[xpose2000]

> As someone who has spent years manipulating ranking I can tell you this has nothing to do with effecting ranking and is most likely about optics/human readability increasing CTR.

I do not agree. For example, CTR can be increased by modifying the design/text of a button. Or modifying the placement of the button, etc. CTR will not increase or decreased based on the structure of the URL. Hence the word CLICK in "CTR". Most of the time if the URL is listed somewhere, its truncated. Mobile phones trim it down to the domain name.

Plus it's just bad practice and will run into problems eventually. What happens when you have similar titles? Does this increase CTR or increase mistakes?

I still think its a shady practice and can't think of a single reputable major publication that would utilize that structure for Editorial. They should be penalized for a blatant attempt at manipulation. There is no other logical reason for it.

The verge: /features/23931789/seo-search-engine-optimization-experts-google-results.

> If you have data that shows urls like "/id/date/title-of-post" rank worse than "rootdomain/title-of-post" (which is nearly impossible to accurately measure due to the nature of how things are _really_ ranked) I'd argue that the rankings are related to the CTR rather than the URL structure.

Of course I don't have the data, but one has to assume they are doing it for one simple reason. Manipulation in search. It's not for a better user experience. How often are you typing in URLs manually?

> No judgement, but this seems like an odd stance to me. You seem to feel there is some sort of established standard in the structure of website pages/hierarchy, particularly one that should have punishments enforced against those who don't abide... Thankfully there is not, if there were then there would have to be some sort of agreement on these things - who is going to make those decisions? Who are those decisions going to be optimal for?

Generally speaking, yes URL taxonomy has best practices. I don't believe someone is going to create an about us page with /id/date/about-us and thinks that is a good idea, but anything is possible.

[Implicated]

> Plus it's just bad practice and will run into problems eventually. What happens when you have similar titles? Does this increase CTR or increase mistakes?

In support of your point of "manipulation" - does it matter? They don't care about the actual content - they just need you to click so they get their ad views. It doesn't matter if there's more than one entry in the database with the same slug - or what content is even there.

> I still think its a shady practice and can't think of a single reputable major publication that would utilize that structure for Editorial. They should be penalized for a blatant attempt at manipulation. There is no other logical reason for it.

I agree that it's non-standard and that they're doing it for a reason not in the best interest of the internet as whole. But, shady? Eh - by the same logic (in my mind) you'd have to call the person who named their business AAA Lockpicking shady because they took advantage of a "standard" way that directories work to get their name above others.

> one has to assume they are doing it for one simple reason. Manipulation in search. It's not for a better user experience.

Ok, so every web service with a presence on search engines is manipulative and should be punished if they do anything that's not in the best interest of the user experience? (I understand this is pedantic, but from the perspective of the search engine - who draws the lines about what is and isn't acceptable, or seen as manipulation?)

I agree with what you're saying in theory, but I'm not sure I can get on board with penalizing any of these publishers for doing what is within their power to improve their position. Like... at some point, as public companies, you could argue that they're obligated to capitalize, no?

We deal with "manipulative" marketing all day, every day. We're drowning in real manipulation where massive corporations are employing people with education and experience to help them manipulate us as much as possible. I have a hard time putting "optimal" url structure in that bucket.

Google/MS/etc should, instead, draw some real lines and enforce their existing and extended policies in a consistent and transparent way. That's the solution here - not pitchforks for those who are taking advantage of what works.

> Generally speaking, yes URL taxonomy has best practices. I don't believe someone is going to create an about us page with /id/date/about-us and thinks that is a good idea, but anything is possible.

For what it's worth - in my testing/experience, dates and _very short_ 'category'/'topic' slugs improved rankings compared to /keyword-only. ie: /shoe-reviews/20231027/blue-shoes proved optimal over /blue-shoes. (Without the dates was equivalent to keyword-only.)

I share your frustration - I just don't see it from your perspective that the publishers should be punished. They're playing by the rules. The rules are terrible and that's not an accident. Google doesn't want specific guidelines that can be/are enforced - they don't want search to be a meritocracy, no matter what they say. They've had plenty of time to make it that and they've gone the complete opposite direction. It's not the publishers that are to blame for taking advantage of the tools and resources available to them to legally improve themselves.