Official statement
Other statements from this video 14 ▾
- 23:42 Can you display different ads between the AMP version and the canonical version without risking a penalty?
- 65:28 Mobile-first indexing: Does Google really use the same signals for desktop and mobile?
- 93:43 Should you canonicalize or index your product variants separately?
- 111:15 Should you really worry if Google is only indexing the canonical version?
- 134:15 How can you precisely control what appears (or doesn't) in your featured snippets?
- 150:05 Could duplicate content on product listings actually cost you your rankings?
- 207:26 Is the Change of Address Tool in Search Console really essential for migrating a site?
- 238:44 Subdomains vs subdirectories: Does Google really distinguish between them for SEO?
- 277:49 Should you really avoid geographic IP redirects on your site's country versions?
- 349:18 How can you prove your medical expertise to meet Google's YMYL requirements?
- 392:37 Are the Quality Rater Guidelines really Google's secret instruction manual for its algorithm?
- 415:43 Do e-commerce sites really need a different SEO approach than others?
- 468:54 Do hreflang errors really block the indexing of your international pages?
- 875:45 Does the structure of your sitemaps really affect Google crawl?
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.