Microsites for Local Search / Location Based sites?
-
Referring to the webinar on SEOMoz about Local Search that was presented by Nifty Marketing (http://www.seomoz.org/webinars/be-where-local-is-going). I have a question my client asked us regarding why we broke out their locations into microsites, and not just used subfolders. So here are the details:
- The client has one main website in real estate.
- They have 5 branches.
- Each branch covers about a 50 mile radius.
- Each branch also covers a specialized niche in their areas.
- When we created the main site we incorporated the full list of listings on the main site;
- We then created a microsite for each branch, who has a page of listings (same as the main site) but included the canonical link back to the main site.
- The reason we created a microsite for each branch is that the searches for each branch are very specific to their location and we felt that having only a subfolder would take away from the relevancy of the site and it's location.
- Now, the location sites rank on the first page for their very competitive, location based searches.
- The client, as we encourage, has had recommendations from others saying this is hurting them, not helping them.
My question is this... How can this hurt them when the microsites include a home page specific to the location, a contact page that is optimized with location specific information (maps, text, directions, NAP, call to action, etc.), a page listing area information about communities/events/etc., a page of the location's agents, and of course real estate listings (with canonical back to the main site)?
Am I misunderstanding? I understood that if the main site could support the separation of a section into a microsite, this would help local search. Local search is the bread and butter of this client's conversions.
AND if you tell me we should go back to having subfolders for each location, won't that seriously hurt our already excellent rankings? The client sees significant visitors from their placement of the location URLs.
THANKS!
Darlene -
Hi Darlene,
I found your question rather interesting as I have also been looking into the entire Local SEO thing recently.
I opted to go for localised pages on the main site though:
http://www.jhbathrooms.com/showroom/stockton-on-tees
Couldn’t you rather use your microsites for back-linking purposes in an attempt to boost your main site’s DA (and pages PR)? You could probably get away with more aggressive linking techniques towards these microsites without putting your main site at risk? Or am I wrong in assuming this? I would love to see other people’s opinion on this…
I am rather an SEO newbie, only being back into SEO for about 6 months after a very long absence. Used to do SEO back in 2000-2001; remember Alta Vista and Webposition Gold anyone?Cheers
Greg
-
Darlene,
I think there are a couple of issues here that may be causing confusion. First and foremost, are the sites "microsites?" It does not sound like they are in the most exact sense. Because you are not giving an example, it is more problematic. Secondarily, it is easy in SEO to get caught up in should you or should you not do a specific thing and what are the effects of that, as if all is in a vacuum. Obviously, it is not and there is more at play than just the variables you describe.
Otherwise, if it were simple the question would be: We can build an RE Site with listings, title tags, etc. based on location such that BigCity/neighborhood/address (All - I am being simplistic for brevity only). Or we can build big city with listings in that city then build micro sites based on the neighborhoods.
If that were the case, I am going with big city and sub directories as opposed to multiple sites due to competing against myself. Also, if you are really the same company, and you are using the sites to appear as 5 different companies and be in the rankings 5 or 6 times (to "lock" others out) that would be against Google guidelines.From what you have, I would say you have this:
MainTownRESiteExample.com (This site receives all MLS listings)- I am assuming using IDX or RETS feeds for the MLS to sites. You covered your duplicate content bases for the listings by using a canonical tag for each back to the main site (and this was likely not necessary IMO if using IDX or RETS feeds)
AreaofGeoSiteA - you said each covers a niche which to me means say TownHome sales or Leasing, etc. Do you mean niche to mean geographic niche?
AreaofGeoSiteB
AreaofGeoSiteC, etc. (I am assuming there is over lap of each of the 50mile radius points. If not, and main site is city center, you are in a city larger than Houston in area.
You state: "We then created a microsite for each branch..." I am assuming therefore, that each of the "microsites" has its own physical location with its own NAP.
Most importantly, you state
The reason we created a microsite for each branch is that the searches for each branch are very specific to their location and we felt that having only a subfolder would take away from the relevancy of the site and it's location.
To this, I would say, uhhh, nope, it does not decrease the relevance of the main site in the least. Nor, would a search on neighborhood X be more or less relevant due to the whole site being neighborhood X versus being MainSite.com/neighborhood-X. Either way, what ranks in the serps is a page, not a site and that is relevant to what you say about the site. If main site has a ton of DA, and small site has OK DA, where does the page better reside?
You also state:
**I understood that if the main site could support the separation of a section into a microsite, this would help local search. **From where did you understand that? I have not heard of separating sites into locations to support local. I am not saying you are wrong, just had not heard of it.
So the big questions are: will your arrangement hurt your client and if so, how? It can end up just competing with the main site and even if it wins, why do you have the data in two places to start with? But, if you are seeing no harm and the client is ranked well for a given area, you have to walk them through how a change would take place and what might happen, etc. Then, they get to make the decision, not you. (At least in my shop that's how we do it).
