New folder structure
-
We are in the process of relaunching one of our website's that will use a totally need folder structure.
Previously we used mydomain.com/content/country/region/city/district/hotel_name/
Now we are changing to make the URL shorter, more precise - since we are using a new CMS, to be mydomain.com/gb_Hotel-Name/
My question is currently we've in the region of 10,000 pages indexed in Google. So we are going to have to create 301 permanent redirects from the old URLs to the new URLs.
From your previous experience, is this the correct way of approaching the task.
-
Hi Neil.
The sites we have done are all new but from experience dealing with moving to new urls the best thing to do is create a mapping document in excel. It'squite easy if you know that for example:
www.domain.com/berlin-hotel is moving to www.domain.com/de/berlin-hotel.
Then all you need to do is put in the 301s based on the mapping and monitor WMT for issues - you will always miss something.
From what you are saying however there is no logical structure to your site - which will make this harder. I have had to deal with this in the past too, you might just need to identify all of the more important pages and 301 these first and go via mechanical turk of get an intern in or something to just plough away and find all of your urls.
If you have an XML sitemap you should be able to get them all pretty quickly and map from here.
Hope this helps.
-
Hi ASR, can you advise more on how you moved to the new folder structure ? Did you leave old pages in place, launch new site, then go through all old URLs and 301 them to the new URL ?
The problem I have is the new folder structure is not a standard pattern, so any 301 will need to be done manually.
-
either way, it would not hurt to 301 all.
-
Ooops, should have said link juice.
As you can all see Alan and I have different views on this but at least you have a range of views Tommo!
Good luck - hope it all goes well.
-
"A 301 will pass 80% of the page authority over."
No a 301 will pass 85% of its incomming link juice, you are redireceting the inomming links not the page
A 301, passes 85% of its PR from the page to another page though a link from the page.
But if the page no longer exists it can not. Once you delete that page, it no longer has any page rank, but the pages that may link to the old page are still passing PR, so in that case you can redirect those links to the new page. But you cannot redirect the non existing page or any authority it had to the new page.
Read Google’s algorithm, I assure that is not how it works.
http://www.webworkshop.net/pagerank.html
By the way, all links pass 85% of link juice it has though its links, if the link hits a 301 redirect, it loses 15% again. This is so you don’t get infinite loops.
Imagine if you could move a page and somehow gets its PR by doing a 301 redirect. You could keep moving it and it would keep getting more PR.
If I could use an analogy
If you have a store and Bob has a store, and Bob closes down, but puts a sign on his door telling his customers to go to your store, you will get his customers, but you don’t get his stock. And if he had no customers you get nothing.
Anyhow if you read the link you will see that I am correct -
A 301 will pass 80% of the page authority over. You also don't leave any 404s.
I'm not sure why you are so against 301s? It's tidier, "best practice" and not hard to do. Why risk missing something out that might prove the difference?
-
They will reindex them, you dont need to 301 then to get them reindexed.
But they dont have any page rank if the no longer exist. you can only pass link juice though a link, if the page no longer exists then you can not link from it, and there is no link juce juice to pass.
If that were true, you could keep moving a page and its link juice would keep rising.
-
I would 301 all the pages; it's "best practice," IMO.. The old pages had juice just from the fact that they existed; ie. inbound links aren't the only value you want to preserve. And, as ASR points out, best to avoid the 404s. The redirects are not just for the PageRank, but to allow search engines to easily reindex the content.
-
"The pages will still have some authority even without links"
they would if they were still there, but they no longer are, its just a ref to them in the index,
sure if they have some like or links, I agree
If they are in another lingo, they maybe, I dont know, but if they are in the same lingo, I still say they will be duplicate content
-
The pages will still have some authority even without links, so I would definitely pass any little bit there. Social signals too if there are any that might not have been picked up. And I would also worry that while some tools say there are no links, I don't know one 100% reliable tool to tell you page X has no links.
If the local sites are in DE, FR, ES, or whatever, then they are not duplicate, they are local language. IBM, Apple to name a couple certainly do this route also.
Matt Cutts may say that, but we certainly do not suffer from this problem in the least. Another Cutts "we do this but really don't" comment maybe?!
-
I agree it would of worked, but if they had no incomming links, then it was un-necessary.
-
Why must you 301 it, if they have no in comming links. There is no link juice to keep.
As for theTLD's, if they are duplicate content websites, which I assume they are, then you will have duplicate content problems. How will you get around that?
If yopu listen to the Matt Cutts video again, he says at the beginging, if the are all on the same TLD you will be pinged for DC
-
Disagree with you on that one Alan. We have no issue with duplicate content and it is also what everyone (including those at MOZcon this year) recommend.
