Representing categories on my site
-
My site serves a consumer-focused industry that has about 15-20 well recognized categories, which act as a pretty obvious way to segment our content. Each category supports it's own page (with some useful content) and a series of articles relevant to that category. In short, the categories are pretty focal to what we do.
I am moving from DNN to WordPress as my CMS/blog. I am taking the opportunity to review and fix SEO-related issues as I migrate. One such area is my URL structure.
On my existing site (on DNN), I have the following types of pages for each topic:
/ <topic>- this is essentially the landing page for the topic and links to articles</topic>
/<topic>/articles/ <article-name>- topics have 3-15 articles with this URL structure</article-name></topic>
With WordPress, I am considering moving to articles being under the root. So, an article on (making this up) how to make a widget would be under /how-to-make-a-widget, instead of /<widgets>/article/how-to-make-a-widget I will be using WordPress categories to reflect the topics taxonomy, so I can flag my articles using standard WordPress concepts.</widgets>
Anyway, I'm trying to get my head around whether it makes sense to "flatten" my URL structure such that the URLs for each article no longer include the topic (the article page will link to the topic page though).
Thoughts?
-
Note: I didn't understand your comment that tags should be mutually exclusive. If I have an article about saving money on flowers, why would I not tag that with both "budgeting" and "flowers"?
You absolutely would want to tag the article with both "money" and "flowers". Mutually exclusive means there should be no overlap in the meaning of two tags, in this example, "money" and "flowers". Clearly these two tags reference different topics. An example of undifferentiated or non-mutually exclusive tags would be "money" and "cash", or "flower". "flowers" and "flowering".
All articles belong to one and only one category, as implied by their URL structure. This creates some challenges because some articles may have some relevance to more than one category but I think I can live with this
You could actually replicate the article in more than one category, but you'd have to pick one as the primary and tag the other as canonical. Hopefully this would the exception as opposed to the rule.
Am I making sense?
Absolutely. Good plan.
-
This absolutely helps - a lot
Thank you, Donna.
So, I am narrowing in on the following:
-
Navigation (across the site) links to four or so "topic" pages, which are flagged as categories in WordPress. These would be something like "Planning", "Your Wedding Day", "Love and Marriage", etc. They are the "big buckets"
-
I have tags like cakes, dresses, rings, guests, etc. Note: I didn't understand your comment that tags should be mutually exclusive. If I have an article about saving money on flowers, why would I not tag that with both "budgeting" and "flowers"?
-
Articles
-
All articles belong to one and only one category, as implied by their URL structure. This creates some challenges because some articles may have some relevance to more than one category but I think I can live with this
-
URLs would be of the form <category>. So, for example \your-wedding-day\choosing-your-wedding-ring</category>
-
I can flag articles with one or more tags
-
For each of category
-
The term I expose on the page (visually) will be "human friendly". What I mean by that is I will use a natural terminology that reads well and is NOT focused on SEO-specifically. So, the navigation menu might simply be "Planning" (as opposed to "Wedding Planning", given that the whole site is about wedding)
-
The URL to the category page will be SEO-friendly (so, \wedding-planning, not just \planning)
-
The category page will be SEO "aware" (decent title, keyword focused, etc) but also a darned good read for the visitors (quality of content being a factor in SEO anyway)
-
The thinking here is that the URL relays the essence of the page for URL but I don't need to clutter the visual expression of this (what the visitor sees) by prepending "Wedding..." to everything.
Am I making sense?
Thank you again.
Mark
-
-
Yes, your thinking is correct.
Don't rush it. (And I see you aren't.) Map out your information architecture carefully cause, as you know, it's difficult to change after-the-fact.
I'd use the big, broad terms as categories and the topics as tags (which should definitely be noindexed). Your categories seem to be related to where you are in the wedding process - engagement, wedding service, reception, honeymoon, follow-ups. Tags seem to be specific to products, vendors and services and tools e.g. hair, dress and makeup, photographers, officiants, and DJs, invitations, speeches, songs, and so on. Tags can span different stages in the process but are mutually exclusive.
