Placement of products in URL-structure for best category page rankings
-
Hi!
I have some questions regarding the optimal URL-hierarchy placement of products in a marketplace setting where the end goal is to attract traffic to category pages. Let me start off with some background, thanks in advance for the help.
TLDR
Goal: Increase category page rankings.
Alternative 1 - Products and category pages separated, flat product structure.
Category page: oursite.com/category/subcategory
Product / listing page: oursite.com/listing-1
Alternative 2 - Products and category pages separated, hierarchal product structure.
Category page: oursite.com/category/subcategory
Product / listing page: oursite.com/product/category/subcat/listing
Alternative 3 - Products placed directly under category page.
Category page: oursite.com/category/subcategory
Product / listing page: oursite.com/category/subcategory/listing
I run a commercial real estate marketplace, which means that our potential search traffic is _extremely _geographic. For example, some common searches are (not originally in english):
- Office space for lease {City X}
- Office space for lease {Neighborhood Y}
- Retail space {Neighborhood Z}
- And so on...
These terms are already quite competitive, where the top results are our competitors geographic and type category pages. For example: _competitor.com/type/city/neighborhood , _is a top result, where the user reaches a landing page that shows all the {type} spaces for lease in {neighborhood}.
These users are out to find which spaces are available for lease in these geographical areas, and not individual spaces. I.e. users do not search in the same extent for an individual product, in this case a specific empty space.
Our approach has been to place an extreme bias towards a heavy geographical hierarchy. This means that basically any search, resulting in a category page, on our site results in a well structured URL like the following:
_oursite.com/type/state/city/district/street, _since we are using Google Maps API's, this is easy and relevant for the user. Our geographical categorization beats our competitors both on extensiveness and usability, especially in long-tail search phrases where our competitors don't care to categorize where we are seeing real search volumes. The hierarchy only extends as far down as the user has searched, for example a lot of our searched just end up being _oursite.com/type/state/city/district. _
Now we are wondering how we should place our products, the empty spaces, in this URL structure. Our original hypothesis was that we should include the products in the original hierarchy, resulting in: oursite.com/category/subcategory/product. Our thinking was that we would both be serving the user with an understandable and relevant URL, and also provide search bots with a logical structure for our site and most importantly content for our category pages. Our landing pages are very dynamic, providing information by relaying graphical information on a map instead of in an SEO-friendly manner. I would however go as far as to say that these dynamic pages provide a ton of value for the user, much more so than our competitors, by describing relevant information about the neighborhood kind of like Trulia, just not in a bot-readable manner. This results in trying to rank them on their own merits being a challenge, whereas we were hoping we could create relevancy by placing products / listings and maybe even blog posts on the topic within the same URL-hierarchy.
As of right now our current structure is oursite.com/products/category/subcategory/product. In other words, they are categorized in the same geographical fashion but under a separate URL-path. Our results so far is that we basically only rank for the product pages, and rank extremely poorly for our category pages, which is our ultimate goal to enhance. This is why we developed the above hypothesis.
However, what we learned when we did some initial research is that very few e-commerce stores place their products directly below their categories. Most of the major websites we studied, and we looked at quite a few, just go for **alternative 1 **from above. The crux is that most of them choose alternative 1 but simultaneously implement bread crumbs that emulate alternative 3, just without the actual URL's.
So, what I'm asking is, what are the actual benefits or downsides of the three alternatives? I feel as if I have a pretty firm grasp on how this could be done, I just need to better understand why most seem to choose to flatline their products or listings in the alternative 1 fashion.
Thanks,
Viktor
-
I think I'm a little confused here as to what you mean by "product" in the context of real estate. Are you referring to different types of listings (e.g. office lease, retail lease etc?)
If I were designing a real estate website, the structure would be as follows:
website.com/listing-type/state/area/suburb
You mentioned the site isn't in English so just to clarify above, the last two will be depend on regional user preferences. For example, here in Brisbane (Aus) it would be expected that I can search for properties in the "Greater Brisbane" area, meaning Brisbane City and surround suburbs. Within that region there are a bunch more suburbs
More specifically:
website.com/office-lease/qld/greater-brisbane/west-end
The reason I'd be doing this is that not only is it an easy logic to follow but it really caters toward a user's intent. If I'm looking for an office space to lease, there's no point in presenting me with all types of listings from an area because all I want to see are office leases.
Having those lease types further up your hierarchy is going to give them a little more preferences in terms of SERP position as well. From what I understand, these are the sub-category pages you're looking to rank?
As a working example of this as well, I just had a look at realestate.com.au's URL structure and it's the same as my suggestions above. Their site is very flat because it's almost entirely search-driven but the URL still lets us see their site architecture
http://www.realestate.com.au/property-townhouse-qld-spring+hill-416944062
-
I think that N:3 is optimal for crawlers and for humans.
This was explained few times here:
https://moz.com/blog/information-architecture-for-seo-whiteboard-friday
https://moz.com/blog/ugly-seo-mess-recovery-case-study (read about "flat" structure)
http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/structured-urls/
http://www.bruceclay.com/eu/seo/silo.htm
https://yoast.com/how-to-clean-site-structure/
https://yoast.com/seo-friendly-urls
https://moz.com/learn/seo/internal-linkSo as you can see it's lot of information against flat structure and implementing silo url structure in site.