In fact I have an email from SEOMoz themselves recommending it.
TLD will get better over time but from experience running 7 sites (6 country sites) I would only ever use folders now.
I also disagree with your comments below about not 301ing all old content. You must do this when re-launching.
-
I have to disagree, using the TLD's you dont need to worry about duplicate content.
See Matt Cutts
-
You are having to link build to multiple sites, they are start from zero in a search engines eyes (no matter how strong your current site is), your marketing materials cannont just mention domain.com etc.
Our use of folders with our strong domain strength has seen them launch and a month later be at the top of local search engines for hard to rank for search terms.
I cannot recommend strongly enough that going down the folder route is much better for SEO.
-
Yes, the other .de site for example will be 100% in the local language. What pitfalls do you feel we will have if we went the route of many TLD sites ?
-
Yes that is what I am saying. Definitely head down the domain.com/country-folder ie domain.com/uk
This has a lot of advantages around marketing, all of the links to this one domain help strengthen the entire site instead of having to having to link building to a number of new sites (which are starting from scratch in Google's eyes).
And you can still target them in GWMT by country too - which will definitely work. I am presuming they will be in local language as well?
Hope this helps.
A
-
Currently our domain is domain.com.
But we were thinking about having domain.de, domain.com.cn, domain.es etc. Are you saying this isn't the way to go ? We were looking to host these sites in the TLD country e.g domain.de hosted in Germany.
Examples where this has worked very well is TripAdvisor.
-
Okay. That makes sense but I would stick to one TLD if you could as you can run with folders and all of the country country sites (in the folder) will inherit all of the your one TLD strenght, makes things like link building easier too.
I would strongly recommend this. We have 6 international sites now and three are TLD (before I got here) and three folders and all of the folder sites are doing so much better than the TLD - the difference is amazing.
Even if you go with the new TLD I would miss out the GD_ bit - you don't need that at all if you have a TLD and makes no sense to me. I would rather have domain.com/city-hotels/hotel-name and optimise around this. You can then have landing pages around city hotels ie berlin hotels and pull in traffic this way.
Just a thought!
-
For the new site we will be having international TLD like mydomain.de. Re the GB this is so we initially know what country the hotel is located in, and in some instances hotels have the same name, but in different countries.
-
I would 301 all of the pages - to relevant new pages otherwise you will end up with a heap of 404s too if the old content just disappears. Blogs etc will have linked to them etc, you want to make the US as good as possible.
Mapping out the 301s will take time but be worth it in the long run.
I have done a website with 500,000 pages and mapped it and it worked well.
A
-
i would only bother 301 redirecting those that had incomming links or you will have a mess on your hands.
If you take a short cut and try to 301 on mass to the one page, bing for one will just ignore them as far as link juice goes.
also up untill recenly Matt Cutts said that _ or - were a matter of choice, but now he has stated to use -, cant remember the reason.
After 301ing all pages with in-links, i would just go to google and and remove site (enter root domain). This way yopu get rid of all the old pages and aviod duplicate content.
Others will proabaly not agree. but this is how i do it. Block the site with robots.txt, then remove site in GWMT by entering the domain name in remove url.
Wait a day till its removed, then remove robots.txt block.dont woory, you need to leave a block in place for 90 days to really remove from index. doing this all the pages that still exist will be back in a few days, the rest that 404 will be removed from index.
-
Hi Tommo.
Sounds like the clean up is a great idea. I wonder if you still need the GB at all? Is this for language or country? If you are doing country/language I would have a folder for each ie
domain/en/us/title-of-hotel
You can then geo-target these to country specific areas in GWMT as well - which would be helpful.
And definitely 301 them all - this is a must.
A
-
Yes this is correct, the 301 redirect will forward all juice to the new structure and Google will find this change pretty fast.
If you have a sitemap you could also submit that map to google through webmaster tools, that would update the index faster. Good luck!
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
-
Conundrum with brand new website keywords...
I'm working with on a website for an app called BetterRX. There's a prescription card called BetterRX Card. Our domain is Better RX.com and the card is BetterRXCard.com. "Better RX" as a brand search is dominated by prescription discount cards, with Good RX being the most dominant. Any suggestions on how to go about mixing optimization for brand as well as the app?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sickle3110 -
Will google merge structured data from two pages if they have the same canonical?
Will google merge structured data from two pages if they have the same canonical? The crawler should be able to get to the tab through an ahref. The tab in question is "Cast & Crew." Thank you in advance for any insight! szmOmj8.jpg uM8qUfi.jpg
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | catbur0 -
Should I implement Structure Data Markup before implementing AMP?
