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 uses words in the URL as a very, very slight factor. It is mainly used during the very first discovery of a URL, before having access to the content. Once the content is crawled and indexed, the language of the URL no longer matters for ranking.
859:32
🎥 Source video

Extracted from a Google Search Central video

⏱ 996h50 💬 EN 📅 12/03/2021 ✂ 43 statements
Watch on YouTube (859:32) →
Other statements from this video 42
  1. 42:49 Peut-on vraiment utiliser hreflang entre plusieurs domaines distincts ?
  2. 48:45 Peut-on vraiment utiliser hreflang entre plusieurs domaines distincts ?
  3. 58:47 Faut-il vraiment éviter de dupliquer son contenu sur deux sites distincts ?
  4. 58:47 Faut-il vraiment éviter de créer plusieurs sites pour le même contenu ?
  5. 91:16 Faut-il vraiment indexer les pages de recherche interne de votre site ?
  6. 91:16 Faut-il bloquer les pages de recherche interne pour éviter l'indexation d'un espace infini ?
  7. 125:44 Les Core Web Vitals influencent-ils vraiment le budget de crawl de Google ?
  8. 125:44 Réduire la taille de page améliore-t-il vraiment le budget crawl ?
  9. 152:31 Le rapport de liens internes dans Search Console reflète-t-il vraiment l'état de votre maillage ?
  10. 152:31 Pourquoi le rapport de liens internes de Search Console ne montre-t-il qu'un échantillon ?
  11. 172:13 Faut-il vraiment s'inquiéter des chaînes de redirections pour le crawl Google ?
  12. 172:13 Combien de redirections Google suit-il réellement avant de fractionner le crawl ?
  13. 201:37 Comment Google segmente-t-il réellement vos Core Web Vitals par groupes de pages ?
  14. 201:37 Comment Google segmente-t-il réellement vos Core Web Vitals par groupes de pages ?
  15. 248:11 AMP ou canonique : qui récolte vraiment les signaux SEO ?
  16. 257:21 Le Chrome UX Report compte-t-il vraiment vos pages AMP en cache ?
  17. 272:10 Faut-il vraiment rediriger vos URLs AMP lors d'un changement ?
  18. 272:10 Faut-il vraiment rediriger vos anciennes URLs AMP vers les nouvelles ?
  19. 294:42 AMP est-il vraiment neutre pour le classement Google ou cache-t-il un levier de visibilité invisible ?
  20. 296:42 AMP est-il vraiment un facteur de classement Google ou juste un ticket d'entrée pour certaines features ?
  21. 342:21 Pourquoi le contenu copié surclasse-t-il parfois l'original malgré le DMCA ?
  22. 342:21 Le DMCA est-il vraiment efficace pour protéger votre contenu dupliqué sur Google ?
  23. 359:44 Pourquoi le contenu copié surclasse-t-il votre contenu original dans Google ?
  24. 409:35 Pourquoi vos featured snippets disparaissent-ils sans raison technique ?
  25. 409:35 Les featured snippets et résultats enrichis fluctuent-ils vraiment par hasard ?
  26. 455:08 Le contenu masqué en responsive mobile est-il vraiment indexé par Google ?
  27. 455:08 Le contenu caché en CSS responsive est-il vraiment indexé par Google ?
  28. 563:51 Les structured data peuvent-elles vraiment forcer l'affichage d'un knowledge panel ?
  29. 563:51 Existe-t-il un balisage structuré qui garantit l'apparition d'un Knowledge Panel ?
  30. 583:50 Pourquoi la plupart des sites n'obtiennent-ils jamais de sitelinks dans Google ?
  31. 583:50 Peut-on vraiment forcer l'affichage des sitelinks dans Google ?
  32. 649:39 Les redirections 301 transfèrent-elles vraiment 100 % du jus SEO sans perte ?
  33. 649:39 Les redirections 301 transfèrent-elles vraiment 100% du PageRank et des signaux SEO ?
  34. 722:53 Faut-il vraiment supprimer ou rediriger les contenus expirés plutôt que de les garder indexables ?
  35. 722:53 Faut-il vraiment supprimer les pages expirées ou peut-on les laisser avec un label 'expiré' ?
  36. 859:32 Les mots-clés dans l'URL : facteur de ranking ou simple béquille temporaire ?
  37. 908:40 Faut-il vraiment ajouter des structured data sur les vidéos YouTube embarquées ?
  38. 909:01 Faut-il vraiment ajouter des données structurées vidéo quand on embed déjà YouTube ?
  39. 932:46 Les Core Web Vitals impactent-ils vraiment le SEO desktop ?
  40. 932:46 Pourquoi Google ignore-t-il les Core Web Vitals desktop dans son algorithme de classement ?
  41. 952:49 L'API et l'interface Search Console affichent-elles vraiment les mêmes données ?
  42. 963:49 Peut-on utiliser des templates différents par version linguistique sans pénaliser son SEO international ?
📅
Official statement from (5 years ago)
TL;DR

Google uses words in the URL only as a very weak signal, primarily at the time of the initial discovery of a page, even before crawling its content. Once the page is indexed and its content analyzed, the language or keywords in the URL have no further impact on ranking. For SEO, this means that optimizing URLs remains useful for initial discoverability and UX, but investing time in keyword stuffing each slug is a waste of energy.

