Site architecture & breadcrumbs
-
Hi
A client hasn't structured site architecture in a silo type format so breadcrumbs are not predicating in a topical hierarchy as one would desire (or at least i think one would prefer)
For example: say the site is called www.fruit.com and it has a category called 'types of fruit' and then sub/content pages called things like 'apples' and 'pears'. So in terms of architecture that should be: www.fruit.com/types-of-fruit/apples and www.fruit.com/types-of-fruit/pears etc etc
The client has kept it all flat so instead architecture is: www.fruit.com/types-of-fruit and www.fruit.com/apples and www.fruit.com/pears
As a result breadcrumbs follow suit and hence since also not employing logical predication dont reflect the topical & sub-topical hierarchy
I have seen that some seo's at least used to think this was better for seo since kept the page/s nearer the root but surely its better to structure site architecture in a logical topical hierarchy so long as dont go beyond say 3 or 4 directories/forward slashes in the url's?
Also is it theoretically possible to keep url structure as is (flat) and just edit/customise the breadcrumbs to reflect a topical hierarchy in a silo structure rather than change the entire site architecture & required 301'ing etc in order to do this (or is that misleading or just not possible?)
Cheers
Dan
-
Hi Dan,
Well that will probably make it easier actually...
If you are using the Yoast plugin then it can produce breadrumbs which are pretty flexible and you can also manually add canonicals for individual pages. In that case I would think just set up the breadcrumbs as you like and if it makes sense choose a main category for any pages in multiple categories and canonical to the main one. Test to confirm, but I would think you might be able to do it without getting your hands into the code at all! The canonical tags themselves shouldn't effect the breadcrumbs in any way, so you should be good to go.
-
HI Lynn
In this particular case it is not actually although thats great info thanks very much for sharing, Everett is great i always refer to his posts/advice whenever i have an ecommerce project.
In this case my client i'm talking about is a music education establishment with many different courses and the site is in Wordpress, any ideas if possible to edit breadcrumbs in wordpress ?
Cheers
Dan
-
Hi Dan,
Just to confirm something that came to mind, is this for an ecom site with the potential to have products in multiple categories? If this is the case it is quite common to canonical the individual product pages to the root (or Everett Sizemore recommends to a standard /product/ or similar url which is also good for analytics filtering, check this video: http://moz.com/webinars/ecommerce-seo-fix-and-avoid-common-issues). If this is the case then depending on your cms it can be tricky to get the breadcrumbs to be created when people are directly hitting the single product page from a social share or other direct link.
It is possible though! I have had success with custom breadcrumb coding in Magento where if the single product page is directly accessed the breadcrumb will be created based on the products 'main category' and this has worked well in some situations. Again depends if you are talking ecommerce and which cms system you are using as to how tricky it will be.
-
Hi Jarno & Lynn,
Thank you both for taking the time to respond !
Yes i agree i think this logical structure is best since helps search engines AND the users better understand the content since its associated with other immediately related content too both in terms of semantic relationship & close architectural proximity. This is also reinforced by good internal linking provided by breadcrumbs (which do help contribute to rankings in part since contributes to setting relevance of the pages content and its context).
I think in the case of a single item of content needing to be in more than one folder then maybe in that kind of scenario its better to have the content page 'off the root' and canonicalised to avoid duplicate content issues from displaying it in the 2 different category folders it will also be displayed in. Then so long as you have breadcrumbs (which from Lynns comments looks like you can edit/customise for the 2 different paths) you still benefit from the logical hierarchy and internal linking beneficial for both users and engines.
Although i must confess since i'm not that technical i don't know this for a fact and welcome the view of others to clarify/confirm. So does having the canonicalised page off the root stop engines seeing the silo structure therby defeating the purpose of this suggested solution OR would they still see the other page instances & associate it with the path but just not penalise it for being duplicate (since the page 'off the root' is the canonical version) hence is a good solution ??
All Best
Dan
-
Hi Jarno & Lynn,
Thank you both for taking the time to respond !