I am about to implement AMP and structured data markup on my site which one should be done first?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Leebi0 -
URL Structure Question
Am starting to work with a new site that has a domain name contrived to help it with a certain kind of long tail search. Just for fictional example sake, let's call it WhatAreTheBestRestaurantsIn.com. The idea is that people might do searches for "what are the best restaurants in seattle" and over time they would make some organic search progress. Again, fictional top level domain example, but the real thing is just like that and designed to be cities in all states. Here's the question, if you were targeting searches like the above and had that domain to work with, would you go with... whatarethebestrestaurantsin.com/seattle-washington whatarethebestrestaurantsin.com/washington/seattle whatarethebestrestaurantsin.com/wa/seattle whatarethebestrestaurantsin.com/what-are-the-best-restaurants-in-seattle-wa ... or what and why? Separate question (still need the above answered), would you rather go with a super short (4 letter), but meaningless domain name, and stick the longtail part after that? I doubt I can win the argument the new domain name, so still need the first question answered. The good news is it's pretty good content. Thanks... Darcy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
Doubts with URL's structure
Hi guys i have some doubts with the correct URL structure for a new site. The question is about how show the city, the district and also the filters. I would do that: www.domain.com/category/city/disctict but maybe is better do that: **www.domain.com/category/city-district ** I also have 3 filters that are "individual/colective" "indoor/outdoor" and "young/adult" but that are not really interesting for the querys so where and how i put this filtters? At the end of the url showing these: **www.domain.com/cateogry/city/district#adult#outdoor#colective ** ? Well really i don't know what to do with the filters. Check if you could help me with that please. I also have a lof of interest in knowing if maybe is better use this combination **www.domain.com/category-city or domain.com/category/city **and know about the diference. Thank you very much!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | omarmoscatt0 -
Google is Really Slow to Index my New Website
(Sorry for my english!) A quick background: I had a website at thewebhostinghero.com which had been slapped left and right by Google (both Panda & Penguin). It also had a manual penalty for unnatural links which had been lifted in late april / early may this year. I also had another domain, webhostinghero.com, which was redirecting to thewebhostinghero.com. When I realized I would be better off starting a new website than trying to salvage thewebhostinghero.com, I removed the redirection from webhostinghero.com and started building a new website. I waited about 5 or 6 weeks before putting any content on webhostinghero.com so Google had time to notice that the domain wasn't redirecting anymore. So about a month ago, I launched http://www.webhostinghero.com with 100% new content but I left thewebhostinghero.com online because it still brings a little (necessary) income. There are no links between the websites except on one page (www.thewebhostinghero.com/speed/) which is set to "noindex,nofollow" and is disallowed to search engines in robots.txt. I made sure the web page was deindexed before adding a "nofollow" link from thewebhostinghero.com/speed => webhostinghero.com/speed Since the new website launch, I've been publishing new content (from 2 to 5 posts) daily. It's getting some traction from social networks but it gets barely any clicks from Google search. It seems to take at least a week before Google indexes new posts and not all posts are indexed. The cached copy of the homepage is 12 days old. In Google Webmaster Tools, it looks like Google isn't getting the latest sitemap version unless I resubmit it manually. It's always 4 or 5 days old. So is my website just too young or could it have some kind of penalty related to the old website? The domain has 4 or 5 really old spammy links from the previous domain owner which I couldn't get rid of but otherwise I don't think there's anything tragic.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sbrault740 -
Links from new sites with no link juice
Hi Guys, Do backlinks from a bunch of new sites pass any value to our site? I've heard a lot from some "SEO experts" say that it is an effective link building strategy to build a bunch of new sites and link them to our main site. I highly doubt that... To me, a new site is a new site, which means it won't have any backlinks in the beginning (most likely), so a backlink from this site won't pass too much link juice. Right? In my humble opinion this is not a good strategy any more...if you build new sites for the sake of getting links. This is just wrong. But, if you do have some unique content and you want to share with others on that particular topic, then you can definitely create a blog and write content and start getting links. And over time, the domain authority will increase, then a backlink from this site will become more valuable? I am not a SEO expert myself, so I am eager to hear your thoughts. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | witmartmarketing0 -
Clone sites at new company
I just came in house to our company for SEO. We have one main site and 182 that are exact duplicates and almost exact clones of the main site. It's no surprise that half of these clones are deindexed already. The meta tags are just the domain name URL. I want to add unique text on the home page to each site, fix the meta tags and switch them up so they aren't clones. Other than a huge rewrite of the code for each site, I'm not sure what else to do to prevent the rest from getting deindexed. Is there any way to prevent the rest from getting deindexed?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CFSSEO0