For me, for real estate, I would rather use small sites for an individual listing and the big site for the mls feeds. So, while I would not do it the way you have done it, it does not mean you are not getting a result you want. I personally believe you could have done it with sub directories, but you are where you are. Again, personal preference for me is in RE to have a site for Townhomes, Single family, Condos, etc., but again, the SEO in me says you can accomplish the same with other means.
Yes, if you change back to main site, you will lose your rankings when you remove your pages but you can 301 to capture some of that juice, etc. It won't guarantee that ranking though.
When people say you are taking "power" away, I believe they mean you are competing with yourself and your efforts on one site would be better served. Not that the micro site in some way leeches from the main.
Dave is on the right track from a business perspective and I would caution rushing out and taking the sites down. But, again, having done a LOT in dating starting back in the late 90's, I can tell you the microsite in its original iteration was meant to look like a different business and be able to rank organically and in PPC five different ways. That is against the rules and will get you penalized no matter how unique the content might be.
So, I hope I helped you out a bit and let us know what you did. If the decision is to take them down, get the clients to agree to start with one and track what happens, etc. Then learn and go to number two.
Best to you and to Dave,
Robert
PS - I am a vegetarian really.
-
Power? That sounds like some SEO guru baloney. If the sites are ranking and full of high quality non-spun unique relevant content - what's the problem?
-
Thanks Dave,
They aren't really complaining. It's more of the advice that's being offered to them by other parties. Other's are saying that I'm taking "power" away from the main site by using these smaller sites.
But...these smaller sites are pretty substantial in their own right. I believe that keeping them as microsites is the better way for local search.
Like Dave said, ANY info from anyone else is greatly appreciated.
-
I've done a TON of research on this to get Google's opinion and the only thing I could find was this:
As long as the new site has unique and relevant content it is not considered spam.
I've probably spent over 20 hours researching this EXACT topic and that was the best I could find in terms of spam vs not spam.
Another route to take is to create relevant content on the main site specific to each location. Perhaps you can create 1 page for the location with the NAP, site manager etc. and then another page off of that page that lists that specific location's directions and then another page off of that page that lists the reviews for that location. That gives you 3 unique relevant pages and 3 new Title tags. You can target the main city on the main page with the NAP info, a sub-city on one of the review pages and another sub-city on the direction page. I suppose this method is more "whitehat" but who really knows.
If the client has good rankings in all of those cities with your microsites what are they complaining about? Fear of a penalty?
If anyone else has ANY info on this I would LOVE to know as well!
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
-
Domain has been redirected our site; but many incoming links from sub domain. Will this hurts?
Hi all, This is the scenario: Our website is newwebsite.com. Our old website is oldwebsite.com which has been redirected to newwebsite.com (years back). But one of the old website's sub domain has a lot of back links to our current website like: seo.oldwebsite.com to newwebsite.com. Will this scenario hurts with any wrong linking? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Search Results Above Adwords
Hi, Can anyone help me in understanding the results which are appearing above adwords in the screenshot below. These are the knowledge graph results or something else. strip_zpsmxsufx55.png.html
Algorithm Updates | | SameerBhatia0 -
Indexing of Search Pages
I have a question on indexing search pages of an ecommerce or any website. I read Google doesn't recommend this and sites shouldn't allow indexing of their search pages. I recently attended an SEO event (BrightonSEO) and one of the talks was on search pages and how big players like eBay, Amazon do index their search pages. In fact, it is a core part of the pages that are indexed. eBay has to do it, as their product pages are on a time frame and Amazon only allows certain category search pages to be indexed. Reviewing my competitors, they are indexing search pages and this is why they have thousands and millions of web pages indexed. What are your thoughts? I thought search pages were too dynamic (URL strings) and they wouldn't have a unique page title, meta description or rich content to act as a well optimised page. Am I missing a trick here? Cyto
Algorithm Updates | | Bio-RadAbs0 -
Google indexing site content that I did not wish to be indexed
Hi is it pretty standard for Google to index content that you have not specifically asked them to index i.e. provided them notification of a page's existence. I have just been alerted by 'Mention' about some new content that they have discovered, the page is on our site yes and may be I should have set it to NO INDEX but the page only went up a couple of days ago and I was making it live so that someone could look at it and see how the page was going to look in its final iteration. Normally we go through the usual process of notifying Google via GWMT, adding it to our site map.xml file, publishing it via our G+ stream and so on. Reviewing our Analytics it looks like there has been no traffic to this page yet and I know for a fact there are no links to this page. I am surprised at the speed of the indexation, is it a example of brand mention? Where an actual link is now no longer required? Cheers David
Algorithm Updates | | David-E-Carey0 -
Panda / Penguin Behavior ? Recovery?