Yes i agree i think this logical structure is best since helps search engines AND the users better understand the content since its associated with other immediately related content too both in terms of semantic relationship & close architectural proximity. This is also reinforced by good internal linking provided by breadcrumbs (which do help contribute to rankings in part since contributes to setting relevance of the pages content and its context).
I think in the case of a single item of content needing to be in more than one folder then maybe in that kind of scenario its better to have the content page 'off the root' and canonicalised to avoid duplicate content issues from displaying it in the 2 different category folders it will also be displayed in. Then so long as you have breadcrumbs (which from Lynns comments looks like you can edit/customise for the 2 different paths) you still benefit from the logical hierarchy and internal linking beneficial for both users and engines.
Although i must confess since i'm not that technical i don't know this for a fact and welcome the view of others to clarify/confirm. So does having the canonicalised page off the root stop engines seeing the silo structure therby defeating the purpose of this suggested solution OR would they still see the other page instances & associate it with the path but just not penalise it for being duplicate (since the page 'off the root' is the canonical version) hence is a good solution ??
All Best
Dan
-
Hi Dan,
I don't really think that the existence or lack of the category on the url is going to be a major problem for ranking as long as other factors are lining up. As Jarno says though, it has an effect on how human users view the url, influencing perhaps how they share it and there is also a data analysis issue where it might be nice to be able to filter by category name in analytics etc to get a more detailed overview by various categories separately.
Whether to change the url structure is up to you and depends on a number of factors including CMS used, man hours needed etc. Depending on the complexity, I would probably be inclined to do it if it helps make the urls more readable for humans. In regards your second question, it is certainly technically possible to make a custom breadcrumb trail. Whether it would have an effect on rankings or not is debatable, but again it would certainly help make the site more easily browsed for real people.
-
Dan,
i get what you are saying and as a matter of fact I'm currently involved in a test about this subject on a clients page. Putting files up as near to the root as possible and putting files in special folders and measuring the ranking capability and effectiveness of those pages.
However, for makeup of the URL I would prefer the folder version (domain/folder/file) since that looks more natural to me.
And there is always the fact of duplicate pages in that case. For instance, I've just written a plan for a new website in the netherlands. This website will enlist different kind of companies in different categories per province. So the same category gets to exist in the province Groningen but also in Drenthe.
Therefor I need to use: domainname/Groningen/Category/filename.
Do you feel that that's the best decision on this case? I will net you know about my test as soon as I see some results.
regards
Jarno
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
-
How important is AMP?
I have a client site with 200+ landing pages. We implemented AMP and many of the pages lost a lot of key elements including, sidebars, Calls to Action and footers. Our developer claims that we need to customize each of the 200+ pages for AMP to show those things (don't 100% believe him). So the questions are: a. How important is AMP? if we dump AMP will that hurt us? The site is already mobile friendly and clean, loads fast.
Technical SEO | | dk7
b.Does it sound fishy that he says each page needs to be cusotomized to show sidebar, footer content, CTAs?0 -
Partner Sites
Hi All, Within our company we have a media group that publishes magazines and videos, the sites have footers that link to our shopping site, one of them has 118,459 links to one URL, domain authority 23, and the other 17,726 to seven URLs, domain authority 52, (there are some articles which link organically). My question is are these links because they're from identifiable companies with the same ownership worth keeping or are they detrimental? The site being linked to has a DA of 39 Cheers Stew
Technical SEO | | StewMcG0 -
301 Multiple Sites to Main Site
Over the past couple years I had 3 sites that sold basically the same products and content. I later realized this had no value to my customers or Google so I 301 redirected Site 2 and Site 3 to my main site (Site 1). Of course this pushed a lot of page rank over to Site 1 and the site has been ranking great. About a week ago I moved my main site to a new eCommerce platform which required me to 301 redirect all the url's to the new platform url's which I did for all the main site links (Site 1). During this time I decided it was probably better off if I DID NOT 301 redirect all the links from the other 2 sites as well. I just didn't see the need as I figured Google realized at this point those sites were gone and I started fearing Google would get me for Page Rank munipulation for 301 redirecting 2 whole sites to my main site. Now I am getting over 1,000 404 crawl errors in GWT as Google can no longer find the URL's for Site 2 and Site 3. Plus my rankings have dropped substantially over the past week, part of which I know is from switching platforms. Question, did I make a mistake not 301 redirecting the url's from the old sites (Site 2 and Site 3) to my new ecommerce url's at Site 1?
