Forum Moderators: open
I'm newish to the SEO world, and have been ravenously trying to absorb the seemingly infinite amount of knowledge on this board. I've went through two printer cartridges, and god knows how many pieces of paper (luckily I use FinePrint to keep that down...). I am formulating my design strategy, and I now have three major concerns: theme power, usability, and Google (or insert your favorite search engine).
I think (along with most of you, I gather) that theme pyramids, or canonicals if you like subdomains, is the optimal website structure. First of, it is the most sensical way for a designer to layout their pages. Secondly, it is easy for a surfer to navigate. Thirdly, Google et al seem to reward theme structures, so everyone wins.
I think like Paynt (is that good?) ;o) and also believe that subdomains are a great site feature. One only has to look at Yahoo! (maps.yahoo.com, mail.yahoo.com, etc), CNN (money.cnn.com, sportsillustrated.cnn.com, etc), and other major players to see that they too realize the huge benefits in structure that come from subdomains.
But does Google and others penalize subdomained sites? Some seem to think so, others do not. Is it worth the risk? Maybe they run your site through a tighter ringer if you subdomain, so they don't directly punish subs, but indirectly by a more scrutinizing algo on non - www. domains.
Also, does Joe User understand keyword.domain.com? I've heard usability reports of users thinking that Yahoo! was the internet, and to get to a site they type www.whatever into Yahoo!'s search box.
Then again (I'm going to get dizzy if I keep seeing the other side), the subdomains are optimized for search engine results, and not necessarily Joe User telling Jane User, "Hey, go to keyword.domain.com and check out their cool <keyword>'s!" So who cares if they can't tell keyword.domain.com from www.domain.com, as long as it ranks high in the search engine?
I believe that subdomains are crucial to branding. I (maybe mistakenly, or egotistically) want to build a website which focuses on my interests, since those are the topics that I can most easily and authoratatively offer unique content. How can I build a brand if I have different domain names? I want a user to know that they can go to mysite.com and find intersting, quality information, whether it be interest1 or unrelated interest2. Using directories doesn't make sense from a theme standpoint, but by seperating them into subdomains, it in essence creates seperate sites under the same brandname.
So what do you think wins out of this Triple Threat Match in your strategies? Do you focus on themes, usability, or search engine results?
Hi, my name is Scott, and I am a SEO junkie."
I'm newish to the SEO world, and have been ravenously trying to absorb the seemingly infinite amount of knowledge on this board. I've went through two printer cartridges, and god knows how many pieces of paper.
I think like Paynt (is that good?) ;o) and also believe that subdomains are a great site feature. One only has to look at Yahoo! (maps.yahoo.com, mail.yahoo.com, etc), CNN (money.cnn.com, sportsillustrated.cnn.com, etc), and other major players to see that they too realize the huge benefits in structure that come from subdomains.
I don't think you should use sub domains just becuase Yahoo, CNN or other major players are using sub domains. Try to understand their meaning/purpose behind it. The main benefit for that I can see for Yahoo and CNN would be site structure and grouping topics/content.
But does Google and others penalize subdomained sites? Some seem to think so, others do not. Is it worth the risk? Maybe they run your site through a tighter ringer if you subdomain, so they don't directly punish subs, but indirectly by a more scrutinizing algo on non - www. domains.
Then again (I'm going to get dizzy if I keep seeing the other side), the subdomains are optimized for search engine results, and not necessarily Joe User telling Jane User, "Hey, go to keyword.domain.com and check out their cool <keyword>'s!" So who cares if they can't tell keyword.domain.com from www.domain.com, as long as it ranks high in the search engine?
I believe that subdomains are crucial to branding. I (maybe mistakenly, or egotistically) want to build a website which focuses on my interests, since those are the topics that I can most easily and authoratatively offer unique content. How can I build a brand if I have different domain names? I want a user to know that they can go to mysite.com and find intersting, quality information, whether it be interest1 or unrelated interest2. Using directories doesn't make sense from a theme standpoint, but by seperating them into subdomains, it in essence creates seperate sites under the same brandname.
And yes, you can build good brand name with multiple domains too.
So what do you think wins out of this Triple Threat Match in your strategies? Do you focus on themes, usability, or search engine results?
and yes, I would like to add one more thing.
CONTENT
CONTENT
CONTENT
Well I know I added three things, and that is one of the main thing that you read at Brett's post. But what can I do. That is one of THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.
Well good luck with your SEO, and again welcome aboard.
Edit / Update
I am sorry I forgot to add below point.
There are many many reason that you can use sub domains for. Below are few:
1) Save $$$$$
2) Easy way to divide content and manage large web sites.
3) With just 1 login you can hangle 100 sub domains. Unlike domains where you have to login every time.
4) # 2 + good on optimizing sites by grouping content.