Edit1: there is also great article here:
http://www.stateofdigital.com/optimising-urls-seo-ux/
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
-
URL Redirects - New Site Updates
We recently switched to a new site and I realized that our developer changed our locations page from /locations to /location. Our developer set the redirects correctly, so we most of the "juice" should still transfer fine. Even though most of the link strength should transfer to the new site, the language is misleading and according to MOZBar, the previously established links to /locations do not show up. The best option in my mind is to have the developer switch back to /locations and redirect /location. Do you feel this is the best option as well and is there anything I should be cautious about when doing this?
Local Listings | | Dions0 -
Improve Google Business ranking
While my client's websites have been ranking well in SERP for their keyterms I'm at a lost on what I can do to improve their Google business/map presence. I'm referring to their listing where the top three come up or when you search on Google Maps.
Local Listings | | FPK
https://gyazo.com/26ec78ed7f712157ec72492199545431 Ex 1. Several months ago my client was ranked #1 both for SERP and maps until they dropped to 2nd on maps. Now they're ranked 1st in search yet 2nd for local business rankings as you can see from the screenshot above. At one point my client's business did have more reviews than the 1st ranking business yet they still weren't 1st. Ex. 2. Client(s) is ranked 4th in search and doesn't show in the top 3 map listings for their search term. If you click on More places to view Google Maps they're listed all the way down as the 15th listing or worse can't even be found when searching by their main SEO key term . Of course they are found by searching for their business name so it's not like there is a problem with the listing. I make sure to: Completely fill out their Google Business profile(NAP, hours and add pictures) Have my client try to gain positive reviews Manage and respond to reviews(mainly the negative ones) Add map and Google business link to their website Can anyone offer any other insight on what else can be done to improve their local presence on maps that I might be missing?0 -
Home Page Online Citations, Blogs, etc
I have 400 backlinks to home page no backlinks to the other 20 pages, i have used yelp, free index and other online citation sources all lead to my home page as do articles, blogs etc. My home page ranks position 1 page 1 google for keyword, should i know start adding backlinks to the other 20 pages via links from blogs, articles, youtube, etc Site is 2 months old thanks
Local Listings | | nickowain0 -
Creating a new Google local business page vs. adding additional locations to an existing Google business page?
We are a service company that both travels to customer locations and serves customers at our business location. The split is about 80/20 (travel vs. serve customers on location). We just opened up a new office in a city about 1 hour away from our main location. The question is, should we create a new business page and account on Google local or should we add the new location to our existing google local account? The new location has a separate website, phone number, email etc. My inclination is to create a new local business account/page on Google. Has anyone experimented with both solutions and tested which option creates more powerful local signals for ranking?
Local Listings | | Vspeed0 -
Multiple listing directory pages pointing back to the same local business profile
I've been tuning my SEO pages to cover cities, states, and metro areas for local businesses we have. I'm wondering if the same business showing up on multiple pages, because they can actually go out and service that area, has a negative impact on rankings. Does multiple pages on your site, pointing to the same content, hurt or help the ranking of either page?
Local Listings | | All-About-Labor0 -
Local Optimisation without Local Pages?
What is the best and latest technique to optimise a website target lots of multiple local areas - I have a site where we want to target 10-15 local areas - at the moment the content mentions the local areas but not all of them as I felt it was going to turn into a list or keyword stuffing.I still see sites creating individual pages for each local area and including the areas in the url - the client wants to try and resist this as they do not want a lot of "bullsh*t" pages - (there exact words). What are the latest techniques or options? What have people tried and been successful with or equally failed with?
Local Listings | | JohnW-UK0 -
How detrimental is duplicate page content?
We have a local site wherein we have multiple advanced search parameters based on facilities available at a particular place. So for instance, we list a set of fun places to take kids to in a city. We have a page for this. We now have ability to select a list of fun places that have parking facility available or which are "outdoor". Now we use parameters to address these additional search criteria. Would search engines treat them as duplicate pages and in case it would how detrimental would this be?
Local Listings | | mycity4kids0 -
G+ Local Business Page vs. Brand Page Problems
I'm struggling a bit with a Brand page vs. Local page on G+ and wondering if anyone here has had this same problem and found a solution.... This is related to a business that has a does have a physical address for a head admin office, but they provides a financial service to people across Canada over the phone. So although the business has an address and local phone number for admin purposes, it doesn't want people showing up at that address and definitely doesn't want to be considered a "Local" business. However, Google automatically creates the local listing in google maps, which the business has claimed but otherwise does not want to maintain. Instead the business has a Brand page on G+ (not local) which it has linked to the domain and actively maintains as their G+ business page. The trouble is, Google is associating showing the local listing as the rich snippet in in their organic result instead of the Brand page. Is there anything the company can do to further help Google associate the Brand G+ page with the website instead of the local listing? I already tried removing the link to the website from the local listing in hopes that would dis-associate it with the domain. That got rid of the rich snippet, but now the local listing shows up as a separate organic result just below the main company website, which is just as bad or maybe worse. To confirm, the website IS linked to the BRAND page using rel=publisher, and the brand page does have a verified link to the company domain. Thanks for the help!
Local Listings | | PlusROI1