How directory structure affects Google rankings

Should a site be as flat as possible or does some structure help?

[diamondgrl]

I am structuring a new site and my developer has proposed a totally flat structure, so that no page is embedded within a folder, such as:

[example.com...]
[examle.com...]

They'll be lots of pages ultimately so it will have to be handled through a URL rewrite, not physical files.

However, I thought a small amount of structure - not deeply nested, mind you - might actually help, so that you can include a keyword in the URL:

[example.com...]
[example.com...]

Any thoughts on whether either is better?

[DerekH]

As someone else said within the last 24 hours, a keyword in the domain is never disadvantageous and may help.
It certainly looks good in the SERPS if you want blue widgets and there's a site with www.example.com/widgets/blue/
And I, and many others are getting increasingly wary of sites that seem to have a SERPS entry for any phrase under the sun - one of my sites is in Google with a site like www.example.com/derekh-site-in-his-town/

I don't even go there...

On a personal basis, I think that a site in which the webmaster has sorted and sifted the pages into categories just somehow gives me the feeling that the site is better under control than just shoving it all into one directory and letting the computer and the search engine sort it out...
I'd always opt for the possible advantage and nil disadvantage of sub-folders.
DerekH

[ScottM]

Nothing wrong with:

[example.com...]
[example.com...]
[example.com...]
[example.com...]

It sure helps me keep track of what the pages are about!

[BigDave]

It is not the depth of the directory, but how many "clicks" it takes to get to the page.

If anything, I would tend to agree with you that keywords in the URL can only help things.

Pick a movie name or something, and do a search. You will probably have a mix of page depths on that front page. If directory depth made that much difference, do you really think you would get those huge amazon links ranking so well?

[ScottM]

but how many "clicks" it takes to get to the page.

I second that.

[nancyb]

I used to have a flat structure with pretty good rankings, but as the site grew it became more and more difficult to manage.

Finally, with fear and trepidation of losing those good listings, I had to resturcture and this thread [webmasterworld.com] was the map I followed.

Wish I'd had the courage sooner. New pages in new directories get listed quicker and higher! As already mentioned, it's the number of clicks to get to a page that's important.

[vincevincevince]

Flat sites are good for up to a dozen or so pages, above this, (in my experience) there is much to be said for deep structure.

I have used flat sites for many things in the past, and only recently switched to a more natural structure, wow, I've been missing out.

After all, it is not beyond the wit of google to say that 1000 pages all in one directory is not likely to be natural!