Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In search of the perfect URL

ollysco.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 30 posts

Re: In search of the perfect URL

#21

Post by eli »

mysterypie wrote: post #11

Xvideos uses the same technique to good effect as well. All of their videos links follow the format: www xvideos com/videoNNNNNNN/description_of_activity_which_can_be_easily_updated (NSFW) I wanted to mention a mystery concerning Xvideos. Here's a business that is very much in-your-face (i.e. it is not a defense contractor or an organization that wants to be discreet), but its ownership is totally unknown. I research…

Or maybe some corporate conglomerate that doesn't want the association to harm the reputation of other holdings. I once worked for a company that also operated an adult brand, and they went out of their way to obscure their ownership.

Re: In search of the perfect URL

#22

Post by eli »

Walkman wrote: post #16
ambirex wrote: post #6

We have reversed it to be example.com/seo-go-nuts/%d/ to bring the text closer together.

The problem with that if the user chop off the last bits (e.g. Pasting in simewhere where it cannot fit) the id lost and you can't look it up. it uappens more than you would think. It's important to have it early.

We use this scheme as well. If only the last part with the ID is cut off and you keep the slug text unique, you can still redirect to the correct article.

Re: In search of the perfect URL

#23

Post by rawdisk »

cpeterso wrote: post #19
nmjohn wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazons URL's are actually quite interesting - Original: http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Interpretation-Computer-Programs-Engineering/dp/0262510871/ Equivalent: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0262510871 http://www.amazon.com/dp/0262510871/something-else http://www.amazon.com/something/dp/0262510871 http://www.amazon.com/something/dp/0262510871/something-else It appears so long as 'dp/0262510871' is in the url (without dp/#…

Or simply http://amzn.com/0262510871

HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently

This is a URL shortener that just redirects to the full URL that has same number. Easier to type but otherwise acomplishes nothing. Server with the content still needs full URL. All this shorter URL gets you is the full URL.

Re: In search of the perfect URL

#24

Post by userbinator »

adventured wrote: post #10

I find it interesting the author mentions making an effort to remove the numeric ID from the URL. I love using numeric IDs in the URL, for one specific reason: perma-short-link. http://qz.com/365810/whats-missing-from-this-13-year-old-gir... Becomes: http://qz.com/365810 Which then redirects to the proper full url. Total effort: almost nil.

Not only numeric but alphanumeric IDs; they also work as a nice shorthand in communication. I've seen plenty of people referring to e.g. "video jI3i9Lq4BcX on YouTube" on sites which would otherwise censor actual URLs.

Re: In search of the perfect URL

#25

Post by franze »

lwf wrote: post #18
franze wrote: post #15

my battle-proven URL rules. important: rule 1 is more important then rule 2 to 6 added up, rule nr 2 is more important than rule 3 to 6 totaled, rule 3 is more important than 4 to 6 together, rule 4 is more important than 5 + 6, rule 5 and rule 6 are a tradeoff (it's short, not shortest possible URL). the targeted phrase is term(s) you want to get found for (i.e.: in google search) URL-Rule 1: unique (1 URL == 1 reso…

> every redirect has a cost: If you are actually just keying your content lookup on the ID and don't redirect the user, what's the performance problem? And use rel=canonical so search engines do the right thing.

no

simplified google works like this

discovery (queue) -(quality check)-> crawling(optional) -QC-> indexing

google does not "follow" canonicals, but whenever google discovers (during crawling) a canonical it pushes it back to the discovery queue -> needs to crawl again -> needs to figure out indexing

canonical is an indexing directive

so basically there are two quality checks before google can actually apply the indexing directive after it has discovered the canonical during crawling. also you can never be sure when - if ever - it will fetch the canonical URL or choose to canonical it.

for small sites this is not a big an issue (you will have internal duplicate pages for google for an unknown amount of time, but at one point they will probably be canoncalized). for big sites with millions and millions of URLs this is a big issue. basically in your example is the worst case: URL rule 6 (least important) breaks rule nr 1. then why do it at all

additionally to communicate different URLs to the users (based on the way which they came to your site) which is just bad UX.

don't do it.

Re: In search of the perfect URL

#26

Post by Walkman »

eli wrote: post #22
Walkman wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that if the user chop off the last bits (e.g. Pasting in simewhere where it cannot fit) the id lost and you can't look it up. it uappens more than you would think. It's important to have it early.

We use this scheme as well. If only the last part with the ID is cut off and you keep the slug text unique, you can still redirect to the correct article.

Then you don't need the ID at all :) because you use the slug

Re: In search of the perfect URL

#27

Post by eli »

Walkman wrote: post #26
eli wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We use this scheme as well. If only the last part with the ID is cut off and you keep the slug text unique, you can still redirect to the correct article.

Then you don't need the ID at all :) because you use the slug

I want the slug to be able to change and I'd prefer not to have to keep track of every variation ever assigned to that piece of content.

Re: In search of the perfect URL

#28

Post by Walkman »

eli wrote: post #27
Walkman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you don't need the ID at all :) because you use the slug

I want the slug to be able to change and I'd prefer not to have to keep track of every variation ever assigned to that piece of content.

if you go with /id/slug, you can redirect anything that is not exactly the same as the current, so any older links would still work because no matter what the slug was, you can redirect because the ID doesn't change.

Re: In search of the perfect URL

#29

Post by eli »

Walkman wrote: post #28
eli wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want the slug to be able to change and I'd prefer not to have to keep track of every variation ever assigned to that piece of content.

if you go with /id/slug, you can redirect anything that is not exactly the same as the current, so any older links would still work because no matter what the slug was, you can redirect because the ID doesn't change.

right, same as /slug/id

Re: In search of the perfect URL

#30

Post by Walkman »

eli wrote: post #29
Walkman wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you go with /id/slug, you can redirect anything that is not exactly the same as the current, so any older links would still work because no matter what the slug was, you can redirect because the ID doesn't change.

right, same as /slug/id

no :D /id/slug is safer
Post reply on HN