How can you structure your URLs to enhance the discoverability of hyper-local content?

Why does Google emphasize discoverability AND structure for local content?

Google does not just crawl your URLs: it seeks to understand the semantic relationships between your pages. For a multi-city site, this means identifying the geographic hierarchy (region > department > city) and the logical connections between territories.

An XML sitemap declares your URLs, indeed. But it provides no information about the relative importance of each page or how they connect. It is the internal linking via menus, breadcrumbs, and contextual links that reveals this structure to Google. Without that, you have a flat directory — not a comprehensible architecture.

What constitutes a discoverable URL in the local context?

Discoverable does not mean "technically accessible". It means that Googlebot can find it naturally by following links from your homepage or pillar pages, without relying solely on the sitemap.

For hyper-local content, this implies logical navigation paths: homepage → region page → list of cities → city page. Each level must be clickable and indexable. If your city pages are only accessible through a JavaScript selector or an internal search engine, you have a discoverability issue.

How do URL structure and semantic understanding relate?

Google uses your internal link architecture as a signal to understand which pages are conceptually linked. If your menu displays a list of regions that lead to submenus of cities, Google grasps the geographic hierarchy.

Conversely, if all your city pages are at the same level in the URL (/city-paris, /city-lyon) without links between them or visible regional grouping, Google loses this semantic granularity. The result: less ability to rank for broad regional queries.

• XML Sitemap: declares your URLs but carries no hierarchical information that can be exploited by the algorithm.
• Structured Internal Linking: reveals geographic logic, strengthens internal PageRank, and facilitates contextual understanding.
• Menus and Breadcrumbs: strong UX signals that allow Google to map your territorial hierarchy.
• Contextual Links between Cities: reinforce semantic relationships (neighboring cities, same department, etc.).
• Descriptive URLs: prefer /ile-de-france/paris over /city?id=75000 for semantic clarity.

Is this recommendation really new, or just a basic reminder?

Let's be honest: this is not a revelation. Any serious SEO agency already structures its local content with a clear hierarchy and navigable links. What is interesting is that Splitt explicitly mentions it, validating the field practices observed for years.

The problem is that many e-commerce sites or local services generate thousands of city pages in an industrial manner, with a sitemap, but without thought on link architecture. The result: partial indexing, wasted crawl budget, and poor positioning on regional queries. [To be verified]: Google never communicates a precise threshold for crawl budget impacted by poor structure — but field observations show a clear delta between structured sites and flat sites.

What nuances should we consider regarding this statement?

The notion of “hyper-local content” remains vague. If you have 10 cities, a dropdown menu suffices. If you have 3000, displaying all cities in a menu is counterproductive for UX and crawl. The real question becomes: how to balance discoverability and pragmatism?

Strategies like regional landing pages with pagination, crawlable geographic filters, or segmented sitemaps by region may be necessary. Google does not detail these use cases — and that's where practitioner expertise makes a difference. Good internal linking does not mean linking everything to everything, but rather creating logical and optimized paths.

In what cases does this rule not fully apply?

If your model relies on dynamically generated content on the fly (e.g. real-time aggregator, marketplaces with third-party data), you cannot necessarily pre-build the entire tree structure. In this case, the sitemap becomes critical, but it needs to be supplemented with server-side rendering and clear canonical links.

Another extreme case: sites with IP geolocation that display local content without a dedicated URL. Google cannot index what has no stable URL — thus this model is intrinsically incompatible with the discoverability expectations outlined by Splitt. You need to generate static URLs for each local variant, period.

What should you concretely do to structure a multi-city site?

Start by auditing your current structure. Are all your city pages accessible within 3 clicks maximum from the homepage? Does your main menu or footer contain links to regional pages that then redirect to the cities? If the answer is no, you have a project to redesign your internal linking.

Next, implement a coherent breadcrumb logic. For example: Homepage > Île-de-France > Paris. This helps Google understand the hierarchy AND improves UX. Add schema.org BreadcrumbList tags to strengthen the semantic signal. Don't forget the segmented XML sitemap by region — it facilitates indexing tracking in Search Console.

What mistakes should be absolutely avoided?

Do not generate 5000 identical city pages with just the name changing. Google detects thin content at scale, and this impacts your overall ranking. Each city page should provide value: unique local data, reviews, hours, photos, contextualized editorial content.

Avoid non-crawlable JavaScript menus as well. If your local navigation depends on a JS framework without pre-rendering or SSR hydration, Googlebot may not see your links. Test with the URL inspection tool in Search Console to verify that your internal links are properly detected in the rendered DOM.

How can you verify that your site meets Google's expectations?

Use an SEO crawler (Screaming Frog, Oncrawl, Botify) to map your click depth. If strategic city pages are 5-6 clicks from the homepage, you have a problem. Also, check the distribution of internal PageRank: your regional pages should serve as hubs that redistribute the juice towards city pages.

In Search Console, analyze the indexing rates by URL type. If only 30% of your city pages are indexed while they are all in the sitemap, it's a clear signal of discoverability or content quality issues. Compare with a well-structured competitor to benchmark your gaps.

• Create a hierarchical link architecture: homepage → regions → cities.
• Implement breadcrumbs with schema.org markup.
• Submit a segmented XML sitemap by region for easier tracking.
• Test the crawlability of menus with the Search Console URL inspection tool.
• Audit click depth: no strategic page should be more than 3 clicks from the homepage.
• Enrich each city page with unique content and verifiable local data.