Which backlink would carry more weight in terms of SEO between the original URL to a webpage (like http://www.example.com/Zqe9) or a URL shortened from Google (like goo.gl/Zqe9)?
Does shortened URL carry less weight in terms of SEO?
seo;url;backlinks
I agree with Geoff's answer, that you'd want to go with the original URL every time. The reasons being:The link will carry less link juice. Yes, in the case of Google, that may be a very very small amount, but other search engines will vary.The redirected URL will be slower for users and bots to access, which is a negative in terms of user experience. Why send someone to a link that will take them 2 seconds to access, when it's available directly in only 1 second?The original URL will (likely) be more descriptive of what content is there, including keywords in the file path and domain name.The URL shortening service may not exist for as long as the destination page does. If Google, in this case, decided to kill the goo.gl shortener next week, you'd have links pointing to nowhere.The original link is likely much more memorable for humans than the shortened one. ie. example.com/my-page.html is easier to remember than goo.gl/aso4ug7f.Shortened URLs aren't trust worthy. People use them to link to malware all the time, because they can disguise the actual destination. Some people will actively avoid clicking on shortened links for that reason.While some of the above reasons may not seem like they pertain to SEO, you have to remember that a search engine tries to surface the URLs that they believe the user will want to see most. Which is why the user experience related points above actually do have an effect on SEO. For example, if your URL is easier to remember, it's easier to tell a friend about that URL via word of mouth, which makes it more likely that friend may link to your URL online.