Do Pretty URLs Still Matter?

With all the kerfluffle about the new Lifehacker (and the 2.0.1 redesign) one thing stood out for me as the more interesting fallout: a rush on articles about the dreaded Hashbang.

Unix heads can skip this paragraph. For the rest of the world, a hashbang (aka a shebang) is the character sequence consisting of the characters number sign and exclamation point #!. You see this a lot at the beginning of scripts, and are used to define which ‘interpretor’ you’re using. Basically you’re telling Unix which program to use to parse the rest of the script. It’s more complicated than that, but this is not the place for goobley tech speak.

A hashbang used in a web URL is also an interpretor, but of a different sort. The hashbang is a fake tool used to get URLs generated by javascripts and AJAX picked up by Google. Great, what does that mean? The # tells the browser that the rest of the URL is an ‘identifier’ and everything after that # is computer code for a part of the current page. So in the case of Lifehacker, URLs went from http://lifehacker.com/5753509/hello-world-this-is-the-new-lifehacker to http://lifehacker.com/#!5753509/hello-world-this-is-the-new-lifehacker.

Most people missed the change and concentrated on the new layout. The #! in there manages to parse the right page, so why should we worry? After all, AJAX is the ‘future’ of the web. AJAX, by the way, is not the dim-witted but incredibly strong Greek hero. AJAX is shorthand for Asynchronous JavaScript and XML, but has very little to do with XML. Instead it’s used to create interactive web-apps. It’s exceptionally powerful, but a little dim-witted. Oh, okay, maybe my Illiad joke wasn’t so far off, after all!

AJAX has a whole lot of problems, most important (to me) is the fact that it’s not easily read by screen-readers, which means your blind visitors get the shaft a lot from poorly written AJAX sites. You also can’t use the back button most of the time, nor are these sites easily read by web crawler bots, which means that you don’t end up on Google results. Your page isn’t ‘real’, therefore it’s not followed. Of course, the folks at Google recognized this problem and came up with a weird solution: The Hashbang! That’s right, Google introduced it as a way to get sites dependant on AJAX into their results. (A proposal for making AJAX crawlable – Google Webmaster Central, Wednesday, October 07, 2009 at 10:51 AM)

Sounds great, though rather complicated and a little kludgey. Now you can have the best of both worlds. There are still drawbacks, of course, and I hear this refrain over and over:

The main problem is that LifeHacker URLs now don’t map to actual content. (Breaking the Web with hash-bangs – Mike Davies (Isolani.co.uk) Tuesday, February 08, 2011)

This initially perplexed me. After all, WordPress (which runs this site) is really a single page site (index.php) with a million identifiers, and it’s not like there’s an actual, physical, page on my server called do-pretty-urls-still-matter. What’s the difference? Turns out it’s all in how the URL is generated. The hashbang method is prone to error, as Lifehacker found out already, all you have to do is kill javascript and your entire site goes down. That I knew, but as I sat to write this I got myself in a bind. After all, in order for my pretty URLs here to work, I need .htaccess (which means my httpd.conf stuff is all in a row), PHP and SQL. Of course, all that is server side, and the user only needs the most basic of browsers to get to my site. But how were those failure points less than a javascript induced set?

I appealed to Twitter and got a couple fast responses from @JohnPBloch:

JohnPBloch: The difference is that one (js) depends on millions of different configurations working correctly; the other depends only on one […] for example, I’ve had chrome extensions that crashed JS on non-jQuery pages before.(JohnPBloch) (JohnPBloch)

Thanks to John, my brain kicked back into gear. There is no browser dependency on my URLs. The only way for them to fail is if I screw up the backend (that could be my site setup or my server). Either way, the critical failure will always be me, and never my user. That’s as it should be. We’re so often told that our customers are always right. As a corollary, your customers should never be at fault for a problem (as long as they’re using the products as intended). There are good reasons to use AJAX. Like using AJAX and javascript allows for a responsive and truly interactive experience for you users, in situations where small parts of the interface are changing (think Gmail, Flickr and Google Maps). Gmail actually would be perfect. That’s something where I neither want nor need a ‘pretty’ URL past http://gmail.com because I’ll never share the URL.

The rest of the time, though, URLs are important. If I want someone to visit my site, I tell them ‘Go to https://halfelf.org’ and they know what to do. Back in the Trojan War days, you’d hear “Login to AOL, keyword ‘Ipstenu’.” instead of a URL, and we’ve moved away from that to allowing people to claim their own domains and their own presence online. We shouldn’t be reliant on AOL, Google, or anything else to generate our representation. So, regardless of the problems with the hashbang (and there are a lot), your URL is important.

We all know the difference between a ‘pretty’ URL and an ugly one on sight. https://halfelf.org/?p=1358 is ugly and https://halfelf.org/2011/do-pretty-urls-still-matter is pretty! Simple. Lifehacker (and Twitter for that matter) have always had ‘kind of’ pretty URLs, with a weird number string in there, but enough to make you go “Okay, this Lifehacker post is about monkeys” or “This tweet is by Ipstenu.” With the change to hashbang, both sites (temporarily) broke the cardinal rule of websites: never change your URLs. By now, both sites will redirect a hashbangless site to a hashbanged one, which is as it should be. You never get rid of your old URLs, which is why on older sites, you have a really freakish .htaccess with miles and miles of regexp. AJAX makes you jump through hoops for pretty URLs.

But that really begs the question of whether or not pretty URLs actually matter anymore, or this just me being an old stick in the mud? Much like Google’s minor issues with AJAX/Javascript, they have minor issues with Dynamic URLs. Quickie explanation: static URLs are pretty, dynamic aren’t. Basically, they can and do crawl dynamic URLs, but static are preferred. (Dynamic URLs vs. static URLs – Google Webmaster Tools, Monday, September 22, 2008 at 3:20 PM) On the other hand, we know that shorter is better, and you can’t get much shorter than https://halfelf.org/?p=1358 when you get down to it.

I would posit that, since the web is based on look and feel, the design of your site still relies, in part, on the ease of someone in understanding the URL.

Ipstenu (Mika Epstein)

I’m Mika (aka Ipstenu) and I’m complicated. I’ve been on the net since the days of dedicated terminals and Novation CAT modems and solved Missionaries and Cannibals (or Goats and Cabbages) before I was six, and blog about WordPress and technical/computer things at Half Elf on Tech.

See Full Bio