International Site Links In Footer
-
We have several international sites and we have them linked in the footer of our main .com site . Should we add "nofollow" to these links? Our concern is that Google could see these sites as a network?
-
We did consider scrapping the .com site however it does rank really well for a lot of our key terms especially in the UK. So we really just use this as a landing page which seems to work well for now.
Thanks for the feedback guys its much appreciated
Matthew
-
I've just taken a look at the optical express site, assuming this is the site you're referring to.
If if it was my client I'd remove the nofollows from the flags in the footer. I don't see any reason why you'd be penalised for linking together a set of multinational domains for a brand, and removing the nofollows will help the link juice flow around the sites.
-
On the .com site we have all the links going to the international pages as follow.
On the various international sites we have links in the footer going pointing to the other sites in each country is it also ok to have these as follow?
Or could the interlinking of the sites cause a problem?
Would it be better for us to do what IKEA have done http://www.ikea.com/ and just have one way links coming from the .com to the all the sites and remove the footer links on the other sites which link to each other?
-
I agree with Matt here. You've got a legitimate relationship with these sites, and the presence of these links will be a benefit to your visitors who may want to other countries you serve.
You may even find it beneficial to raise the profile of these other sites as showing you have a global presence may increase confidence/trust in your brand. (As with all such things you'd want to do some testing to make sure as it'll depend on your audience).
Be careful creating international gateway pages. Done badly they can lead to all kinds of problems...
-
I wouldn't nofollow these links personally, that isn't what the nofollow tag was designed for.
The nofollow tag would stop google from passing link juice through the links, but it wouldn't stop google actually following the links and figuring out the sites are connected.
If you want users to see you have international sites (which makes complete sense), include the links. But, why not make them more prominent with a country selection page similar to ikea.com or apple.com? Don't be afraid of linking together a legitimate network of sites that sit under a single brand.
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
-
Query on Site Architecture
Hi All, When I check on my ecommerce site in one of the architecture tool in that my Ecommerce Homepage interlink with 765 pages whereas when I check few competitors and big brands then there homepage linked with 28 pages, 33, 47, 57 etc not like my site 765 pages. Do I am wrong anywhere? Can you please check the screenshot of mine & one of the competitor's site architecture? Because as per me site architecture also play good role in google organic ranking. vXs5dh2 16wre
Technical SEO | | pragnesh96390 -
Lots of links from a Wiki pointing at main site
Hi everyone This may seem a bit obvious but I am getting conflicting answers on this, we have a client that has a wiki that is basically an online manual of their software. They do it like this because the manual is so big and is constantly developing, there are thousands of pages with loads of links that are pointing to various sections of relevance on the main site as well, the majority of these are No Follow but I have noticed that they have a single link on the navigation that is a direct link to their main site that is a follow link, obviously this is a sitewide. Would this be seen as being detrimental to the main site, should I have this set as No Follow as well. Thanks in Advance
Technical SEO | | Andrew_Birkitt0 -
Followed Linking Root Domains and No Followed Linking Domains
If you have more NoFollowed Linking Root Domains than Followed Linking Root Domains is that a problem?
Technical SEO | | INN0 -
301 redirecting old content from one site to updated content on a different site
I have a client with two websites. Here are some details, sorry I can't be more specific! Their older site -- specific to one product -- has a very high DA and about 75K visits per month, 80% of which comes from search engines. Their newer site -- focused generally on the brand -- is their top priority. The content here is much better. The vast majority of visits are from referrals (mainly social channels and an email newsletter) and direct traffic. Search traffic is relatively low though. I really want to boost search traffic to site #2. And I'd like to piggy back off some of the search traffic from site #1. Here's my question: If a particular article on site #1 (that ranks very well) needs to be updated, what's the risk/reward of updating the content on site #2 instead and 301 redirecting the original post to the newer post on site #2? Part 2: There are dozens of posts on site #1 that can be improved and updated. Is there an extra risk (or diminishing returns) associated with doing this across many posts? Hope this makes sense. Thanks for your help!
Technical SEO | | djreich0 -
Redirecting a old aged site to a new exact match site?
Hi All, I have a question. I have 2 sites with me in the same sector and want some help. site 1 is a old site started back in 2003 and has some amount of links to it and has a pr 3 with some good links to it but doesn't rank much for any keywords for the timing. site 2 is a aged domain but newly developed with unique content and has a good amount of exact match with a .com version. so will there be any benefit by redirecting site 1 to site 2 to get the seo benefits and a start for link bulding? or is it best to develop and work on each site? the sector is health insurance. Thanks
Technical SEO | | macky71 -
Partial Site Move -- Tell Google Entire Site Moved?
OK this one's a little confusing, please try to follow along. We recently went through a rebranding where we brought a new domain online for one of our brands (we'll call this domain 'B' -- it's also not the site linked to in my profile, not to confuse things). This brand accounted for 90% of the pages and 90% of the e-comm on the existing domain (we'll call the existing domain 'A') . 'A' was also redesigned and it's URL structure has changed. We have 301s in place on A that redirect to B for those 90% of pages and we also have internal 301s on A for the remaining 10% of pages whose URL has changed as a result of the A redesign What I'm wondering is if I should tell Google through webmaster tools that 'A' is now 'B' through the 'Change of Address' form. If I do this, will the existing products that remain on A suffer? I suppose I could just 301 the 10% of URLs on B back to A but I'm wondering if Google would see that as a loop since I just got done telling it that A is now B. I realize there probably isn't a perfect answer here but I'm looking for the "least worst" solution. I also realize that it's not optimal that we moved 90% of the pages from A to B, but it's the situation we're in.
Technical SEO | | badgerdigital0 -
Site Architecture Trade Off
Hi All I'm looking for some feedback regarding a site architecture issue I'm having with a client. They are about to enter a re-design and as such we're restructuring the site URLs and amending/ adding pages. At the moment they have ranked well off the back of original PPC landing pages that were added onto the site, such as www.company.com/service1, www.company.com/service2, etc The developer, from a developer point of view wished to create a logical site architecture with multiple levels of directories etc. I've suggested this probably isn't the best way to go, especially as the site isn't that large (200-300 pages) and that the key pages we're looking to rank should be as high up the architecture as we can make them, and that this amendment could hurt their current high rankings. It looks like the trade off may be that the client is willing to let some pages be restructured so for example, www.company.com/category/sub-category/service would be www.company.com/service. However, although from a page basis this might be a solution, is there a drawback to having this in place for only a few pages rather than sitewide? I'm just wondering if these pages might stick out like a sore thumb to Google.
Technical SEO | | PerchDigital1 -
Site links -> anchor text and blocking
1.Does anyone know where google pulls that anchor text for the organic site links? -- Is there a way to manipulate the anchor text of the sitelinks to get our more important pages to stick out more (capitalization, punctuation etc.) 2. If i block a few of my sitelinks from showing will goolge replace it with a new sitelink or will i be left with fewer? Thanks! Srs
Technical SEO | | Morris770