And yes, I understand and feel content is the main component of any website. There is nothing worse than going to a website and seeing recycled info.
While I don't propose using subs strictly because some major players do, I believe that they lend credibility to their use, and also that search engines would be hard pressed to penalize methods that the "major players" themselves use.
Thanks for your great suggestions though, and I hope to become an active part of this board!
Let's stop and hold it right here, to try to give that some thought and careful examination. Since I've got a site that could benefit from using subdomains because of different "sites" being part of it, I've taken a look at some of those larger sites and also a bit of a look at the issue of inter-linking.
Let's not neglect to note that the Google forum is filled with posts by very unhappy folks whose sites have been penalized, some with severe financial consequences. Many of them have had to reverse strategies that involved excessive cross-linking that got them into the hole they're now hoping to get out of.
There are operators of dozens, hundreds and sometimes thousands of sites that use heavy interlinking to raise their link pop and Page Rank and generate reciprocal traffic. It's domain spamming and you can find it in profusion among affiliate-type sites. That's not gone un-noticed, to be sure, and the whole issue of how links are done has to be looked at with much fear and trepidation at this point in time. When search engine databases have become corrupted and results skewed the steps taken can also affect those who have unwittingly and innocently come close to emulating what some have done by deliberate design, sometimes with very unfortunate consequences.
>search engines would be hard pressed to penalize methods that the "major players" themselves use.
Rhyno, when you're talking about the "major players" you're talking about sites that have a multitude of independent inbound links that are not reciprocal. They have a different status than the average commercial site and their linking structure is totally different from what an average commercial site would be.
If you take a good look you'll see that the individual subdomains of the major sites are linking within themselves for ease of navigtion. But not cross-linking with each other, except maybe to the main page(s) of the primary site and a few pages that are common to all - but not excessively, and in being subjected to human review they could never be construed to be trying to manipulate rankings. The linking is done with navigation in mind, and does not even resemble an attempt to raise search engine rankings though the use of their linking structure.
What's natural between pages and directories within a given site is not necessarily the same as what's considered natural between pages and directories that are part of separate sites and/or domains. There's quite a difference, and the major sites do not cross the line here.
A major consideration, in addition to cross-linking between separate domains, is whether or not third level subdomains aree actually considered to be an integral part of one site, or separate sites altogether. That's a critical issue.
My web host, one of many, many that use Alabanza leased boxes with unique IPs for each site, does indeed not consider a third level subdomain to be the same site. You have to pay for each, and each is given a separate, unique IP number, even with different C-classes. I have no doubt that a lot of interlinking among those would be considered excessive cross-linking between separate domains. How could it be considered otherwise, with a totally different IP and C-class?
With Yahoo and Looksmart you can pay for a separate directory listing for subdomains, if I'm not mistaken. With Inktomi's paid submission, you can change URLs within a domain for the paid pages. You cannot change pages between third-level subdomains of the site, even if they're logically connected by navigation. So by all three, they are considered separate sites, and to be reasonably on the safe side, they have to be considered separate sites when interlinking is considered.
No, I have not used them yet. And yes, I would and probably will use them - if it's completely different content, enough to warrant an additional separate site. And very cautiously, with a minor link or two for reference, only where logical and applicable by relevancy, at the most. Same as with completely separate domains.
There's been much benefit gained through linking, but it ended up being abused, so now it's only prudent to take a second look and be very cautious to avoid extremes.
The subject of excessive linking within a domain has also been touched on, lightly; not to the same extent, although it's also worth taking a second look at. IMHO it's wisdom to examine what's safe and what isn't with linking, and try to take precautions.
Let's not neglect to note that the Google forum is filled with posts by very unhappy folks whose sites have been penalized, some with severe financial consequences. Many of them have had to reverse strategies that involved excessive cross-linking that got them into the hole they're now hoping to get out of.
I am sorry, I guess, I should have made it little bit more clear.
1) Interlinking domains is better than interlinking sub domains.
2) Excessive cross-linking between domains or sub domains, is not good.
Or more like this.
Lets divide the whole site in 5 categories/topics. [cat1.com, cat2.com...cat3.com]
All 5 sites are having good amount of unique content.
1) In cat1.com if you are something (content) little bit close to cat4.com, than find appropriate manner to link back to cat4.com. Also, just becuase you are linking to cat4.com here, there is no need to to put a link on cat4.com back to cat1.com
2) Don't try to divert/mis guide visitors.
3) Don't over-link sites.
4) Don't link sites with misguided/wrong text.
So by all three, they are considered separate sites, and to be reasonably on the safe side, they have to be considered separate sites when interlinking is considered.
What I am understanding is, You are saying that link from a domain and sub domain both is equal.
I am sorry, but I do not agree here. Even if both domain and sub domain have unique and good content. Then still a link from domain will effect more than the link from sub domain.
