What does Google say about SEO? /
Quick SEO Quiz

Test your SEO knowledge in 3 questions

Less than 30 seconds. Find out how much you really know about Google search.

🕒 ~30s 🎯 3 questions 📚 SEO Google

Official statement

Google does not count the number of slashes in URLs. The depth of the directory structure does not affect ranking. Use the URL structure that suits your users. Google treats URLs as identifiers, not as indicators of site structure.
841:20
🎥 Source video

Extracted from a Google Search Central video

⏱ 934h38 💬 EN 📅 26/03/2021 ✂ 15 statements
Watch on YouTube (841:20) →
Other statements from this video 14
  1. 23:42 Peut-on afficher des publicités différentes entre la version AMP et la version canonique sans risquer une pénalité ?
  2. 65:28 Mobile-first indexing : Google utilise-t-il vraiment les mêmes signaux pour desktop et mobile ?
  3. 93:43 Faut-il canonicaliser ou indexer séparément vos variantes de produits ?
  4. 111:15 Faut-il vraiment s'inquiéter si Google n'indexe QUE la version canonique ?
  5. 134:15 Comment contrôler précisément ce qui apparaît (ou non) dans vos featured snippets ?
  6. 150:05 Le contenu dupliqué sur les fiches produits peut-il vraiment vous coûter vos positions ?
  7. 207:26 L'outil de changement d'adresse de la Search Console est-il vraiment indispensable pour migrer un site ?
  8. 238:44 Sous-domaines vs sous-répertoires : Google fait-il vraiment la différence pour le SEO ?
  9. 277:49 Faut-il vraiment éviter les redirections IP géographiques sur les versions pays de votre site ?
  10. 349:18 Comment démontrer votre expertise médicale pour satisfaire les exigences YMYL de Google ?
  11. 392:37 Les Quality Rater Guidelines sont-elles vraiment le mode d'emploi secret de l'algorithme Google ?
  12. 415:43 Les sites e-commerce ont-ils vraiment besoin d'un SEO différent du reste ?
  13. 468:54 Les erreurs hreflang bloquent-elles vraiment l'indexation de vos pages internationales ?
  14. 875:45 La structure de vos sitemaps affecte-t-elle vraiment le crawl Google ?
📅
Official statement from (5 years ago)
TL;DR

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 \/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>

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>

Why does this confusion persist for years? <\/h3>

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>

What should really be prioritized in a URL? <\/h3>

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 \/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>

  • URLs are identifiers<\/strong>, not hierarchy indicators for Google<\/li>
  • Directory depth (\/a\/b\/c\/d\/) does not influence ranking<\/li>
  • Site architecture (internal links, distance from the homepage) remains crucial<\/li>
  • Prioritize readability for the user, not for the bot<\/li>
  • An observed correlation (short URL = better ranking) does not prove causation<\/li><\/ul>

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>

What nuances should be brought to this rule? <\/h3>

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>

In what cases does this rule not fully apply? <\/h3>

Beware of e-commerce facets<\/strong>: a URL with 5 filter parameters (?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>

The same applies to multilingual sites: a URL at \/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>

Attention: <\/strong> Do not confuse "no ranking impact" with "no importance." A poorly structured URL can kill your crawl budget, internal linking, and your ability to manage the site. It's just not the ranking factor many imagined.<\/div>

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 \/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>

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>

What mistakes should be absolutely avoided? <\/h3>

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 \/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>

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>

  • Audit actual click depth (not URL structure) with a crawler<\/li>
  • Only restructure URLs if the underlying architecture poses a problem<\/li>
  • Prioritize readability and logic for the end user<\/li>
  • Avoid massive redirects without proven benefit<\/li>
  • Ensure your strategic pages are accessible within 3 clicks max from the homepage<\/li>
  • Document your URL logic to facilitate future migrations<\/li><\/ul>
    URL structure is not a direct ranking lever, but it remains a critical architectural element. Focus on internal linking, click depth, and user experience. These optimizations can be complex to orchestrate at scale — particularly on e-commerce or editorial sites with tens of thousands of pages. In these cases, hiring a specialized SEO agency can help identify real bottlenecks and guide a redesign without breaking existing structures.<\/div>

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

Dois-je raccourcir mes URLs pour améliorer mon classement ?
Non. Google ne compte pas les slashes ni la longueur des URLs. Raccourcir artificiellement vos URLs sans revoir l'architecture sous-jacente n'apportera aucun bénéfice de classement et risque de générer des redirections inutiles.
Une URL en /categorie/sous-categorie/produit est-elle pénalisante ?
Pas du tout, tant que cette structure reflète une navigation logique et que la page reste accessible facilement via des liens internes. La profondeur d'URL n'influence pas le ranking — c'est la profondeur de clic qui compte.
Les URLs avec paramètres (?) sont-elles traitées différemment ?
Google affirme les traiter comme n'importe quelle URL. En pratique, elles génèrent souvent du contenu dupliqué et compliquent l'indexation. Utilisez des URLs propres quand c'est possible, ou configurez correctement la Search Console.
Faut-il mettre des mots-clés dans les URLs ?
Pas pour Google directement, mais pour l'utilisateur. Une URL lisible avec des mots-clés descriptifs améliore le CTR dans les SERP et la mémorisation. C'est un signal UX indirect, pas un facteur de ranking technique.
Quelle est la profondeur d'URL maximale recommandée ?
Il n'y a pas de limite technique. Google crawle des URLs à 10+ niveaux sans problème. La vraie question est : combien de clics depuis l'accueil ? Visez 3 clics maximum pour vos pages stratégiques, quelle que soit leur URL.

🎥 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 →

💬 Comments (0)

Be the first to comment.

2000 characters remaining
🔔

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.

No spam. Unsubscribe in one click.