Google Updates Its URL Structure Help Documentation – Search Engine Roundtable

Google has updated its URL structure best practices help documentation – it was pretty much a rewrite but the overall guidance is not new. Google said they added “clearer flow and is easier to navigate, with added examples based on real-world URLs we’ve encountered.”
Google made it crystal clear that these document changes do not mean that Google made any changes to Google Search and how Search processes URLs. “This is a docs-only change, no change in behavior, Google added.
The old document was broken into two sections:

• Introduction
• Common issues related to URLs
• Resolve problems related to URLs

The new document is broken into several section:

• Requirements for a crawlable URL structure
• Follow IETF STD 66
• Don’t use URL fragments to change content
• Use a common encoding for URL parameters
• Make it easy to understand your URL structure
• Use descriptive URLs
• Use your audience’s language
• Use UTF-8 encoding as necessary
• Use hyphens to separate words
• Use as few parameters as you can Be aware that URLs are case sensitive
• For multi-regional sites
• Avoid common issues related to URLs
• Additive filtering of a set of items
• Irrelevant parameters
• Calendar issues
• Broken relative links
• Fixing crawling-related URL structure problems

You can see a document diff checker for these changes over here and because it is a lot, I asked Gemini to summarize those changes for me. Gemini wrote:
Overall Tone and Focus:

• Original: More broadly educational and advisory (“best practices”). It explains why certain practices are good or bad.
• Revised: More prescriptive and emphasizes the requirements for effective crawling by “Google Search.” It explicitly states the consequences of not meeting these requirements (“likely crawl your site inefficiently — including but not limited to extremely high crawl rates, or not at all”). The language is generally more direct and action-oriented.

Structural Changes and Headings:

• Original: Uses more descriptive paragraphs and “Recommended” / “Not recommended” subheadings within sections. “Common issues related to URLs” and “Resolve problems related to URLs” are distinct sections.
• Revised: Introduces more explicit sections and sub-sections with clear headings like “Requirements for a crawlable URL structure,” “Make it easy to understand your URL structure,” “Best practices,” and “Avoid common issues related to URLs.” It also introduces “Recommended” and “Not recommended” in a tabular format for better readability with specific examples.

Key Content Differences and Additions/Removals:
(1) Introduction/Scope:

• Original: “Google supports URLs as defined by RFC 3986.”
• Revised: “To make sure Google Search can crawl your site effectively, use a crawlable URL structure that meets the following requirements. If your URLs don’t meet the following criteria, Google Search will likely crawl your site inefficiently — including but not limited to extremely high crawl rates, or not at all.” This adds a strong warning about the importance of compliance.

(2) IETF STD 66 (formerly RFC 3986):

• Original: Refers to “RFC 3986.”
• Revised: Explicitly mentions “IETF STD 66” and clarifies that “Google Search supports URLs as defined by IETF STD 66.” This is a more up-to-date and specific reference for URL standards.

(3) UTF-8 Encoding:

• Original: Mentions non-ASCII characters should be UTF-8 encoded and shows examples of both recommended (encoded) and not recommended (non-encoded) non-ASCII characters.
• Revised: Consolidates the UTF-8 encoding discussion under “Use UTF-8 encoding as necessary” and directly contrasts “Recommended (UTF-8 encoding)” with “Not recommended (non-ASCII characters)” in a two-column format, making the distinction clearer. It also adds a Japanese example.

(4) Long ID Numbers:

• Original: “Recommended: Simple, descriptive words in the URL.” “Not recommended: Unreadable, long ID numbers in the URL.” The example for the recommended case is generic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation).

Revised: Consolidates these into a “Use descriptive URLs” section and presents the “Recommended” and “Not recommended” examples side-by-side, making the comparison immediate. The “Recommended” example is now a generic example.com one.

