Descriptive Filenames -- how much is too much?

[jawn_tech]

How much is too much in file names before (or if) it becomes spam? To rephrase the question, is there a written/unwritten rule that a file name should be under X number of words separated by hyphens or underscores.

For example, suppose your page was about "Jim Morrison and Jimmy Page".

Is this filename worthwhile, or will the length hurt you ---
http://www.mysite.com/jim_morrison_j...llectors_items

Understandably, this is an abstract example as it would be more logical to separate pages. But in a situation where one page was necessary, is there an established limit of characters or words before it might be looked upon as spamming?

Sometimes urls can get long with subdirectories, and there have been arguments that either it's spamming, or just good organization. But the length of a filename could be the result of both as well.

[ChadHerring]

Good question, but I don't know the answer.

I do know however that doing google searches for the following terms brings up our named pages first:

1) What is the Real Path I should use when creating CGI Scripts
2) Can I add FrontPage extensions to my account once it is set up
3) How do I set up my email program
4)Can I get an ISDN account and then connect with my analog modem when I travel

Just to name a few... Many of the page names in our support area are fairly long, and many of them come up first when I do Google searches on them. - Thus leading me to believe that long file names is not considered spamming.

So, even though I don't know the real answer, I hope my experiences can help shed some light on your inquiry.

[jseamless]

I don't see how this could hurt if you don't get out of hand. You ever notice dynamic urls they are very long and ugly as well.

As long as the words pertain to your content I would think it would be ok. Do the names help you with key words density that is a good question?

Looking forward to feedback here.

[apisdesign]

Don't stress too much about this one. Search engines tend not to give much weight to file names. This is a very, very minor attribute in the SEO world.

That said, as long as your entire URL is under 256 characters (or whatever the limit is), go nuts.

Just remember that "www.mysite.com/New_Page1.htm" has just as good a chance of ranking ahead of "www.mysite.com/jim-morrison-jimmy-page-tshirts-tour-collectors-items.htm".

[jawn_tech]

Just remember that "www.mysite.com/New_Page1.htm" has just as good a chance of ranking ahead of "www.mysite.com/jim-morrison-jimmy-page-tshirts-tour-collectors-items.htm".

I won't dispute that you may have seen what you are saying may occur. I know I've seen otherwise in particular case where a site's listing moved up 8 places simply when the filename was changed from index004.htm to keyword.htm, going from number 10 to number 2. In addition to words in the description being highlighted, the keyword in the URL was highlighted as well, which was the filename.

[DrTandem1]

I don't think it matters what the file name is for the page. However, for an image, it does, if they are doing an image search.

[ssbond]

Apisdesign is right, the number of words in URL has almost no influence on your rank. My last seo research clearly shows this.

[wlodi]

I'd say that naming your file names after the content you put into is positive for your visitor and yourself.
The visitor can easily see if the file contains what they search for
You have friendly file names and easily know what is where.

So: http://www.mysite.com/jimmy-morrison-t-shirts is much better than: http://www.mysite.com/jim_morrison_j...llectors_items

Is there is a bonus or penalty for to long and keyword-packed URLs? As others said - not really, or rather tiny if any. So do not spend too much time thinking about your file names ;-)

cheers,

[netace]

It seems to me that some people have swung the pendulum too far from the rather limited 8.3 filenames to very long ones, as in your example. Why can't some reason and logic prevail? It's helpful to have a descriptive filename, but one can do that in abbreviated form, e.g.
http://xyz.com/images/icons/j-morr-j-page-t-shirts
I don't think there's a penalty for long filenames. Certainly it adds a few bytes to the page code, but not enough to be of concern. If you have a lot of files to reference, it's very helpful to have some logical structure to the filenames (a file-naming convention).

[Intensity]

I believe that in some search engines it does carry more weight than with Google.

It might not carry much weight, however every little boost it carries can turn out to be useful.

Example: Yahoo
I looked up "Business web page design" (with quotes)
and 85% of the links have it both in the filename and in the Title tag. Get with it

And I understand that the Title tag is probably the biggest contributor in the search results.

I rather go with the flow, than being left behind.