Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Cyrillic letter in URL - Encoding
-
Hi all
We are launching our site in Russia.
As far as I can see by searching Google all sites have URLs in latin letters.
Is there a special reason for this? - It seems that cyrillic letters also work.
My technical staff says that it might give some encoding problems.
Can anyone give me some insight into this?
Thanks in advance..
/ Kenneth
-
Hi,
I have exactly the same issue as described above. Has anything changed since 2012? What is the rule of thumb when it comes to Russian URLs, is it best to keep the in Cyrillic or convert them to Latin characters?
I did notice the URLs in Cyrillic get broken when copy-pasting them and also Moz crawlers detect them as too long. What about Google's crawlers, do they see it any differently?
Thanks,
Anja
-
If you're targeting for Russian queries on Google.ru and your target audience is primarily entering queries with Cyrillic characters, then then Cyrillic URLs should be ok. It used to be that non-Latin character support was poor, but I think that's changed a lot over the past couple of years.
Here's a relevant Google support thread where John Mu chimes in:
http://www.google.com.ag/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=489ece0479e0d33d&hl=en
Technically, Google can crawl/index these pages. For example, the Russian version of Wikipedia seems to be using Cyrillic URLs:
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D1%8C%D1%8E%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80
(unfortunately, that URL does get broken when I cut/paste)
The big question to me would be whether searchers are in the habit of using Latin characters in searches, and whether those searches draw more volume than Cyrillic. Unfortunately, we don't have any Russian speakers here on staff, so I can't comment on that one. I do speak a little Mandarin Chinese, and I've seen a mix in that market, too. Some URLs use simplified characters and some use Pinyin (the Romanized version). Technically, either should work, but there are still some legacy effects of the times when only Latin characters were supported.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Folders in url structure?
Hello, Revamping an out-of-date website and am wondering if I need to include the folders (categories) in the url structure? The proposed structure has 8 main folders. I've been reading that Google is ok if the folder is not included in the url, but is it really? The hesitation I have is that the urls are getting long and the main folder only has only a sub folder beneath it. So, /folder-name/facility-name/treatment-overview. This looks too long, doesn't it? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | lfrazer1230 -
Flat vs Hierarchical URL Structure
Hi, We are redoing our site structure and I was wondering what are the benefits of having a flat url structure. For example store.com/product instead of doing store.com/category/product. I noticed sites doing it both ways, even a-moz.groupbuyseo.org has both structures ex: a-moz.groupbuyseo.org/learn/seo and when you clck on something it brings you to a-moz.groupbuyseo.org/seo-expert-quiz (even though following the previous logic it should be a-moz.groupbuyseo.org/learn/seo/seo-expert-quiz) Please advise, Thanks!
Technical SEO | | WSteven0 -
Mobile URL parameter (Redirection to desktop)
Hello, We have a parallel mobile website and recently we implemented a link pointing to the desktop website. This redirect is happening via a javascript code and results in a url followed by this paramenter: ?m=off Example:
Technical SEO | | echo1
http://www.m.website.com redirects to:
http://www.website.com/?m=off Questions: Will the "http://www.website.com/?m=off" be considered duplicate content with "http://www.website.com" since they both return the same content? Is there any possibility that Google will take into consideration the url ending in "/?m=off"? How should we treat this new url? The webmaster tools URL parameter configuration at the moment isn't experiencing problems but should we submit the parameter anyway in order not to be indexed or should we wait first and see the error response? In case we should submit this for removal... what's the best way to do it? Like this? Parameter: ?m=off Does this parameter change page content seen by the user? - doesn't affect page content Any help is much appreciated.
Thank you!0 -
Landing Page URL Structure
We are finally setting up landing pages to support our PPC campaigns. There has been some debate internally about the URL structure. Originally we were planning on URL's like: domain.com /california /florida /ny I would prefer to have the URL's for each state inside a "state" folder like: domain.com /state /california /florida /ny I like having the folders and pages for each state under a parent folder to keep the root folder as clean as possible. Having a folder or file for each state in the root will be very messy. Before you scream URL rewriting :-). Our current site is still running under Classic ASP which doesn't support URL rewriting. We have tried to use HeliconTech's ISAPI rewrite module for IIS but had to remove it because of too many configuration issues. Next year when our coding to MVC is complete we will use URL rewriting. So the question for now: Is there any advantage or disadvantage to one URL structure over the other?
Technical SEO | | briankb0 -
Vanity / Short URLs 301?
Hi everyone, I'm working on a website that uses a lot of short urls eg http://www.forest.com/oaktrees. A quick check reveals these are currently 302 status. My question is should these be made 301s - a lot of them are in off-page content and looking at GA attract a lot of clicks. I've not managed to see a definitive answer to this after several Google searches. All help and advice greatly appreciated. Bw Jon
Technical SEO | | CoL-PR0 -
MozBar picking up iFrame source as URL
Running a WordPress site with a custom theme. Using a standard wp_head or wp_footer hook to insert the standard code for a Facebook Like, Twitter count / Google Plus count into the site - basically that hook just places the code, programmatically, into the HEAD (where applicable) or right before the BODY closes. For some reason, MozBar is picking up the URL of the iFrame that gets inserted with this code as the URL of the site. I don't have it live right now due to the issues, but I can turn it "on" for anyone who wants a look. Anyone else have this issue? I'm using the code directly from developers.facebook.com for the Like box, and the Google Plus button, Twitter too. Nothing fancy here.
Technical SEO | | joechicago0 -
Singular vs plural in urls
In keyword research for an ecommerce site, I've found that widget, singular gets a lot more searches than widgets, plural AND is much less competitive. Is it better for SEO purposes to have the URLs (and matching title tags) in the catalog as /brass-widget.html, /steel-widget.html, etc., or /brass-widgets.html, etc.? I'm worried that a) searches for widgets will pass by the singular urls but not vice versa, and b) the singular form will strike visitors as bad grammar. Any advice?
Technical SEO | | AmericanOutlets0
