Official statement
Other statements from this video 14 ▾
- 23:42 Peut-on afficher des publicités différentes entre la version AMP et la version canonique sans risquer une pénalité ?
- 65:28 Mobile-first indexing : Google utilise-t-il vraiment les mêmes signaux pour desktop et mobile ?
- 93:43 Faut-il canonicaliser ou indexer séparément vos variantes de produits ?
- 111:15 Faut-il vraiment s'inquiéter si Google n'indexe QUE la version canonique ?
- 134:15 Comment contrôler précisément ce qui apparaît (ou non) dans vos featured snippets ?
- 150:05 Le contenu dupliqué sur les fiches produits peut-il vraiment vous coûter vos positions ?
- 207:26 L'outil de changement d'adresse de la Search Console est-il vraiment indispensable pour migrer un site ?
- 238:44 Sous-domaines vs sous-répertoires : Google fait-il vraiment la différence pour le SEO ?
- 277:49 Faut-il vraiment éviter les redirections IP géographiques sur les versions pays de votre site ?
- 349:18 Comment démontrer votre expertise médicale pour satisfaire les exigences YMYL de Google ?
- 392:37 Les Quality Rater Guidelines sont-elles vraiment le mode d'emploi secret de l'algorithme Google ?
- 415:43 Les sites e-commerce ont-ils vraiment besoin d'un SEO différent du reste ?
- 468:54 Les erreurs hreflang bloquent-elles vraiment l'indexation de vos pages internationales ?
- 875:45 La structure de vos sitemaps affecte-t-elle vraiment le crawl Google ?
Google states that URL depth (number of slashes) does not influence ranking. Search engines treat URLs as mere identifiers, not as indicators of hierarchy. In practical terms: structure your URLs for your users, not for Google — but be cautious, as this simplification hides important nuances regarding crawlability and user experience.
What you need to understand
What does Google really say about URL structure? <\/h3>
John Mueller is adamant: Google does not count slashes <\/strong> in your URLs. A page accessible via This statement breaks a persistent belief in the SEO community: the idea that a "shallow" URL would automatically rank better. Google does not read your URLs as a site map. It follows links, crawls pages, and evaluates content<\/strong> — period.<\/p> Because URL structure often reflects site architecture<\/strong>, which does have a real impact. A site with pages buried 8 clicks deep from the homepage will pose crawl budget and internal linking problems. The deep URL then becomes a symptom, not the cause.<\/p> Historically, many CMSs generated lengthy URLs to reflect complex hierarchies. SEOs associated "long URL" with "poor ranking" — but correlation does not imply causation. It is the underlying architecture<\/strong> that posed the problem, not the extra characters.<\/p> Google says "use the structure that suits your users." What does that mean in practical terms? A readable, memorable URL that gives a clear idea of the content<\/strong>. Not for the bot, but for the human who reads the address in a search result or when it is shared with them.<\/p> Clarity indirectly improves CTR in the SERPs. A URL like \/category\/subcategory\/product<\/code> has no ranking advantage over a page at \/product<\/code>. The engine treats each URL as a unique identifier<\/strong>, without inferring hierarchical structure from depth.<\/p>Why does this confusion persist for years? <\/h3>
What should really be prioritized in a URL? <\/h3>
\/seo-technical-guide<\/code> inspires more confidence than a series of coded IDs. But this is a UX effect, not a direct ranking signal<\/strong>. Google will not boost your page just because it has fewer slashes.<\/p>
SEO Expert opinion
Is this statement consistent with real-world observations? <\/h3>