Our site took a major fall on March 23rd, ie Panda 3.4 and then another smaller one on April 24th, ie Penguin. I have posted a few times in here trying get help on what items to focus on. Been doing this for 13 years, white hat, never chased algos but of course learned as I went. As soon as the fall hit one expert said it was links, which I kinda doubted because we never went after them but we have some but only a handful in comparison to really good authorative links. I concentrated on cleaning up duplicate content due to tags in a blog that only had 7 posts (an add on section to the site) then focuses efforts on just going through and making content better. Had other overlapping content that I would guess would pass inspection but I cleaned it up. After 6 weeks no movement back up, another expert here said yes, he saw some bad links so I should check it out. So back to focusing on links, I actually run a report and discover questionable links, and successfully get about 25 removed. Low numbers but we have only about 50 that were questionable. No contact info on the other directories so I guess we are stuck. Here is where I just go in circles... When our site fell on March 23rd we had 13 of our main pages still ranking at number 1 and 2 on each keyword phrase. Penguin hit and they fell about 10 spots. EXCEPT, one... This one keyword phrase and page stayed on top and ranked at #1 throught he storm. (finally fell to #4 but still remains up there). The whole site is down 90%, we only have 3 fair keyword phrases really ranking out of 250. The mystery is that the keyword phrase that was ranking was the one that supposedly had way over the % of anchor text, 7% of our links go to that page. The other pages that fell on Penguin had no pages linking back. I have been adding blog posts to our site, I post one an in a few days it gets indexed, have one of those ranking at #2 for the keyword, moved up from #4 a week after posting it in the blog. (google searches shows 80K) Just seems like the site should bounce back if new content is able to rank, why not the old? Did other people hit by Panda and Penguin see a sitewide fall or are they still ranking for some terms? I would love to see some discusson on success stories of bouncing back after Panda and Penguin. I see the WP success story but that was pretty sudden after it was brought to Google's attention. Looking for that small business that fixed something and saw improvement. Give me hope here please.
Algorithm Updates | | Force70 -
Google showing different pages for same search term in uk and usa
Hi Guys, I have an interesting question and think Google is being a bit strange.. Can anyone tell me why when I input the term design agency in Google.co.uk it shows one page, but when i tyupe in the same search term in Google.com (worldwide search) it shows another page.. Any ideas guys? Is this not bit strange?? Any help here be much appreciated.. Thanks Gareth
Algorithm Updates | | GAZ090 -
What is the most reliable source for search engine market share?
I would like to look at data or sources to get the most accurate measure I can on search engine market share. Does anyone have reliable sources on search engine volume/market share etc?
Algorithm Updates | | MarloSchneider0 -
Local SEO url format & structure: ".com/albany-tummy-tuck" vs ".com/tummy-tuck" vs ".com/procedures/tummy-tuck-albany-ny" etc."
We have a relatively new site (re: August '10) for a plastic surgeon who opened his own solo practice after 25+ years with a large group. Our current url structure goes 3 folders deep to arrive at our tummy tuck procedure landing page. The site architecture is solid and each plastic surgery procedure page (e.g. rhinoplasty, liposuction, facelift, etc.) is no more than a couple clicks away. So far, so good - but given all that is known about local seo (which is a very different beast than national seo) quite a bit of on-page/architecture work can still be done to further improve our local rank. So here a a couple big questions facing us at present: First, regarding format, is it a given that using geo keywords within the url indispustibly and dramatically impacts a site's local rank for the better (e.g. the #2 result for "tummy tuck" and its SHENANIGANS level use of "NYC", "Manhattan", "newyorkcity" etc.)? Assuming that it is, would we be better off updating our cosmetic procedure landing page urls to "/albany-tummy-tuck" or "/albany-ny-tummy-tuck" or "/tummy-tuck-albany" etc.? Second, regarding structure, would we be better off locating every procedure page within the root directory (re: "/rhinoplasty-albany-ny/") or within each procedure's proper parent category (re: "/facial-rejuvenation/rhinoplasty-albany-ny/")? From what I've read within the SEOmoz Q&A, adding that parent category (e.g. "/breast-enhancement/breast-lift") is better than having every link in the root (i.e. completely flat). Third, how long before google updates their algorithm so that geo-optimized urls like http://www.kolkermd.com/newyorkplasticsurgeon/tummytucknewyorkcity.htm don't beat other sites who do not optimize so aggressively or local? Fourth, assuming that each cosmetic procedure page will eventually have strong link profiles (via diligent, long term link building efforts), is it possible that geo-targeted urls will negatively impact our ability to rank for regional or less geo-specific searches? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | WDeLuca0