I hate to share stuff I've written on Moz in case it gets interpreted as link planting, but in this case I really think this post might help (www.b-seenontop.com/seo-blog/how-to-pick-blog-categories-and-tags/). This one from WPBeginer is also quite good. (http://www.wpbeginner.com/beginners-guide/categories-vs-tags-seo-best-practices-which-one-is-better/).
Does that help? You're definitely on the right path.
-
Thank you, Donna. So, I've been doing some more thinking about this and it's a difficult balance. I have two ways to look at the whole issue.
- Through the aforementioned "big buckets", such as Planning, Looking Good, Your Wedding Day, etc. I see 4, maybe 5, of these.
- Through the "topics" (cakes, dresses, etc). We have quite a number of those.
The first one is best suited as the second tier ("folders" under the root) numerically - there are, say, 4 of them. However, they are pretty broad and I don't know how successful we'd be in what are very competitive SEO areas (wedding planning, for example, is right up there). Also, apart from the article/post lists (which would be featured in those pages), I am not sure how often they would change.
The second ones are more specific, but are numerically probably too broad for the second level. But the
So, still not sure how to structure this. But one thing I would like to clarify is that if I go with the former (big, broad areas) then having them as second-level entities is no worse, presumably, than just having /blog at the second level, right? It would seem to me that /blog has very little SEO value, whereas even something broad like /wedding-planning has at least some value, right?
Thanks.
Mark
-
Hey Mark,
Yes, "flat" IS confusing. I'm very concrete. When I hear "flat" I picture a plank. Yet when it comes to SEO, you should really envision (and aim for) a short, wide, pyramid-shaped information architecture. You want to keep the most important (money) pages closest to the top of the structure as they tend to receive the most SEO equity and therefore have an advantage when it comes to ranking.
I also agree there's little consistency when you're scanning blogs looking for examples. Blogging is still relatively new and I think you'll start to see more consistency as competition and player sophistication continues to grow.
I like your thought about using topic labels instead of a vanilla "blog" folder; it's the number of topics I'm not keen on. I think a good rule of thumb is to aim for no more than 5-9 pages at the top of your information architecture for the reasons you yourself have observed above. People do search for "wedding blog" and a bunch of other related but similar terms (perhaps one in your niche? "wedding planning blog") so that could work.
I also think your goal of having rich static + variable topic content pages is an excellent one and agree that yes, once you get there, they should definitely be indexed.
-
OK, here is something else that is on my mind. We're starting to get into IA at this point and comments are very much appreciated.
So, as I have mentioned I have a number of topics and all of my articles will be associated with one or more of those topics. I plan to use WordPress categories (and maybe tags) to represent those, with the ongoing discussion about URL hierarchy on my mind.
I see the categories as the "meat and potatoes" of how I structure my content. (Since the cat is out the bag) This means cakes, dresses, flowers, etc.
But there's another way to look at the wedding - more along the lines of Planning, Looking Good (dress, makeup, etc), Love and Marriage, etc. These are additional buckets through which a bride might view her wedding.
I'm trying to get my head around whether these concepts are superfluous and/or unnecessary. My worry is that the categories are too granular - though still meaningful - and don't present a simple "roadmap" to the visitor.
Anyway, the reason I am asking is that there may potentially be more than one way to present all this. I like the idea of the "big buckets" above because that first impression is important (I'm taking about the human response here, not search engines) and a list of 15-20 "topics" can be overwhelming. Many of the web sites I used have a first impression that is simple, direct and easy to "consume" - a "1, 2, 3" step process, etc.
I don't know how that maps to SEO-related factors though.
Still chewing on this.
Mark
-
Thank you. Ryan. I had seen articles like this. It's tempting to see an article that is so old as outdated - but there's also the idea that there are some basic, common sense "primitives" that are just as true today
That's a good list and I appreciate the pointer.
So, the flatting is something I have convinced myself is worthwhile. The open issue now is "how flat"
See the other comments in this thread.
Thanks again.