Yes and no. In thousands of audits, we do indeed see pages with deep URLs ranking very well. Depth alone is never a blocking factor<\/strong>. But — and this is where it gets tricky — sites with chaotic URLs often have other issues: weak internal linking, diluted PageRank, duplicate content.<\/p> Mueller's statement is technically accurate, but it masks an essential point: the URL is rarely the only element at play<\/strong>. An e-commerce site with 50,000 products accessible in 6 clicks from the homepage will have a crawl budget problem. But it's not the length of the URL that is the issue — it's the lack of strategic internal links.<\/p> Google treats URLs as identifiers, of course. But users and SEO tools read them<\/strong>. A clean URL facilitates analytics tracking, reporting, and cannibalization detection. It also helps quickly identify underperforming sections of a site.<\/p> Another point: a consistent URL structure simplifies migration or redesign. If tomorrow you need to restructure 10,000 pages, a clear URL logic avoids cascading redirects. This is not direct ranking, but it's critical SEO hygiene<\/strong>. [To be confirmed]<\/strong>: Google claims that URL parameters (?) and subdomains are treated "like everything else," but tests show variable behavior depending on CMSs and contexts.<\/p> Beware of e-commerce facets<\/strong>: a URL with 5 filter parameters ( The same applies to multilingual sites: a URL at What nuances should be brought to this rule? <\/h3>
In what cases does this rule not fully apply? <\/h3>
?color=red&size=M&price=...<\/code>) might technically not pose a ranking problem. But it generates duplicate content, dilutes crawl budget, and complicates indexing. Google does not penalize the structure — it crawls inefficiently.<\/p>\/en\/category\/product<\/code> vs \/product-en<\/code> has no direct ranking impact. But the first facilitates hreflang<\/strong> management and analytics segmentation. Again, it is not the slash that matters — it's the system consistency.<\/p>
Practical impact and recommendations
What should be done practically with this information? <\/h3>
Stop wasting time on artificially flattening your URLs<\/strong> if your architecture is already logical. A URL like Then, audit your actual click depth<\/strong> (not the URL depth). Use Screaming Frog or Sitebulb to map crawl distance. If strategic pages are 6+ clicks away, it’s an alarm signal — regardless of their URL. Add contextual links, review your navigation, boost internal PageRank.<\/p> Do not restructure 10,000 URLs just to "make them shorter." Each 301 redirect costs crawl budget and risks losing a fraction of PageRank (even if Google says otherwise, real-world observations show loss<\/strong>). If your site is already performing well, messing with URLs is risky without valid reason.<\/p> Avoid the opposite trap as well: generating unreadable URLs (numeric IDs, hashes) under the pretext that "Google doesn't care." Your users are less likely to click on Run a complete crawl and extract two metrics: average click depth<\/strong> and internal PageRank distribution<\/strong>. If your priority pages (conversions, SEO traffic) have low internal PR or are far from the homepage, dig deeper. The URL is just a symptom.<\/p> Then, test readability: show 5 URLs from your site to someone who doesn't know it. Can they guess the page content? If so, you're on the right track. If not, question your naming logic — not for Google, but for the human who hesitates to click<\/strong>.<\/p>\/blog\/seo\/technique\/crawl-budget<\/code> is perfectly viable if it reflects clear navigation. Focus instead on internal linking: every important page should be accessible within 3 clicks from the homepage.<\/p>What mistakes should be absolutely avoided? <\/h3>
\/p?id=8472634<\/code> than on \/men's-running-shoes<\/code>. The CTR in the SERPs remains a behavioral indirect signal<\/strong> — and Google does not ignore that.<\/p>How to check if my site is properly optimized? <\/h3>
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Dois-je raccourcir mes URLs pour améliorer mon classement ?
Une URL en /categorie/sous-categorie/produit est-elle pénalisante ?
Les URLs avec paramètres (?) sont-elles traitées différemment ?
Faut-il mettre des mots-clés dans les URLs ?
Quelle est la profondeur d'URL maximale recommandée ?
🎥 From the same video 14
Other SEO insights extracted from this same Google Search Central video · duration 934h38 · published on 26/03/2021
🎥 Watch the full video on YouTube →Related statements
Get real-time analysis of the latest Google SEO declarations
Be the first to know every time a new official Google statement drops — with full expert analysis.
💬 Comments (0)
Be the first to comment.