What you need to understand

In what context does Google use words in the URL? <\/h3>

Mueller points out that the use of keywords in the URL <\/strong> occurs right at the beginning of the discovery process. When Googlebot spots a link to a page it has never crawled, it only has access to the URL itself — not yet to the HTML content, title tags, or headings.<\/p>

This is precisely when words in the URL can provide a initial thematic hint <\/strong>. For example, a URL like \/running-shoes-women <\/code> immediately suggests the topic, even before the bot has loaded the page. But this signal remains extremely weak.<\/p>

What happens after crawling and indexing? <\/h3>

Once Google has crawled the page and analyzed its content — titles, text, images, structure — the URL loses all importance as a ranking factor <\/strong>. The engine then has hundreds of signals that are much more powerful: semantic relevance, content quality, backlinks, UX, etc.<\/p>

Specifically, a page with a neutral URL like \/p12345 <\/code> but ultra-relevant and optimized content will rank better than a page with a keyword-stuffed URL \/best-cheap-running-shoes-women-men <\/code> and mediocre content. Content outweighs the URL in the hierarchy of signals.<\/p>

Why should this statement be taken seriously? <\/h3>

Because it helps to debunk a persistent SEO myth <\/strong> that has lasted for over 15 years: that stuffing keywords into the URL would guarantee better ranking. Generations of SEOs have wasted time optimizing slugs at the expense of much more important priorities.<\/p>

Mueller is not saying that clean URLs are useless — they remain essential for UX, user understanding of the link, and SERP readability. But as a pure ranking lever <\/strong>, it is negligible once the page is indexed.<\/p>

  • Very weak signal <\/strong> used only during the initial discovery of the URL <\/li>
  • After crawling and indexing, words in the URL no longer influence rankings <\/strong> <\/li>
  • A clean URL remains useful for UX and readability <\/strong>, not for direct ranking <\/li>
  • Investing time in keyword stuffing URLs is a waste of energy <\/strong> compared to optimizing the content itself <\/li>
  • Short, understandable URLs that are consistent with the site's hierarchy remain a best practice <\/strong>, but for reasons other than pure SEO <\/li> <\/ul>

SEO Expert opinion

Is this statement consistent with real-world observations? <\/h3>

Let’s be honest: yes, it is <\/strong>. For years, A/B testing on high-traffic sites shows that a change in URL — even from a neutral slug to a keyword-rich slug — results in no measurable ranking variation once the redirects are in place and the pages re-indexed.<\/p>

What really matters is the overall consistency of the architecture <\/strong>, the depth of pages in the hierarchy, and the structure of internal links. A URL \/category\/subcategory\/product <\/code> helps Google understand the site hierarchy, but not because the words are present — rather, because the structure is logical and reflects the linking.<\/p>

What nuances should be added to this claim? <\/h3>

Mueller talks about “language of the URL” <\/strong>, which is an important detail. He does not say that the structure or depth of the URL has no impact — just that the specific keywords present in the slug are negligible. A deep URL at 6 levels \/a\/b\/c\/d\/e\/f\/page <\/code> still poses problems for crawl budget and internal PageRank, even if it contains keywords.<\/p>

Additionally, URLs have an indirect impact on CTR in SERPs. A clean, explicit slug like \/buy-electric-bike <\/code> inspires more trust than a \/p?id=xyz123 <\/code>. This is not a ranking factor, but it influences user behavior — and therefore, ultimately, the UX signals that Google can capture. [To be verified] <\/strong> to what extent Google integrates this organic CTR into its ranking algorithms.<\/p>

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

There is one case where the URL holds weight: international SEO <\/strong>. Google uses URL structure (\/fr\/ <\/code>, .fr <\/code>, ?lang=fr <\/code>) as a signal for geographic or language targeting, combined with hreflang tags. Here, it is not a ranking factor in the classic sense, but a local relevance signal <\/strong>.<\/p>

Another edge case: news sites or very recent blogs. When Google massively discovers new URLs via an XML sitemap or RSS feed, even before crawling them, it can use the words in the URL to prioritize certain pages in the queue. But this is crawl scheduling, not ranking — and the effect disappears as soon as the page is indexed.<\/p>

