Forum Moderators: open
This weekend I've been making the final preparations for the launch of my latest creation. It's a first of it's kind in many way using the combinations of specialized search engine, directory, user review archive, content portal, xml feeder, and many other goodies. I've been working on it for about a year, so needless to say I'm very excited about finally getting the front linked up. Also looking forward to googlebot taking it's first crawl through. Got around 1500 static content packed pages so far for it to chew on when it stops by.
Throughout the development of this site I've been doing my seo homework, but by no mean am I a guru.
Earlier I had the wind knocked out of me when I read several post on another popular seo/webmaster forum. Basically people were saying for every directory level deep from your main index page you can count on a -1 PR . I had always understood PR loss was somewhat based on actual directory structure and not directory level. Many of my listings have important content pages 6 directories deep. I was freaking out until I found this article here at WW...
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/10804.htm - Very informative thread BTW
I did a little research on google and saw several sites showing linking from the index page to 3-4 directories deep with little or no change in PR. Thus showing directory level doesn't seem to matter to google.
Basically I'm looking for any suggestions anyone may have on how to optimize my linking structure or some sort of conformation that I'm on the right track. I'd just like to be a little more certain my linking structure is the best it can be to make the most out of my PR. I don't want to discover a problem and have to go changing directories once google finds me. Here we go...
My root index page is a warning/intro page which I must have in place. From there I'm linked to my home page where the categorized directory is also located. So here's what I've got:
http://www.domain.com/ >> http://www.domain.com/search/
On the index page I also have a "quick jump" table directly linked to all of my directory categories and sub-categories:
http://www.domain.com >> http://www.domain.com/search/top-categories/
http://www.domain.com >> http://www.domain.com/search/top-categories/sub-categories/
By directly linking my index page to these directory categories I'm hoping maintain PR since this this where the majority of my content (listings) are located. Am I right thinking google will see even the sub-categories as one click away thus maintaining a high level of PR? Looks like it should have a much better effect than making google travel 3 clicks deep to reach the sub-categories. I'm just not certain since the categories are also linked from http://www.domain.com/search/ homepage.
The next thing I would like ask about is choosing the best method of using mod_rewrite for keywording the content page urls. Each website listing in my directory has it own static content page linked from its location in the directory...
http://www.domain.com/search/top-categories/sub-categories/ linked to >> http://www.domain.com/search/content/1...1345.html
The way my site built content pages wasn't to actractive as far as keywording goes. Knowing how much google loves the keyworded urls I decided to write some code to create urls from database and category info. Here's an example of how my urls are now rewritten:
http://www.domain.com/search/content/1345.html to
http://www.domain.com/search/content/top-category/sub-category/site-title-name-ID-1345/site-title-name.html
As you can see the directory level is very deep especially when the link is located inside a sub-category. However with the categories and sub-category linked from the root index.html the content pages should be no more than 3-4 clicks away from the index at all times. Is it still correct to think this directory structure is the best way to maintain a decent PR for the content pages if it doesn't matter about directory depth? Would there be any harm in using a rewritten url at that length only for keywording purposes? If you think the url should be written in any other way just let me know. I can easily rework a little code. It does seem a little odd to not be able to find any top ranking links in google with directories that deep..
While I'm at it here's another issue I've been concerned about. On my homepage I'm using 3 Iframes to display dynamic content on static pages. I doubt google can read the dynamic pages being called in the Iframes. I don't know maybe it can...anyway is there any chance of google not reading my entire pages because of the Iframes? I'd just like to know for sure that google wouldn't stop reading for some crazy reason because of these.
Thanks so much for any info or suggestions anyone may be willing to offer! Sorry about the novel...hopefully it wasn't to painful to read. Even though I've spent many hours searching these forums for info this is my first time posting. Awesome knowledge base and webmaster community. Wish me luck with getting this thing into google. =)
Later,
Jonze
Welcome to WebmasterWorld [webmasterworld.com]!
Not sure about your iFrames - I don't use them, except for some SE "tools" which are not published.
You are on the right track thinking in terms of click-paths. Just recognize the fact that URL-paths and directory paths are two separate things, and are not necessarily related. Since you've worked with mod_rewrite, this should be obvious to you, but I point it out for the casual reader.
The quick-jump, if implemented in a way that presents it to the client browser as html, is a good idea - and serves the same SEO purpose as a site map. It's a good solution for your warning-page homepage problem.
I assume that because of the warning-page requirement you won't be able to allow deep-linking into your content page from external sites. This means you will lose some PR at that warning-page, and makes it critical that your quick-jump link text be as descriptive and as keyword-oriented as possible without being awkward from your visitors' perspective. I also means you must give some thought to the link text that you ask other sites to use when linking to your site; You will have to find the right mix of breadth and depth for the range of phrases used to link to your site, since all links will point to a single page. A balance must be struck between selecting one phrase to get the highest possible search result placement and the use of multiple phrases to cover all of your products/services. Best results will come from taking into account the competitiveness of each phrase, and allocating the number of phrased links accordingly.
