Google and Physical Siloing

[grobar]

No "guesses" please. Only respond if you have a reference.

In this example:

Booksite.com/poetry/contemporary.html
Booksite.com/poetry/avantguard.html
Booksite.com/poetry/elegies.html
Booksite.com/poetry/freeverse.html
Booksite.com/poetry/limericks.html
Booksite.com/poetry/haiku.html


In the example, which method below would be the optimal first level "category" page be for the "poetry" category? (or if neither, what?) I'm asking in the context of trying to maximize the content siloing.

Would it be at:

booksite.com/poetry/ (which is actually booksite.com/poetry/default.html)
or

booksite.com/poetry.html
(note the difference is that the first option is one directory level deeper than the second.)

[tedster]

Matt Cutts - What's a preferred site structure? [youtube.com]

For Google the URL structure is not a factor. Given the prevalence of URL rewriting, it has to be that way, right?

[grobar]

Thanks for the reply.

I get that, but i think it has been proven that the deeper you go, the less importance that is assigned to the page, etc.

My question is asking which is the best place to set up the category's "index" page, the page which lists all of the pages within that category.

[tedster]

That's true if "depth" is measured by CLICKS, and not the URL structure. It's the internal linking that makes the ranking difference.

[grobar]

Can you show me a reference for your last statement, specifically showing that depth is NOT a factor when in the context of physical directory structure and IS a fact in the context of the the click stream?

(I agree with you in that it probably is a factor in the context of CLICKS, but I believe it is also in the context of physical depth of the url/directory structure.)

[buckworks]

In my opinion, when Tedster says something, that IS the reference.

You will look long and hard to find anyone with better research skills, more knowledge about SEO, or higher credibility amongst other SEO's.

[Robert Charlton]

i think it has been proven that the deeper you go, the less importance that is assigned to the page, etc.

grobar - That really is about click depth and linking structure, not directory structure, and it comes from the way that PageRank is divided up among outgoing links from a page.

In the classical (read, slightly dated) view of PageRank, the PageRank conveyed by each link on a page is equal, and if there are N links on a page, each link transmits 1/N of the total accumulated PageRank the page has to transmit.

Assuming "top down" PR transmission (ie, thinking only of PR transmitted "down" through a site via a linking structure from home), as you go down in a hierarchical linking structure, the PageRank is increasingly split up from level to level.

A direct link from top level page carries more weight than a link from a page lower down in the navigation hierarchy, because the PR from home hasn't been split up the way the PR from a lower level page has been split. This is regardless of how the pages are organized into directories.

There are a lot of nuances to this, as well as considerations of how PR circulates throughout the site, but that's basically it.

The confusion between directory structure and navigation structure has come about because sites with hierarchical navigation are generally organized into directories as a convenient way of keeping things straight. There's nothing, though, that says, though, that any pages in such a directory structure even have to link to each other.

I'll let someone else tackle siloing... and I don't think you're going to get a reference, though. Wikipedia is probably a good place for that.

But, IMO, if you wanted isolation between various types of literature on a site about books, directories as you (only partially) describe provide a good visual basis for thinking about organization and keeping your pages straight. You still need to create the links within that directory structure.

[Robert Charlton]

PS - In a way you're asking multiple questions here, not just about siloing, but also conflating unasked questions about topic organization, directory and subdirectory structure, hierarchical linking structure, and taxonomies... and you've probably got some thoughts in mind about whether Google prefers siloed sites. ;)

Chances are we're going to have to discuss these, not provide references... as they're slippery concepts with no firm answers. Here's a thread from a while back that gets into how to approach organizing a taxonomy about search engine marketing...

Search Engine Marketing Taxonomy
[webmasterworld.com...]

It brings up questions one could ask about the structure you were suggesting for a book site. You didn't really get into the other main categories, for example. One approach might be: Fiction, Poetry, Non-Fiction, Travel, Art, etc... and you might choose to organize Poetry, say, by poets rather than by types of poetry... or by language... or by period.

That's just scratching the surface. We can get into very far ranging considerations before we even get to website directories.

[grobar]

Robert, thank you for your thoughtful replies. I appreciate it when someone takes the time to write a meaningful response, as you have.

I am not asking about PageRank, etc, (though I realize all of this is closely related). Hopefully this thread can narrow in scope to just discussion about theming, specifically, theming through "physical siloing" (aka. "Directory Siloing") and if/how that helps to "theme" one's site. I'm asking about siloing and creating strong and "obvious" themes, and how best to help search engines figure out what the sections of one's site is really about (when it is trying to assign a subject relevance to one's newly crawled site/page/section, etc.).

Let's assume that one has already followed all accepted best practices around virtual siloing (which covers your mention of "click depth and linking structure") and has optimally set up their site in order to facilitate the best flow of PageRank.

With that taken care of, lets say, for the sake of discussion, that physical structure plays some small part in how search engines assign subject relevency to the pages within a site.

I'm asking, if the last sentence could be true, and if so, done one acheive some small benefit from optimally designing the physical directory structure? And if both are possibly true, then what are the best practices around developing the physical directory structure?

I want to use this as an example (farm3.static.flickr.com/2745/4093282748_0d41dc717c_o.jpg). Just to keep the discussion focused on a single example.

THE QUESTION: Using that conceptual example, which of the following two physical designs would you choose, and why? (and if you would do something totally different, what would it be, and why?


