Forum Moderators: open
PR algorithm you cannot cheat [webmasterworld.com]
There's also the problem of defining the scope of a site (is a site mit.edu, lcs.mit.edu, or lcs.mit.edu/~somestudent, etc.). I can imagine people that share the same ISP/host shouting at each other: "Your pages are too popular! All those hits on just 1-2 pages! You're killing my Re5earcherRank!"
The issue of defining the boundaries of logical domains within the confines of the same physical domain and means of identifying them is covered here:
Constructing Multi-Granular and Topic-Focused Web Site Maps [www10.org]
Four points from the Introduction:
1. Identifying ``logical domains'' within a Web site:
A logical domain is a group of pages that has a specific semantic relation and a syntactic structure that relates them. For example, ``a user home page'', ``a project group Web site'', and ``an online tutorial on XML'' can be viewed as logical domains. The entry pages of these logical domains are candidates for displaying in the site map since they are more informative and usually designed as starting points for navigation of the logical domains. The logical domain entry page identification process described in this paper is based on machine learning techniques.2. Determining and adjusting page importance based on citation analysis and content relevancy:
If a page is relevant to the focused topic, its importance is increased. This step is optional. A set of top ranked pages based on importance are selected to form a site map. The more pages are selected to form a site map, the more detailed the site map gets.3. Adjusting the boundary and entry pages of each logical domain based on links, directory paths, and importance:
We adjust the logical domain boundary so that all the pages in the domain share a common root directory, where the entry page to the domain is located, linked together, and the total importance measurement of all pages in the logical domain reach a given threshold value.4. Selecting the entry pages of domains with more important pages to present in the site map.
University sites are cited as examples further down in the paper, particularly with respect to page naming and identification of entry points.
Since finding that paper, even though we haven't identified evidence of themes_centric ranking of sites, I've been wondering how the concepts in that paper relate to theming and/or sub-theming of sites.
I'm wondering whether it's possible to divide a site residing on one physical domain into several logical domains by topic through planned structuring and having what would be the primary page within each sub-theme rank as though it were the index page of a physical domain. We generally see the index page of a physical domain in the SERPs rather than an associated interior page, at least in most cases.
Being able to accomplish this could avoid some people needing to take multiple domains in order to be able to rank for separate product lines, even though the products may be related.
Is there validity or substantial enough worth to warrant further looking into?
I'm wondering whether it's possible to divide a site residing on one physical domain into several logical domains by topic through planned structuring and having what would be the primary page within each sub-theme rank as though it were the index page of a physical domain. We generally see the index page of a physical domain in the SERPs rather than an associated interior page, at least in most cases.
Canonicals?
For anyone experimenting with this my inputs would be :-
1) Avoid linking within different internal sub-domains. Only link back to the Main theme.
2) Study the Web graph pattern of the top 20 sites in a particular sub-theme and implement the one which looks most natural.
Before I go further am I on the Right Track?
I read the content on the second link you provided about multi-granular and topic focused web site maps. As I was reading, I noticed something. I've been following this type of structure for a few years now with great success. I refer to it as the Chain of Command theory (my own description from my service days).
Now that I have a few larger sites in my portfolio, using this strategy has proven very successful, not only for the visitors, but the SEs too. In the beginning of my career in this industry (1995/1996) I learned that putting everything as close to the root was the way to go. So, I stuffed everything at the root level, no sub-directories. Seemed to work fine then.
As I progressed in my career and continued my research, I applied those things that I felt were applicable and tested, tested, tested. I'm a firm believer that the Logical Domain Strucutre if planned properly is just as powerful as using multiple domains.
I think I'm on the right track here, please correct me if I'm wrong. I now treat all site development as if I were planning on writing a book. I look at my sub-directories as chapters in the book. I look at my site-map as the book index and then I look at sub-directory index pages as a table of contents for that chapter.
For example, if the site has 20 distinct categories, then I have a book to write that has 20 chapters. These chapters are clearly defined during the organizational structure of the site. I use the Chain of Command theory when structuring. Chapter 1 is usually everything at the root level, the introduction. Chapters 2 thru 20 are at sub-directory levels (logical domains) each with their own table of contents (site-map).
The main site map (book index), available at the root level links into each of the chapter table of contents. I have a neat little feature in FP that lets me see a web map of the site. This is so cool because it provides me with an overall picture of the linking structure. It's one of the prettiest things to see once a site is finished. If I've planned the production of my book and its chapters properly, that link map is infinite. As you expand the map and follow links, new maps appear that then expand to other areas. One day, I just clicked (expanded) for about 30 minutes only to find out that there was no end to the map, what I like to call a close to perfect linking structure. I say close because there is always room for improvement, that is why I spend a couple of hours everyday here!
