According to MC's blog - google is going to get smarter with BigDaddy update on subdomains.
Quote from Blog:
"my current pet peeve (subdomain spam, which BigDaddy does better on). "
I hope they aren't too hard on it because it is a very logical way to break up a site for many reasons.
I'd keep it the same as you have it if it's 20 or less subdomains. You can check on your subdomains and BigDaddy at the 3 datacenters where they have updated.
If you are using a ton of subdomains - I'd change them. I'm sure MSN will get smarter soon too (if you go to search.msn.com and search for credit cards you will see the first couple results are subdomain spam.) They can't continue with bad results like that for large volume keywords.
|it is a very logical way to break up a site for many reasons. |
How is it any more logical than using a good directory structure?
How much is too much? I was thinking about adding a few subdomains for some of my broad topics.
Allows you to change directory structure without redirects, easier to remember for users, etc.
I'm not saying it's good in all situations, but they do have their place. As I said - if you have only a few areas that need to be clearly defined such as corporate.domain.com or investors.domain.com.
This obviously makes it easier to maintain your inbound links when doing overhauls.
About.com has redone their site for this and a few other reasons. It works great - IMO. This way I don't have to remember about.com/od/blah/
When you are working with a site that is huge and has a lot of traffic - it is much easier to manage the DNS to split up onto multiple servers. All you have to do is point forum. or members. to a diff. IP.
If anyone wanted to see the sub-domains of a single site dominating the entire SERPs of a keyword that produces 8 mil + results PM me.
|How is it any more logical than using a good directory structure? |
Studies have shown that users more easily remember subdomains than directories.
When it gets to the point that 90% of the sites of the subdomain sites are spam sites its time to start penalizing them. MSN needs to just ban them all that are not related to the keyword of the main sites domain name. The problem is very bad in MSN and something needs to be done - it is long overdue on all the keywords I have searched on.
McMohan, if you are talking about MSN results on spam with ONE subdomain we could start up an entire WW forum on that... I sure wished MSN would comment on this spam and at least ACT like they are trying to get rid of it. If MSN is at PubCon Boston that is one of the questions I plan to ask them when they start bragging about their results vs. Google...I would say they would beat google in the results if they took out the subdomain sites!
One more thing.. yes i get fired up about subdomains.. Yahoo spams the internet with their duplicate content on their subdomains - google and msn should not be listing Yahoo results that are duplicate content used from their partner sites.
|Pass the Dutchie|
|If anyone wanted to see the sub-domains of a single site dominating the entire SERPs of a keyword that produces 8 mil + results PM me. |
we have a website that has a subdomain for each major geographical region we cover. works very well for us but we do not use subdomains for spamming reasons.
as we are now building another (much larger) website, we have decided on subdomains, too. these simply make stuff more clear to everyone.
I see no reason to ban them.
If google cannot handle subdomains properly, they'd better stop spending cash on new acquisitions and start working hard on their algo!
Nops, I am talking about Google.
Haha I got a bullseye when I had a guess at the keyword!
[edited by: Munster at 9:45 am (utc) on Feb. 14, 2006]
we use a subdomain to take some potentially hackable scripts off our main ecommerce site.
there are perfectly good reasons to have subdomains so i can't see blanket bans coming into force.
now if you've been getting advantage in the serps because of them, then good luck to you...
i can certainly think of at least one site that is getting a big advantage from using sub-domains and i always thought that some day they were going to get nailed. that day sounds like it is coming closer...
sure there are sites taking advantage of subdomain spam. if you build subdomains such as: buy-widget.domain.com it does not look to good and the aim of that is certain.
however, if subdomain is just a logical part of the entire website then why should a ste be nailed?
the only thing that scares me is that trying to nail bad boys, google will kick good boys first.
|How is it any more logical than using a good directory structure? |
I use subdomains for seperating localised language versions of my sites i.e. es.domainname.com for spanish, de.domainname.com for german.
That way, I can use the same scripts and pull the localised text from a DB.
Google is using sub-domains
and so on
|Google is using sub-domains |
and so on
exactly. the key is just not to use subdomains such as:
They ought to look for many things when evaluating subdomains. The ones on MSN that get in the SERPS are single page, redirects, etc.
They should look at a subdomain - see how many pages are within that sub, links directly to the sub from other non-sub sites, are the pages in the sub content rich, etc.
We got a bit hit by bigdaddy with our subdomains. We have them organized by themes. Every subdomain has quite some pages (100+), and the this-widget-has-a-long-name.ourdomain.com got heavily down. the widget.ourdomain.com domains are keeping positions for "red widget", but heavily going slightly down too on the "widget" search.
Looks like google is having a sharp eye on subdomains, and any spammy sign as multiple dashes might be a bad idea. Without subdomains you might have more margin to "mess", until you are "caught". ;)
The only time that you really would consider using sub-domains are when the site is so broad and the categories are not related. For example, a shopping search engine. Another example would be a directory like Yahoo!
I've had excellent success with using a sub-directory structure for websites. I've not yet had the opportunity to develop sub-domains as we can logically build into the existing site structure.
There are a couple of cons that I see when using sub-domains. For one, they are not user friendly for many. Why? Because people have this inherent nature and want to type in www.sub.domain.com not realizing that the sub is to be used in place of the www.
You want your sub-domains to be short and sweet, one word, highly targeted. For instance...
If you have 7 buttons for main navigation at the top of your site and you are using a sub-domain structure, those seven buttons are most likely going to be your primary sub-domain links.
Remember, sub-domains are one level above the root and will typically have more power than a sub-directory which is one level below the root. But, site architecture, inbound links, etc. will all have a final say-so in the matter.
That www. thing is the main reason why I've not made the trek into sub-domains. There are also additional maintenance/management issues to content with using a sub-domain structure.
About a year ago, I wondered if I should set up a new site using subdomains (which were doing *very* well in the SERPs in my country at that time) or subdirectories.
I ended up choosing the latter --mainly because so many "spammy" sites were using subdomains ("clean" sites like About notwithstanding)...
While I *may* have given myself a minor disadvantage at the time, I now feel it was the right long-term decision! :-)
That's the first time i've ever heard about.com described as clean ;)
Clean is what Matt says is clean, and I doubt about.com has escaped his scrutiny. Judging by it's killer rankings, I'd say it passed.
One remark I remembr Matt saying at the end of his radio interview (and I'm paraphrasing here): "There's no need for a domain to have 9000 subdomains with just one page per subdomain."
|There's no need for a domain to have 9000 subdomains with just one page per subdomain. |
This is where I think many make a mistake. I do believe that there are routines (filters) in place to determine if a site is large enough to justify a sub-domain structure. Obviously if a domain has "too many" sub-domains with little content, it may raise a flag.
There was a time where this worked in Google. They've since corrected much of it. There are still a few who know how to work the sub-domain structure very well. I've even seen instances of sub-domains outranking the root domain.
Sub domains are also good for seperating out your statistics from each other.
Each sub can have its own stats as opposed to them all being lumped togehter under the main site.
Interestingly enough, if you look at the query for "web hosting" most of the top 10 results are from companies that have 100,000's of subdomains pointing at them from free web hosting providers user pages and is helping the rankings across the board. Personally I think it is a spammy way of doing SEO. But yet still effective.
|Because people have this inherent nature and want to type in www.sub.domain.com not realizing that the sub is to be used in place of the www. |
You can have www.widgets.example.com redirected to widgets.example.com.
I personally prefer the first option - looks more like an URL to a regular Internet user.