(5) Hyphens vs. Underscores:

• Original: Recommends hyphens and explicitly states “We recommend that you use hyphens (-) instead of underscores (_) in your URLs.”
• Revised: Adds a more detailed explanation for why underscores are not recommended: “For historical reasons, we don’t recommend using underscores, as this style is already commonly used for denoting concepts that should be kept together, for example, by various programming languages to name functions (such as format_date).” This provides valuable context.

(6) URL Parameters:

• Original: “When specifying URL parameters, use the following common encoding: an equal sign (=) to separate key-value pairs and add additional parameters with an ampersand (&). To list multiple values for the same key within a key-value pair, you can use any character that doesn’t conflict with IETF STD 66, such as a comma (,).”
• Revised: The language for parameter encoding is mostly the same but the “Recommended” and “Not recommended” examples are presented in a two-column table, which is more visually organized.

(7) “Common issues related to URLs”:

• Original: Lists issues as “Additive filtering,” “Dynamic generation of documents,” “Problematic parameters,” “Sorting parameters,” “Irrelevant parameters,” and “Calendar issues,” and “Broken relative links.” Each has its own paragraph description.
• Revised: Reorganizes and rephrases these. “Dynamic generation of documents” is removed as a separate point, possibly implicitly covered by other categories. “Problematic parameters,” “Sorting parameters,” and “Irrelevant parameters” are largely combined under “Irrelevant parameters” with specific examples for “Referral parameters,” “Shopping sorting parameters,” and “Session IDs.” It adds a new warning about session IDs here: “Wherever possible, avoid the use of session IDs in URLs and consider using cookies instead.”

(8) “Resolve problems related to URLs” (Original) vs. “Fixing crawling-related URL structure problems” (Revised):

• Original: Provides solutions like “Create a simple URL structure,” “Consider using a robots.txt file to block,” “avoid the use of session IDs,” “convert all text to the same case,” “shorten URLs,” and “nofollow attribute to links to dynamically created future calendar pages,” and “Check your site for broken relative links.”
• Revised: This section is significantly streamlined and focuses more on the actions to take when problems are noticed.
• It consolidates advice for robots.txt blocking to include “ordering and filtering functions.”
• It specifically adds a new point: “If your site has faceted navigation, learn how to manage crawling of those faceted navigation URLs.” This is a new, practical piece of advice.
• The advice on “infinite calendar” is moved into the “Calendar issues” section above.
• The advice on “converting text to the same case” is now a separate “Be aware that URLs are case sensitive” section, with a more formal explanation of Google’s case sensitivity.
• The advice on shortening URLs is now “Use as few parameters as you can.”
• The “Broken relative links” explanation is expanded, clarifies the issue of “parent-relative links” and explicitly recommends “root-relative URLs.”

(9) New Sections/Concepts in Revised Text:

• “Be aware that URLs are case sensitive”: This is a dedicated section with a clear explanation of Google’s case sensitivity and a recommendation for consistency.
• Integration with SEO Starter Guide: “For information on structuring your site as a whole, check out this section of the SEO Starter Guide.” This links to other Google resources.
• Faceted Navigation: A new, important point in the “Fixing crawling-related URL structure problems” section.

Formatting and Presentation:

• Original: Uses simpler bullet points and bolding.
• Revised: Makes extensive use of tables for “Recommended” vs. “Not recommended” examples, improving readability and making comparisons immediate. It also uses code formatting for URLs and parameters more consistently.

In summary, the revised text is more structured, prescriptive, and modern. It provides clearer guidance with better formatting and more specific examples, explicitly stating the importance of following the recommendations for effective crawling by Google Search. It also incorporates some updated terminology and links to other relevant resources.
Forum discussion at X.
The content at the Search Engine Roundtable are the sole opinion of the authors and in no way reflect views of RustyBrick ®, Inc
Copyright © 1994-2025 RustyBrick ®, Inc. Web Development All Rights Reserved.
This work by Search Engine Roundtable is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. Creative Commons License and YouTube videos under YouTube’s ToS.

source