There's been much benefit gained through linking, but it ended up being abused, so now it's only prudent to take a second look and be very cautious to avoid extremes.
Anything in excess is not good. Especially excess cross linking.
Vishal, I have no idea of the relative weight between the two types of links except that a difference in Page Rank and similarity in theming, as well as link text and context would determine a lot. Otherwise I have nothing to go by, either by observation or theory.
What I am saying is that I'm a coward. :) I'd be as much afraid to cross-link a lot with one as with the other.
linking is done with navigation in mind – Marcia
Like Marcia also mentioned along with this comment – I believe we all need to look closer at linking and for many reasons. I hope to put some of my ideas on this together and open it for discussion. She is correct to point out some of the potential problems with crosslinking and I suggest for anyone, it’s good to read up on linking theories and strategies before you put any plan into practice.
My point with Marcia’s comment here is that for me – and this is just my thinking – I link canonicals, and in fact any page of my site together entirely with a purpose in mind. I never waste links, I never add a link that doesn’t serve a purpose. This includes navigation but it also includes themes. In setting up my linking plans, and ask anyone who has seen one of these plans previous to implementation, you would be shocked by the thought, theory, strategy and detail that goes into determining which pages will be linked. I am probably the purest linking non-spammer you will ever find.
There are a few things that may help with understanding my points on this (and I apologize right up front because I have promised myself smaller posts and here I go breaking my resolution again). When I set up a site using canonicals there are many reasons, of which Vishal has done a nice job of pointing out. My main reason though is to organize my themes and keep my site pure. If I determine that I need a canonical it’s because there is a pure theme that I can develop that suits clearly my reasons for having that canonical. If that’s the case then the canonical is a pure extension of the site only it needs more space to develop thoroughly. Therefore, the canonicals, at least on the top level will obviously connect through a link to the homepage and visa versa. I use text links for this with my important keywords in the anchor text and these keywords purely define the purpose of the canonical.
Simply put I then develop each canonical independently, which a pure focus on it’s theme. I then find natural opportunities to link the canonicals to each other. I repeat – natural opportunities – and this means they make sense. They aren’t linked to inflate link pop, they link because the either are important and make sense for the themes to connect or ease in navigation, as Marcia suggested. Interlinking for link pop will most likely dilute my themes and what’s the purpose of setting up a well themed site if you plan to dilute it with sloppy linking.
It’s not an idea that works well for everyone. It’s not the best setup for every site. My main suggestion to anyone in development is put time into research>evaluation>analysis>strategy>optimization. It’s the planning if you really want to find success on the web. Then you make it pretty, add the bells and whistles and make it sell-able. First the foundation that can withstand any storm or flux in the industry.
That’s my two bits. Again, welcome and let the party continue.
Interlinking domains is better than interlinking sub domains.
Again, this is just my thinking but, I disagree with this statement. There are some really hot canonicals out there that have very high PR and are right on their themes and a link from one of those or a link from a domain that hasn’t been equally developed is no competition. This is purely based on my experience. I personally look at what the page itself has to offer in relation to a link and not where it sits or doesn’t site on a site. More often than not the PR of my canonicals is equal to the PR of the main domain page, at least during the first rounds as the site is developing an independent PR. Canonicals can be very powerful opportunities for linking both to and from.
I think it wise if those who have experience with canonicals come forth and add to the discussion from actual history. I talk theory, we all talk theory. My theories have had time to develop as I’ve been using these for a few years now and base my comments on this personal experience. Maybe you don’t need to be as pure as many of my developments have been based on but I’ve seen and continue to see the benefits.
So, me being this fictitious se, what sites do I want? Sites that have outstanding content are my number one priority. So anything resembling spam (hidden text, keywords that don't match, etc) I kick to the bottom of the list because their content is probably hokey, too. If I find a site that is head to toe about one topic, has no spam, I'm in heaven. Big gold star for that site. I'm also going to look at the cross linking to see if this is a big site and has different specialties. But, if I see cross linking all over the place, the site begins to slip down into my "big scam" pile.
Now if I were a website, how can I look most attractive to people/things who want to use me? For a search engine, I want solid content, links to my other pages on topic to solidify a theme, adn outbound links to authoratative sources to show I'm not spamming inter-site, and to show I really do have the users in mind. For a user, I want clear, easy to use navigation. Clearly defined sub-sites if there is more than one theme. No spam, because time is precious. And tons o' content.
So basically, to optimize both sides desire to use you, a site should have great content. It should stay focused, and clearly seperate sub-topics (which I think subdomains should be used for.) From a theming perspective, if it makes no sense to interlink subdomains, only link back to your main domain (www.) I think the weight of linking different domains/subs comes more from the theme weight than the fact that x is a domain or a sub.
If you design you structure with the user in mind, and not try to deceive him/her, a search engine will naturally reward you.
