Which is better for SEO URLs?

Which is better for SEO URLs? and why?:
(7 is id content and کت-و-شلوار is subject content)





I suggest you to go for first option.

What is the reason?

Other people also tell their yor suggest.

Options 1 and 2 are intrinsically better, in that by not requiring the extension, they are easier for people to type in, less chance of them getting it wrong, and it makes it easier for you to change technology at a later date.

I hate any URL that requires both a unique ID and text to make it work (yes, that includes the new URL format here on SPF). On that basis, I would go for option 1, and make it work with just /7/ without the subject content as well (ie, make that bit optional). That makes it much easier for people to link to you, and maybe they won’t have to use bit.ly and other abbreviators/obfuscators to tweet you or link to you in a full URL context.

When the google crawls the website. It gives importance to the first folder after the domain name.

No it does not. Why would you say such nonsense?

Definitely go for the 1st option. Less is better in my experience. :slight_smile:

Normally its not better to have id and subject in the same one. So I go for the option 1

I have had better serps with .html than with subdirectories. Most people hate the .html version, but I am not sure as to why.

I use a slash at the end of my urls or just keep’em blan, really think .html is uneeded for search engines now.

Matt Cutts recommends .html:

How Google Really Wants You to Optimize Your Site » SitePoint

Unless I am interpretting incorrectly.

What Is the URL structure preferred by Google?

Google’s Matt Cuts replied:

[INDENT]I would recommend
in that order. If your site is already live on the web, it’s probably not worth going back to change from one method to another, but if you’re just starting a new site, I’d probably choose the URLs in that order of preference. I can only speak for Google; you’ll need to run your own tests to see what works best with Microsoft, Yahoo, and Ask.

You are. The extension is meaningless fluff.

Here is a blo I found with good arguments, the answers left in this thread are not very informative.

Best Practice SEO: File Extension or No? | Chris Pratt // Metaphors Be With You

If Google gives any form of weight to an extension they would have to be absolutely stupid. I’m sure we can agree that Google doesn’t have many stupid people in the Search Algorithm department. That is after all, their bread and butter, they surely wouldn’t do something so stupid, ya? Just saying…

Well, we don’t know eitehr way so no point in bouncing on that idea without proof either way.

This was a n interesting read, though a bit vulgar, but i enjoyed it.

SEO Toxin: Directory-like URI Structures | SEO Bullshit

What Matt is talking about there are the different ways to present multi-word names. They’ve all got .html so that it’s clear that he is not talking about the extension.

Google couldn’t give a rat’s posterior if you use a file extension or what you choose to use, as long as there’s a page being correctly served there with good content that it can read. So if Google doesn’t care what extension format you use, how should you decide? Do what’s best for real people. And that means making it as short and easy to type in as possible. Because believe it or not, there are still occasions when people type URLs into the address bar.

Yes that is right Google don’t care about the extension format But As much as possible, avoid including symbols like “?” in your URL because some search engines find it hard to read them. Create a static page as much as possible. Dynamic URLs are usually via asp, php and cf documents.

Ummm no. You are wrong in all accounts. Search engines have no problem with query strings (the “?”) nor do they have problems when you use dynamic URLs. Let me guess you spent five minutes reading an article from 1992 about Search Engines and now believe you are an “SEO”-expert person?

It’s always better to use the keywords in url in order to make them seo friendly. You can put a ’ - ’ in between the two keywords. It is always advised to use a ’ - ’
over a ’ _ ’
With this strategy you can be successful easily.

Which is a stupid idea. you stuff your URLs full of keywords, guess what happens? Your URLs get ignored further and further! URLs should be people/human friendly not friendly to a stupid machine. Web sites are for people.

It is always advised to use a ’ - ’ over a ’ _ ’
Now you are just making stuff up. IT DOES NOT MATTER.

With this strategy you can be successful easily.
No you won’t. The actual URLs play no part.

Are you another, that spent five minutes reading an article and now believe you are qualified to be giving advice?
Or are you just here to flaunt your signature around filled with links that have nothing to do with SitePoint and its subject matter?