-
Thank you Donna. Yes, I'm finding this issue of "flatness" to be somewhat tricky because I'm getting plenty of alternative opinions - the nature of this while thing, I guess
You are right about the number of articles, which will run into the hundreds. I've been looking at some successful sites and find very little consistency in this area - some are very flat and some have well-defined structure in their URL schemes.
Can you expand a little on why placing the articles under /blog would be better than having them under one of the topics like /wedding-cakes (I am referring specifically to the URL now, not just from where they are linked)?
Your comments have clarified one aspect (and I'm asking here in case there are some contrary thoughts on this). The topic pages may initially be a simple listing (perhaps auto-created by WordPress, based off of categories). For those I could ensure they are not indexed. Eventually, though, I plan to make these more than mere link pages - I'd like to have useful content on them, pertinent to the topic. So, while the page would hopefully be a "darned good read", that content - once done - would be relatively static. If I achieve that goal (the page has useful but static content), would that be the point to have it indexed? If so, that gives me a framework I can work in and one I can move towards over time.
Thanks.
Mark
-
Hmm.
Will you have a folder for your blog? Something like http://www.domain.ext/blog/<topic-or-category>/articles/<article-name>? I think I found your site (wednet) and it looks like you already have a blog and a few other important pages in the root directory. </article-name></topic-or-category>
I would NOT park the articles themselves in the root domain. While you want a flat(ish) architecture, you don't want it to be completely level; you want your most important "money" pages in the root directory. If you have 15-20 categories and 3-15 articles per category, you'd have between 45 and 300 posts in the root directory and that's too flat.
If it were me, I'd go with http://www.domain.ext/blog/<article-name>. (Notice I removed "/<topic-or-category>/articles" from the example you provided.) You can use Wordpress to set up topic-or-category pages e.g. http://www.domain.ext/blog/<topic-or-category>/<article-name>, but these should be noindexed. They're there only to make it quick and easy for your audience to find what they're looking for. </article-name></topic-or-category></topic-or-category></article-name>
At some point you may want to start indexing your category pages. There has been lots of discussion about that on this Q&A. It's a personal choice and it can result in increased traffic and conversions BUT you should make an effort to customize category pages so they are absolutely unique before you decide to do that.
-
Hi Mark. Rand's comments here still hold true: http://moz.com/blog/11-best-practices-for-urls, especially these in relation to your question, "Fewer Folders" and "Keep it Short" Looks like you'll be hitting on both of those while still maintaining an appropriate amount of keyword usage. Cheers!
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Are sliders killing our site?
Our website, http://shatterbuggy.com, has what I believe is a systemic issue that stems from the heavy reliance upon the Revolution Slider for Wordpress. I am not an SEO expert and our site has vexed many SEOs in the past. We get feedback regularly from customers (especially those that are not tech savvy) that express gratitude for the ease of use via following an image to image sequence to get to their respective booking. This was our goal when creating the site. Incidentally, in many cases, the only linking from page to page is within the slider itself (clickable image) and there is little to no content. That said, we seems to stumble in SERPS against seemingly inferior competition. For example, we should be ranked in spot 1, 2, or 3 ish for "iPhone repair Minneapolis" but rather we are stuck near spot 15. Any thoughts on whether this is a strategy that may be harming us? If so, would simply creating content on these empty (slider only) pages help? Should we create "static links" that connect to the same places as the slider? Also, is our particular use of the slider creating H1 issues? Thank you all! B.
Technical SEO | | BenjaminH0 -
301'd site, but new site is not getting picked up in google.
Hi I'm having big issues! Any help would be greatly appreciated This is the 3rd time this happened. Every time I switch my old site greatcleanjokes.com to the new design of chokeonajoke.com traffic goes almost completely down (I even tried out the new design on greatcleanjokes [to see if it was a 301 issue] and traffic also went down.) What can possibly be wrong with this new site that google just doesn't like it ?! I was ranking high up for many big phrase like joke of the day, corny jokes, clean jokes, short jokes. Now It's all gone. I also think it's strange that when I search for site:chokeonajoke.com the post pages show up before the category pages!? Here is the old site http://web.archive.org/web/20140406214615/http://www.greatcleanjokes.com/ Here is the new one http://chokeonajoke.com/ If you can't figure out anything do you know of anyone I can hire who may be able to figure it out?