Reading your "novel", this warning-page requirement was the only problem I saw. If your competition is fierce, the warning-page may have to go. Maybe you could replace it with a pop-up, or promote more of your content onto that page to give better keyword coverage.
Best,
Jim
Jim, your conformations and ideas have been extremely helpful. After searching some topics on site mapping I just realized I may have a small problem. On my index page I've linked to over 200+ categories alone. I've seen where the google guidelines and others have stated to not go beyond 100 links per page. This looks like something I'm going to have to change. Don't want to make google mad.
As far as deep linking from external pages goes, I'll have no problem doing this. I don't need to go into why, but it's taken care of. Your words actually inspired a great idea for deep external linkage. Webmaster who have their sites listed in my portal have the option of putting a voting box on their site. This is to allow their surfers to vote on their site to increase their site ratings. I'm sure you've seen these before. Anyhow I'm going to have each webmasters voting box code generated dynamically to include a backlink to the category they are located in. I'm thinking I may do the same for some banners.
I've got two last things I'd like to know for sure before I launch....
So from Jim's response, is it safe to believe there would be no difference in when linking my content pages via mod_rewrite using these two URL:
[domain.com...]
or a shorter
[domain.com...]
If there is no difference, the long keyworded url rewrite is the best option right?
Lastly I have a simple question about how google reads links. In a way similar to google, under each listing in my directory/results I'm displaying the unlinked URL. This is mainly for display purposes but I've been hoping google will see this as an outgoing link. The actual site like goes through my scripts for tracking, ect. Here's an example...
<font color="#999999">http://www.base-url.com</font>
Will this be considered an outgoing link?
Any input on these two questions would be much appreciated! Thanks again to Jim and figment88 for the help.
Best Regards,
Jonze
Another thing to consider when it comes to directory structure is that while it is true that it isn't a consideration for Google, it has been a factor in other engines in the past, and could easily be again in the future.
That being the case, I always try and keep content as high as possible. That way I'm covered either way.
So from Jim's response, is it safe to believe there would be no difference in when linking my content pages via mod_rewrite using these two URL:
[domain.com...]
or a shorter
[domain.com...]
Yeah, but get rid of all the extra stuff possible:
[domain.com...]
Use mod_rewrite to transparently redirect to the real content (if /search/content is really needed to keep your site organized, ofr example). This keeps the published links shorter, concentrating the benefit of the keywords, and reducing code bloat in your pages.
This is not a link:
<font color="#999999">http://www.base-url.com</font>
a link is contained in an <a href > tag.
Jim
Yeah, I wasn't sure if google ate up all link references, even though they arn't in link tags. I may just get rid of the printed URL's all together then.
Oh, so I'll want to concentrate URL keywords so not to dilute revelency?
If that's the case I'll try to shorten it up an bit. The sole reason for the mod_rewrite is to put in some important keywords I believe would help find those pages. I'm not really concerned about shorter published links or code bloat. Keyword revelency is my main concern.
/search/ = major keyword since my site is primaly a specialized search engine.
/content/ = is actually a generic word I used as an example but It is an important keyword
/top-category/ and /sub-category/ = very inportant keys
I had thought using the /site-title-name/ and /site-title-name.html twice in the URL would further increase the relevency. It's going to be very important for users searching google for a specific site (or one with a similar name) to be able to find my content page for that site.
Is using the site name two times overkill?
Thanks for any additional comments or suggestions on these final questions.
Best Regards,
Jonze
Great Stuff there!
I also had a dream of doing exactly what you have done.
Unfortunatley due to financial constraints could not go about it.
Best of Luck 2 you!
Well, only thing i can point out is....is there a need of a warning page ( what is it?!)
Also, limit number of links on one page to 100, rest all is correct.
Cheers,
Prashant
PS: cannot resist the temptation>> what's the URL? ( SEND ME A STICKY)
Instead of mod_rewrite 8it started out on a Netscape enterprise server) I simply passed all the URLs int o a script which then sorted out what page to deliver.
Recently though something has come to my attention.
Basicalyl teh final content pages can be in multiple categories. At the time I did what made the most sense and I ended up with:
/category/category1/sub-category1/
-> /content/category1/sub-category1/content1
/category/category2/sub-category2/
-> /content/category2/sub-category2/content1
/category/category2/sub-category2/
-> /content/category2/sub-category2/content2
/category/category3/sub-category3/
-> /content/category3/sub-category3/content2
Which caused each content page tzo be seen 3-30 times by google. Recently it was brought to my attention that this might cause great harm.
Now, temporarily I always link straight to /content/content1-xxx from each category. Btu this of course removes thse keywords from the url which are most important.
Another consideration I had was to do 301 redirects. The problem is I cannot (don't knwo how) produce a 301 form inside the script, and I can't add 200000 redirect lines into the htaccess which may change eversy day.
Waht is my best course of action, or should I forget about those keywords in tthe URL and content with them beeign part of the page?
SN
