|That deep-down spammy feeling|
| 6:59 pm on Aug 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It's been awhile since I have posted here, but have been lurking around in the background trying to find a little information. Perhaps a few of you out there could help me.
I have managed to find many articles on SUB-DOMAINS in the WebmasterWorld archives, but most are a little dated.
Let's say, for an example, I have a Web Design company. My company now decides it's time to take the next step and offer Web Hosting. I have a gaggle of content concerning Web Hosting and want to use a Sub-Domain.
Therefore, should I use :
- or -
Personally, I think the Sub-Domain looks cleaner, but after reading the past articles and realizing the "spammy auroa" surrounding them, I'm left a little puzzled.
Thanks for any input you may have..
| 7:07 pm on Aug 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I've seen several sites with many subdomains integrated into their site with no bad effects. For example corp.domain.com, services.domain.com, products.domain.com, all with unique content doing well in the SE's
[edited by: nipear at 8:59 pm (utc) on Aug. 26, 2002]
| 7:48 pm on Aug 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
As long as you actually have unique content on each subdomain, I don't think you will run into any problems. It's only when you get into running a separate subdomain for each page that you end up putting yourself at risk.
| 8:02 pm on Aug 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
- or -
I don't think I'd put it in the root, /web-hosting/ or the subdomain separate it logically. In this case the subdomain looks like a reasonable option since it's a completely different service.
| 8:20 pm on Aug 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
WG, your comment got me thinking:
|It's only when you get into running a separate subdomain for each page that you end up putting yourself at risk. |
Any effect on a small domain that each page is a subdirectory, not a subdomain? Like mydomain.com/dir1/ mydomain.com/dir2/ (no pages except index.html on either but a lot of them, and you'll have mydomain.com/dir1/dir1a/ - stuff like that?
Pretty much a dmoz structure, but it's not dmoz, and it's a LOT smaller, maybe 80 pages. However, some of the /dirx/'s do have pages in them.
| 8:37 pm on Aug 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
A related question:
|/web-hosting/ or the subdomain separate it logically |
I just took on a website where the previous developer made every page an index.htm and created a separate directory for each page - /keyword/ naturally. This has a very spammy feel to me, but the search engine ranks are not too bad. There is a lot for me to do, however - the site hasn't been touched for nearly 3 years!
So the question - are directories containing just one page at a disdvantage? That is, is there a compelling reason to "flatten" the site a bit, or is it best to leave the structure as is, and therefore not be changing any of the URLs?
| 4:21 am on Aug 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>I just took on a website where the previous developer made every page an index.htm and created a separate directory for each page - /keyword/ naturally. This has a very spammy feel to me...<<
tedster - In my experience, a lot of developers like to build sites this way... another way of organizing files. At first I worried about it, but I haven't seen any adverse effects... Page rank seems to filter down as it should, etc etc, and the sites are doing well. I would value some more input on this, though, as the worry hasn't completely gone away, even though I can't see any reason for concern, except that it's not what we got used to first.
| 6:31 am on Aug 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>are directories containing just one page at a disdvantage?
I've used them since the very first commercial site and never yet had a problem. It leaves room for building out within the specific topic in a logical way. In fact, I've come to suspect that it doesn't hurt with Ink, and there's been no more PR loss than to a root page if they're linked to from the homepage.
| 7:48 am on Aug 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Single page subdirectories don't cause the problems that subdomains do. When you set up multiple hostnames, a search engine will treat them as separate sites.
That is the benefit of using them, but the down side is that subdomains containing duplicate or near duplicate content can have a negative impact on SERPS because subdomains are not usually subjected to clustering. If you sell fruit and you set up subdomains for apples, bananas, and oranges, you won't be causing any problems because your oranges content won't ever show up for a search on apples.
On the other hand, if you set up a separate subdomain for each individual type of apple, then you run the risk of having multiple listings clogging up the first page of results.
That is what SE's hate.
| 10:38 am on Aug 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
there was talk a little while ago that inktomi hated subdomains. i think it was brett who was pointing this out.
| 1:22 pm on Aug 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
mr_dredd2, you are correct that Brett and many others pointed out that subdomains were not good within Inktomi, but at the same time, there are many members and people that have had great success with subdomains in INK. Paynt [webmasterworld.com], I am calling you out for this!
| 1:31 pm on Aug 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|are directories containing just one page at a disdvantage? |
not in my experience. I set every page separately in itís own directory as an index.htm. Never have any problems and doubt I ever will from that. Nice clean structure so I love it. I can see no reason to change a structure set like this. Canít think of any benefit of changing things but I can think of lots of potential problems.
In message #9 WebGuerrilla is right on with why duplicate content could cause a problem. Otherwise, I have never had a problem. Run a search for canonicals here at Webmaster World. Iíve weighed in many times with this.
I have no problems with sub-domains (canonicals), not with Inktomi or Google or Alta Vista, etc. Itís not the canonical but the way again that people use the canonical that gets them busted and then of course they blame it on the canonicals. With Inktomi they were going after some big bad spammers who happen to use canonicals.