure out what it’s about, without needing a full sentence description in the URL.

Thank you both for the continued input. I kept most of the obvious links in the end though I changed claim, services and compensation a little just to make them a bit more obvious.

Claim | Sitename.com wasn’t looking very good in Google for instance. I certainly wasn’t planning on using anything as dodgy looking as dallas-personal-injury-lawyers :stuck_out_tongue:

Thanks guys, I’m so so at programming but this SEO is a pain and this site is for a friend so I want to do my best.

I fully agree it shouldn’t even really count on the SEO side but experience proves it still does…

Having said that, Google works very hard to avoid supporting tactics that worsen the user experience so what is true now should change in the future.