The argument against Long URLs

Don't bother using Long URLs.

tl;dr:

There has been a discussion around the doubtful usage of Long URLs as they appear to have no SEO benefit and appear totally cosmetic in nature: https://www.talkgraphics.com/showthr...262#post641262

• If you want to be cited in a learned journal - do not use a Long URL that occupies so much space that the authors will cut out your citation for brevity.
• Think of how many characters a Tweet can hold.
• The example sites producing these Long URLs have Content Management Systems where there is little editorial muscle to curtail them as it would invoke negotiation between author and publisher.
• TalkGraphics is a useful example, the above link includes a foreshortened spinal-case Thread heading that is purely cosmetic:
  
  • https://www.talkgraphics.com/showthr...262#post641262 still works
  • TG will trim the Thread Title after 85 characters.
  
  
• Browser History pop-up can become so long they are not readable.
• Most organisations that output long URLs are usually behind paywalls and do not want just any viewer to casually graze into their patch for snippets.
• They are rarely fully visible in a browser, especially on a SmartPhone.
• They have no SEO value:
  
  • If they duplicate the H1 Heading detail.
  • If they are a repeat of the Page Title.
  
  
• Google Searches will truncate after 60 characters; this includes the top-level domain.
  
  • No one benefits from reading something like
    Quote:

    ---

    https://www.google.com/search ?q=site%3Awww.talkgraphics.com%2F+sub-folders&hl=en&biw=2133&bih=1047&ei=WZVIYbr4MPKp8gK k1yA&oq=site%3Awww.talkgraphics.com%2F+sub-folders&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EANKBAhBGAFQhfFQWISHUWC wjFFoAXAAeACAATeIAbcCkgEBNpgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=gw s-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwj6iKbH3I3zAhXylFwKHaQrCAA4FBDh1QMID g&uact=5

    ---

    where Search: site:www.talkgraphics.com/ sub-folders would do instead.
  
  
• It is wasteful of client and server storage.
• CMSs relying on accurate spelling and grammar.
  
  • Invariably, there will be a rude bloomer generated: mass-grave-was-found-to-be-destroyed-by-a-large-arson-attack >>> mass-grave-was-found-to-be-destroyed-by-a-large-ars...
  • greenland versus green-land or green land quickly get conflated.
  • A Xara XDA has little assistance here.
  
  
• Most browsers will limit the size of a URL.
  
  • Data URIs can be the size of a novella but few try to imagine a picture in a stream of Base-64 encoded characters.
  
  
• There will always be the need to check every such Long URL in the XDA design, in its local export in its upload and in situ as each system will have its own constraints.
• Typos on a page in the published site now require a decode table to establish which file requires editing. Fine for 40 articles, try 1,000.
• Adding CSS effects or value to specific file links in an XDA may now require special handling.
• Some citations:
  
  1. https://style.mla.org/urls-some-practical-advice/
  2. https://blog.micahspieler.com/post/7...and-the-simple
  3. https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/...016/m-p/161238
  4. Use https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...aaaaaaaaaa.com to lengthen your Long URLs for testing purposes:
     
     1. https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...æãâåâãâàâáâåâá

Try using emojis instead! Only kidding.

Acorn

on a personal note - what do you think is a good max for a url - i think a twitter handle is limited to around 15 characters, that would seem about right to me provided it has that memorable 'ring' to it that makes it memorable....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by handrawn

on a personal note - what do you think is a good max for a url - i think a twitter handle is limited to around 15 characters, that would seem about right to me provided it has that memorable 'ring' to it that makes it memorable....

---

Newsprint headings always used to be max 25 letters.

In a website, you can exceed this with nesting: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment_and_arts, with the last getting close to my buffer limit being 22 characters.
Google treat hyphens (spinal-case) as word separators while the BBC (& Wikipedia) underscores (snake_case) are not so a search you would think might fall over, albeit rescued by the page title and other content.

Acorn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acorn

Newsprint headings always used to be max 25 letters.

---

there's a memory.... :)

I was just thinking about the TLD URL

Quote:

---

Google treat hyphens (spinal-case) as word separators while the BBC (& Wikipedia) underscores (snake_case) are not so a search you would think might fall over, albeit rescued by the page title and other content

---

that's interesting...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by handrawn

there's a memory.... :)
I was just thinking about the TLD URL
that's interesting...

---

TLDs, the shorter, the sweeter unless you can achieve a semantic meaning or discord: www.forensic.accountants, which is available today. As is www.caseyjones.engineer and xxl.tube. Someone beat me to www.agnostic.church.

Acorn

thisisthewaytheworldends and notwithabangbutawimper both appear available.....

would putting hyphens in these, or shorter strings, make a difference ?

I wonder if this is why sometimes it is so hard to find a link to a current story in say the New York Times when doing a search.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by handrawn

thisisthewaytheworldends and notwithabangbutawimper both appear available.....
would putting hyphens in these, or shorter strings, make a difference ?

---

Google needs a separator to better understand your URLs' wording: this-is-the-way-the-world-ends.not_with_a_bang_but_a_wimper and notwithabangbutawimper would appear about the same to Google but not-with-a-bang-but-a-wimper would allow better search for bang and/or wimper and also let you find you meant not-with-a-bang-but-a-whimper all along.

The easiest way of putting it is your browser spell-checker will be highlighting the entire phrase or the underlined one but finds the words in the hyphenated one.

Acorn

thanks something for me to think about...

You know I agree totally Acorn.