Historically, HP Chinese Community and Korean Community are using the legacy URL structure which relies on the unique ID (UID). e.g. a Post URL: http://h30471.www3.hp.com/t5/forums/forumtopicpage/board-id/Printing/message-id/212716 . The standard SEO feature is disabled. A paid is no page redirect after moving posts. Whereas the standard structure used today, when SEO is enabled, contains both a unique ID and message ID unique to the node the message is located on. e.g. http://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Operating-System-and-Recovery/Hp-notebook-P1A95UA-repeats-conf... contains a matching ID.
The legacy URL setting might be originally designed for issues relating to double byte characters in URLs. e.g. HPE Community is using the standard URL structure, when we copy a post URL, the double byte characters will be showing differently, like https://community.hpe.com/t5/%E5%B7%A5%E4%B8%9A%E6%A0%87%E5%87%86%E6%9C%8D%E5%8A%A1%E5%99%A8/%E5%A6%.... In the browser address bar, the 2-bytes characters in the URL are showing correctly.
As I know, the search engine can read the URL with 2-bytes characters. And we will have the standard SEO feature after changing to standard URL structure. So I tend to the standard URL structure.
Before the implementation, I would like to check with the fellow community managers there your opinion on SEO. In long term, will the standard URL structure have the positive SEO impact? And do you have any good practices, lesson learnt to share with me?
Thanks in advance!
I got the below reply from a SEO expert in China based on Baidu Search Engine.
There are both benefit and risk with the standard URL structure.
I would like to provide an update for this case here.