|Themed Canonical Stucture|
Making Doorways Redundant?
| 8:03 pm on Jul 24, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Having read what I could on this, it strikes me such a constuct would make doorways largely reduntant apart from use with framed/dynamic content. Am I right though?
| 8:40 pm on Jul 24, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Welcome to Webmaster World. You have touched on my very favorite topic. The whole idea behind my theory of this is to make each of the pages your doorway and not construct additional doorways as an addition to your site. This is particularly helpful to small and mid size businesses that don’t have the time, energy and finances to create a separate domain/s with doorways to redirect into the actual site. I’m suggesting that you utilize the site itself, building your optimization into the structure of the site. It’s all based on a very pure theory of themes, with each sub-theme developed as a canonical. Use all the principals you have learned about optimization, working them into each page of the site as they are developed.
You are right that framed sites and large existing sites that are already functioning would not benefit from this form of optimization and development and “doorway” optimization as we know it is still an effective method for these. Although, you could create your new “doorway” domains in this manner and redirect or lead them into the existing site from a themed canonical site.
| 9:44 am on Jul 25, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Hi paynt, include me in your fan club. Another beauty of this construct is it appears to come close to achieving the "Holy Grail" of SEO, that is, "Fire and Forget" optimisation. It would seem serps would in the long term remain largely unaffected by SE "tweaks", which, reading the threads on Googles latest, would also be good for the blood pressure.
I work mostly with small companies that intend/hope to DIY their own SEO/SEP but need an initial input to jump in.As you mention, this structure seems ideal for them.
| 9:55 am on Jul 25, 2001 (gmt 0)|
This is indeed the way to go IMO, I have great success with this method and do not use any doorways, only 'optimised content pages' in the long run it is a win win situation.
As far as frames and dynamic sites go, ditch the frames and solve your ? and = problems and you have cracked it....
| 12:35 pm on Jul 25, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>>>>solve your ? and = problems and you have cracked it....>>>
But......we have seen SE's indexing URL's with the ? in them
| 12:51 pm on Jul 25, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>...we have seen SE's indexing URL's with the ? in them ..>
But it's by far better to remove them, as far as you can with a site. This is especially true with this one-step optimization where you focus on growing the site and not revisiting already created pages. Not every engine appreciates them, nor do link partnerships. That's important if you are looking for links to internal pages.
As far as it's possible I try to approach it as if every page is my only page. That way I tend to optimize it fully, ensure it has high quality content and is also attractive to linking partnerships.
Thanks glengara, for your kind words. I too work with small to mid size businesses and with designers who may be giving the site owner the only shot at optimization, what's right up front. This type of planning helps them tremendously and they can put their focus then on link partnerships and submitting to themed vortals, as they fnd them.
It's really a different ballgame than it was even a year ago.