Technical SEO | | Nickys22111 -
If you are organizing the site structure for an ecommerce site, how would you do it?
Should you use not use slashes and use all dashes or use just a few slashes and the rest with dashes? For example, domain.com/category/brand/product-color-etc OR domain.com/anythinghere-color-dimensions-etc Which structure would you rather go for and why?
Technical SEO | | Zookeeper0 -
Can we use our existing site content on new site?
We added 1000s of pages unique content on our site and soon after google release penguin and we loose our ranking for major keywords and after months of efforts we decided to start a new site. If we use all the existing site content on new domain does google going to penalized the site for duplicate content or it will be treated as unique? Thanks
Technical SEO | | mozfreak0 -
Mobile Site & SEO
If i create a mobile site for a client will google crawl that site for mobile results or will it effect my rankings. My guess is no, just want to make sure. Obviously code will be different.
Technical SEO | | waqid0 -
How many pages should my site have?
Right now I think I only have 36. What is a good amount of pages to have? Any ideas on ways to add relevant pages to my site? I was thinking about starting a message board. Also, I have a free tech support chat room, and was thinking about posting the logs somewhere on the site. Does that sound like a good idea? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | eugenecomputergeeks0 -
Google has not been visiting my site
Hi I am working on a site at the moment http://www.cheapflightsgatwick.com and i had the site using a different template and in the search engines for the search term cheap flights gatwick we were fourth and for the term holiday magazine we were 12th in google but now we are not even in google on the first page for the search terms. But now after changing the template in joomla our rankings have gone out of the window. It took me about a day to sort out the site with the new template so i was not expecting any problems with the search engines but for some reason there is. If you put into the search engine www.cheapflightsgatwick.com then you will see that google has not visited the site for four days and also it is not showing the description and instead it is showing details about joomla. Can anyone let me know if there is anything i need to do to sort this out and why google is taking so long to visit my site
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
How do you find bad links to your site?
My website has around 900 incoming links and I have a Google 50 penalty that is sitewide. I have been doing research and from what I can see is that the 50 penalty is usually associated with scetchy links. The penalty started last year. I had about 40 related domains to my main site and each had a simple one page site with a link to the main site. (I know I screwed up) I cleaned up all of those links by removing them. The single page site still exist, but they have no links and several of them still rank very well. I also had an outside SEO person that bought a few links. I came clean with Google and told them everything. I gave them all of my sites and that the SEO person had bought links. I gave them full disclosure and removed everything. I have one site that I can't get the link removed from. I have contacted them numerous times to remove the link and I get no response. I am curious if anyone has had a simular experience and how they corrected the situation. Another issue is that my site is "thin" because its an ecommerce affiliate site and full of affiliate links. I work in the costume market. I'm also afraid that I have other bad links pointing to my site. Dooes anyone know of a tool to identify bad links that Google may be penalizing me for at this time. Here is Google's latest denial of my reconsideration request. Dear site owner or webmaster of XXXXXXXXX.com. We received a request from a site owner to reconsider XXXXXXXX.com for compliance with Google's Webmaster Guidelines. We've reviewed your site and we believe that some or all of your pages still violate our quality guidelines. In order to preserve the quality of our search engine, pages from XXXXXXXXXX.com may not appear or may not rank as highly in Google's search results, or may otherwise be considered to be less trustworthy than sites which follow the quality guidelines. If you wish to be reconsidered again, please correct or remove all pages that are outside our quality guidelines. When such changes have been made, please visit https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/reconsideration?hl=en and resubmit your site for reconsideration. If you have additional questions about how to resolve this issue, please see our Webmaster Help Forum for support. Sincerely, Google Search Quality
Technical SEO | | tadden0