----OPTION 1----

powertools.com/default.html (the global nav would have 4 items, a home link, and a link to the next three pages.

powertools.com/cordless-power-tools.html (landing page for silo #1)

powertools.com/electric-power-tools.html (landing page for silo #2)

powertools.com/gasoline-power-tools.html (landing page for silo #3)

powertools.com/cordless-power-tools/article1.html

powertools.com/cordless-power-tools/article2.html

powertools.com/cordless-power-tools/article3.html

powertools.com/electric-power-tools/article1.html

powertools.com/electric-power-tools/article2.html

powertools.com/electric-power-tools/article3.html

powertools.com/gasoline-power-tools/article1.html

powertools.com/gasoline-power-tools/article2.html

powertools.com/gasoline-power-tools/article3.html


----OPTION 2----
BUT - many sites doing it THIS way.

powertools.com/default.html (the global nav would have 4 items, a home link, and a link to the next three pages.

powertools.com/cordless-power-tools/default.html (landing page for silo #1, the "default.html" may be invisible, with the url rewritten to just "powertools.com/cordless-power-tools/")

powertools.com/electric-power-tools/default.html (landing page for silo #2, the "default.html" may be invisible, with the url rewritten to just "powertools.com/electric-power-tools/")

powertools.com/gasoline-power-tools/default.html (landing page for silo #3, the "default.html" may be invisible, with the url rewritten to just "powertools.com/gasoline-power-tools/")

powertools.com/cordless-power-tools/article1.html

powertools.com/cordless-power-tools/article2.html

powertools.com/cordless-power-tools/article3.html

powertools.com/electric-power-tools/article1.html

powertools.com/electric-power-tools/article2.html

powertools.com/electric-power-tools/article3.html

powertools.com/gasoline-power-tools/article1.html

powertools.com/gasoline-power-tools/article2.html

powertools.com/gasoline-power-tools/article3.html


Thanks,
G

[buckworks]

I prefer the second way, so the index/default pages for the categories would have URLs like this:

powertools.com/cordless-power-tools/

I can't prove any SEO reasons for preferring that, although I'm confident it would be positive, but there are other benefits which are reason enough for me.

-- It avoids the problem of users getting a weird page if they cut back the URL to look for the main category page.

-- It's future-proof: your URLs will remain stable if you ever change the technology on your site (been there, done that, smooth experience).

-- The difference between the style

powertools.com/cordless-power-tools/

rather than

powertools.com/cordless-power-tools.html

can add up to hundreds of characters saved from navigation throughout the site.

Every small improvement in loading speed for the same information is A Good Thing. Also, I believe (but can't prove) that reducing the bulk of site navigation makes it easier for individual pages to get past the tipping point for being dismissed as "too similar".

Even better, I'd go for URLs like

powertools.com/cordless/

wherever possible.

I'd also prefer URLs like

powertools.com/cordless/article1/

rather than

powertools.com/cordless-power-tools/article1.html

When the domain name (or higher folder name) already contains a keyword, leave it at that. It would just be redundant to repeat the keyword later in the URL.

My ideal URLs are meaningful but concise, keyword-spiced without being keyword stuffed.

[grobar]

good points on the character savings, and the usability aspect.

What are your thoughts on the fact that your suggested structure puts the pages 1 level deeper? (in terms of seo benefit of a higher level paqe vs a deeper level page)

[aakk9999]

What are your thoughts on the fact that your suggested structure puts the pages 1 level deeper? (in terms of seo benefit of a higher level paqe vs a deeper level page)

It does not. As both, Tedster and Robert already said, the depth is measured in CLICKS from home page, not in number of folders from the root.
You can have a page named

www.example.com/folder1/folder2/folder3/folder4/ but if it is linked directly from the home page, then it is on the first level from home page (and not fourth or fifth).

[buckworks]

What are your thoughts on the fact that your suggested structure puts the pages 1 level deeper?

I do not worry about that in the least.

The click path is what matters here, not the folder depth.

[Robert Charlton]

I agree that it's click path, not folder depth... but, also, I don't think it's as simple as just click path. Would you rather be one click away from a home page with 200-400 nav links on it, or two clicks away from a home page with, say, 15-20 nav links on it?

PS: I realize that there are a lot of variables in between. I'm just raising the question of other considerations beyond click path.

[grobar]

absolutely Robert.

So it's :

-click path
-number of links from the page, overall,
-position in the html (near top = better) of the link

[roodle]

Of the above examples I'd definitely go with example 2, simply because it's the most logical structure (to me!). powertools.com/gasoline-power-tools.html doesn't say much about its relationship to the articles in the powertools.com/gasoline-power-tools/ folder. Maybe it does through linking, but I'd certainly make powertools.com/gasoline-power-tools/default.html the landing page.

In any case I can't believe the benefits one way or the other could be that great. I just think it makes it clearer to anyone (or anything) how the pages are related, irrespective of linking structure. If clicks really do carry greater weight, then this structure can only reinforce the relationship of those pages.

[Robert Charlton]

So it's :

-click path
-number of links from the page, overall,
-position in the html (near top = better) of the link

Not quite what I said. In your statement above, in the word "it's", a lot depends on what you mean by "it" and what you mean be "is". ;)

-position in the html (near top = better) of the link

I can't parse out what you mean by this at all. Nothing I can extract from it resembles what I meant to suggest... and I was actually not making any recommendations... just looking at differences in practice that make it very dangerous to make generalized statements. Please rephrase, and I'll try to comment further.

I'm guessing you're thinking exactly the opposite of what I intended.

[tedster]

One comment, because many people focus only on click paths from Home. The healthiest sites have deep internal content that also attracts direct backlinks.

These pages become internal sources of PR for the pages they link to - PR hubs within the site that sometimes gain more power than the home page does. So when you think about click depth, it's good to take this factor into account.