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).<p>the targeted phrase is term(s) you want to get found for (i.e.: in google search)<p>URL-Rule 1: unique (1 URL == 1 resource, 1 resource == 1 URL)<p>URL-Rule 2: permanent (they do not change, no dependencies to anything)<p>URL-Rule 3: manageable (measurable, 1 logic per site section, no complicated exceptions, no exceptions)<p>URL-Rule 4: easily scalable logic<p>URL-Rule 5: short<p>URL-Rule 6: with a variation of the targeted phrase<p>most common mistake, rule 6 (least important) invalidates rule 1 (most important)<p>i stand with these url-rules, evertime you compromise on them - or change the priority in between the url-rules, you - your company/startup/business/website/webapp - will regret it in the longterm.<p>about:
>This is the sort of solution that I really like. The SEO folks can fiddle with the URL until the cows come home, the engineers have the luxury of a straightforward rule, and the user never sees a broken link. Is this simple structure enough to keep everybody happy?<p>NO<p>every redirect has a cost:<p>- server ressources<p>- (web)performance a.k.a. speed<p>- long term project costs: redirects needs to be maintained (they will not) and documented (they are not)<p>- added complexity (redirect complexity add up fast, more info see <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8891553" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8891553</a> )