Note: <\/strong> Do not confuse “low impact on ranking” with “useless”. Clean URLs remain essential for site architecture, SEO auditing, analytics tracking, and user experience. But they are no longer direct positioning levers.<\/div>

Practical impact and recommendations

What should you concretely do with this information? <\/h3>

Stop wasting time on keyword stuffing your slugs <\/strong>. If you have a URL that works well, even if it’s not stuffed with keywords, don’t change it just to ‘optimize’. The cost of a 301 redirect (dilution of PageRank, risk of temporary ranking loss) far outweighs the potential gain — which is close to zero.<\/p>

Rather, focus on clarity and consistency <\/strong>. A URL needs to be understandable for a human reading it in a shared link, in the address bar, or in the SERPs. It should reflect the logical hierarchy of your site. That's all.<\/p>

What mistakes should you absolutely avoid? <\/h3>

Do not create lengthy URLs by stacking up keyword variants: \/buy-cheap-running-shoes-women-promo-sales <\/code>. It's counterproductive for UX and adds nothing to ranking. Google may even see it as keyword stuffing <\/strong>, even if it’s in the URL.<\/p>

Avoid massive URL changes during a redesign without a clear strategic reason. I have seen sites lose 30% of traffic because they decided to ‘clean up’ all their URLs by removing keywords, without properly managing redirects or anticipating impacts on internal linking. If the current URL works, leave it alone <\/strong>.<\/p>

How can you check if your URLs are optimal? <\/h3>

Audit the average depth of URLs <\/strong> for your strategic pages. If your best-selling products are buried 5 clicks away from the homepage, it’s an architecture problem — not a keyword issue in the URL. Use Screaming Frog or a crawler to map depth and identify orphan pages or overly deep ones.<\/p>

Also, check the consistency of your naming conventions. If some URLs use \/category\/ <\/code> and others use \/cat\/ <\/code>, it’s not critical for ranking, but it’s a nightmare for maintenance, auditing, and analytics reporting. Standardize to make your own work easier, not to please Google.<\/p>

  • Audit the average depth of your strategic URLs (max 3-4 levels ideally) <\/li>
  • Remove unnecessary keyword-stuffed slugs during your next content creation <\/li>
  • Never change a URL that performs well just to ‘optimize’ keywords <\/li>
  • Ensure every URL is readable and understandable by a human <\/li>
  • Standardize your URL naming conventions to facilitate auditing and tracking <\/li>
  • Focus your efforts on content, title/meta tags, and Hn structure rather than on slugs <\/li> <\/ul>
    In summary: clean URLs remain a best practice for UX, architecture, and maintenance, but no longer serve as a ranking lever once the page is indexed. Invest your time where the impact is measurable — content, technical aspects, link building. However, these architectural and prioritization optimizations can still be complex to orchestrate on high-volume sites or during migrations. If you're lacking internal resources or wish to avoid costly mistakes, enlisting a specialized SEO agency can save you time and secure your strategic choices.<\/div>

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

Dois-je changer mes URLs actuelles pour retirer les mots-clés ?
Non, sauf si vous avez une raison technique ou UX valable. Changer une URL qui fonctionne bien juste pour retirer des mots-clés ne vous apportera aucun gain de ranking et risque de créer des problèmes de redirections.
Les URLs courtes classent-elles mieux que les URLs longues ?
Pas directement. Une URL courte est souvent plus facile à partager et à mémoriser, ce qui peut améliorer le CTR et les signaux UX. Mais Google ne favorise pas une URL courte sur une URL longue si le contenu est identique.
Les tirets ou underscores dans les URLs ont-ils un impact ?
Google recommande les tirets (hyphens) car ils sont traités comme des séparateurs de mots, contrairement aux underscores. Mais l'impact sur le ranking est négligeable — c'est surtout une question de lisibilité pour les utilisateurs.
Faut-il traduire les URLs pour le SEO international ?
Oui, mais pas pour le ranking direct. Traduire les slugs améliore l'UX locale et renforce la cohérence avec les balises hreflang et le ciblage géographique. C'est un signal de pertinence locale, pas de ranking algorithmique pur.
Une URL avec des paramètres (?id=123) est-elle pénalisée par Google ?
Non, Google gère très bien les URLs avec paramètres. Le problème n'est pas le ranking, mais la gestion technique : risque de duplication, crawl budget gaspillé, complexité pour les canonical. Si votre architecture l'exige, utilisez-les — mais gérez correctement les canonicals et les paramètres dans Search Console.

🎥 From the same video 42

Other SEO insights extracted from this same Google Search Central video · duration 996h50 · published on 12/03/2021

🎥 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.