Technical SEO | | SLINC0 -
Site Ranking Ahead of Us - Why?
I don't want to give details, but a competitor's site ranks ahead of us by a spot or 2 for some of our major keywords, and we can't figure out why. We have more content indexed, we have better content (my opinion), we're better optimized, we have significantly better MozRank and Majestic rankings, we have more links, we have better links. They have a plain Jane Wordpress blog, and their pages don't even have 300 characters. They don't have any awesome links. There are plenty of other sites besides ours that should outrank them. When I am using the various tools at my disposal, I can see why a competitor outranks us. I'm not obsessing, but this one, I just don't understand. Has anyone had this experience?
Technical SEO | | CsmBill0 -
Does Site Structure Affect Google
Hi - I'm pretty new at this. We’re running an e-commerce affiliate site at http://www.mydomain.com. So we don’t take payments but customer gets passed through to third party sites when they select to buy a product. We have a blog at http://www.mydomain.com/news. I think Google is treating these 2 sites as as separate sites for PR. For this reason we're thinking about moving this to http://news.mydomain.com. Anyone have any experience in this?
Technical SEO | | richardjoseph0 -
Google Custom Site Search
I am an admin on a google custom site search account. I am also the owner of a verified webmaster tools account for the same site. The Custom Search control panel will not let me add URL's or a Site map for on demand indexing, but says "you must submit a sitemap of your own verified sites". Has anyone else has this issue? Does the Owner of the custom search account have to be the owner of the webmaster account, or can the logged in admin be? Thanks
Technical SEO | | SEMPassion0 -
What to do next with my site gamblingsites.co
So I have this site gamblingsites.co, which I launched about a year ago (I think.) This used to be internetgamblingsites.net (a domain I bought, but never managed to get in the index, and it appeared to violate the T/Cs after asking in GWMT) and before that the site used to be casinowarehouse.eu. After moving to gamblingsites.co, the pages were indexed almost instantly. I kept a 301 in place until today as I had some links pointing to internetgamblingsites.net. Now, until a few weeks ago, everything was fine. The site was ranking top 10 for gambling sites (8-10) and I had some traffic everyday. This site wasn't my top priority, so besides adding new unique content, I didn't do much with it. In each case no shady link building or what-so-ever. On February first of this year, however, it lost all of its rankings, and I have no idea why. Much worse site appear in the top 50, where a sub page of my site appears somewhere on the 9th SERP for keyword 'gambling sites.' Last week I started contacting some people and asked them to update my links. I also used my own sites (all on unique hosting accounts) to build some branded links, i.e. 'GamblingSites.co' and similar terms to down tune the exact match. I also decreased the instances of the exact match on the homepage, to avoid over optimization. Finally, I removed the 301 from internetgamblingsites.net, since the better links have been changed (or are about to get changed soon.) Now, couple of days later... no changes, but it's probably to early to judge. My question to you: "What would you do next, to try to save the site and at least get some traffic to it?" Thank you for your help, Giorgio PS: Feel free to ask for more information.
Technical SEO | | VisualSense0 -
New Site Search Critique
Hi I am a huge fan of the SEOMOZ site and this great community which has helped me learn the current SEO skills I have now which are still very basic compared to the pros on the forum. I have tried to follow best practice regarding onsite and technical seo when developing my new site www.cheapfindergames.com and I would really appreciate it if experts on the forum could spare a minute to critique the site from a search perspective please This will give any elements of what onsite and technical SEO I done well and what aspects still need work. I am currently trying to build quality links and social mentions into the site which will take time, and the site has been designed around usability and conversions. Many Thanks Ian
Technical SEO | | ocelot0