Website Hierarchy Question / Discussion
-
Hey all,
I am looking to get the opinions off the community to help settle a discussion / debate.
We are looking at how a site is laid out and which is the preferred method. There are two options:
- www.site.com --> /category-page --> /product-page (With this option, you always have the domain name and then page, no matter where in the site you actually are, and how many clicks it took you to get there). Your URL to the end page here would be www.site.com/product-page
- www.site.com --> /category-page --> /category-page/product-page --> (With this option, you into a defined structure). Your URL to the end page here would be www.site.com/category-page/product-page
If you have a moment, I would be interested to know your views on which you would consider to be your preferred method and why.
Thanks,
Andy
-
Thanks David & Dana,
So far, this appears to be erring towards the simple URL's.
To address your comment about moving Dana, this is only quite a small site, but I can see the benefits of looking at it in this way.
-Andy
-
I agree with David. There are really arguments for going either way. I would give one edge to this method:
www.site.com/category-page/product-page
The advantage to using this instead of the super simple URLs is when you have a really large complex site and you need to move it to another platform. From an organizational standpoint, and just knowing from looking at your URLs what "lives" where, it's much easier if your URLs echo the structure of your site. Still, there are probably some ways to cope with that too, so depending on your CMS, this might not really be a problem.
-
www.site.com/category-page/product-page
I would prefer this method, because that is what a user would expect, although it can go either way.
Using the bolded method above is better for navigation, as a user and search engine can see how the product relates to the category it placed in. Generally, URL structures like this also include breadcrumbs, allowing for a user to quickly go back to the main category page and begin a new search, if desired. Having simple navagation can increase onsite time, since it's easy to view content and products.
I can also vouch for the other method for a few reasons. Using a shortened URL is more direct, and IMO better for seo. This allows you to set up the top level or category page with anchor text links directed at the subpages or products. When one of those is clicked, the page the user lands on will be the shorter, more direct version, with a clean URL. I think Google likes this method better, as the end URL is more directly related to the product being referenced, without any pollution. (unless you are using markup for breadcrumbs).
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
-
Sitemap question
Hello, In your opinion what is better for a root domain and micro-sites using sub-domains?, to have a single sitemap for the root domain including all links to the sub-domains or to have a separate sitemap for each sub-domain? Thanks Arnold
Technical SEO | | arnoldwender0 -
Http:// to https:// 301 or 302 redirect
I've read over the Q & A in the Community, but am wondering the reasoning behind this issue. I know - 301's are permanent and pass links, and 302s are temporary (due to cache) and don't pass links. But, I've run across two sites now that 302 redirect http:// to https://. Is there a valid reason behind this? From my POV and research, the redirect should 301 if it's permanent, but is there a larger issue I am missing?
Technical SEO | | FOTF_DigitalMarketing1 -
Will combining multiple websites/brands into one Wordpress Multisite Installation hurt SEO?
My company currently operates four websites, independently of each other, a corporate website and three separate store brands. innovativemattresssolutions.com - corporate website mattressking.net sleepoutfitters.com mattresswarehouse.com All of our stores have the same branding, same TV spots, same print ads, etc across the company, we just swap out logos on all marketing pieces. It is proving nearly impossible for us to maintain four separate websites, currently on three different platforms. all four are hosted separately as of now. We would like to combine all four websites to one Wordpress Multisite installation so we can manage the pages from one place, using the same theme and even content in many places because all brands share the same info, policies, products, etc. We would set up wordpress multi using subfolders for installation and point the URL directly to resolve to the appropriate subfolder. The only site that would crosslink to the others would be the corporate website. Is this a bad idea for SEO? What other options would we have? Should we keep the corporate site on its own installation, but put the other three brands on a multisite install? Would duplicating content on the three brand pages be an issue? Less of an issue if they were not on multisite? Any insight is much appreciated.
Technical SEO | | Karrie_Beth0 -
Panda recovery timeframe question
Site was hit by Panda Aug. 22nd. Lost 90% of Google traffic. I know 🙂 We think we found a reason and made few changes to landing pages structure. Updated sitemaps submitted. When can we expect effect (if any) - few days or after next Panda data refresh? Thank you!P.S. What is also interesting, similar traffic loss from Bing/Yahoo happened at exactly the same date. Does that mean Bing is "stealing" search results from Google when can't provide their own relevant results? 🙂
Technical SEO | | LocalLocal0 -
OK to block /js/ folder using robots.txt?
I know Matt Cutts suggestions we allow bots to crawl css and javascript folders (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNEipHjsEPU) But what if you have lots and lots of JS and you dont want to waste precious crawl resources? Also, as we update and improve the javascript on our site, we iterate the version number ?v=1.1... 1.2... 1.3... etc. And the legacy versions show up in Google Webmaster Tools as 404s. For example: http://www.discoverafrica.com/js/global_functions.js?v=1.1
Technical SEO | | AndreVanKets
http://www.discoverafrica.com/js/jquery.cookie.js?v=1.1
http://www.discoverafrica.com/js/global.js?v=1.2
http://www.discoverafrica.com/js/jquery.validate.min.js?v=1.1
http://www.discoverafrica.com/js/json2.js?v=1.1 Wouldn't it just be easier to prevent Googlebot from crawling the js folder altogether? Isn't that what robots.txt was made for? Just to be clear - we are NOT doing any sneaky redirects or other dodgy javascript hacks. We're just trying to power our content and UX elegantly with javascript. What do you guys say: Obey Matt? Or run the javascript gauntlet?0 -
Question on 301s
Hi Everyone, I have a questions on 301 redirects, i hope someone can give me some help on this. There was some 301 redirects made on some of the URLs at the beginning of the year, however we are now re-structuring the whole website, which means the URLs which had been given a 301 redirect are now getting another 301. The question is, should i delete the first 301 redirect from the htaccess file? Kind Regards
Technical SEO | | Paul780 -
URL rewrite question
I have adjusted a setting in my CMS and the URL's have changed from http://www.ensorbuilding.com/section.php/43/1/firestone-epdm-rubbercover-flat-roofing to http://www.ensorbuilding.com/section/43/1/firestone-epdm-rubbercover-flat-roofing This has changed all the URL's on the website not just this example. As you can see , the .php extension has now been removed but people can still access the .php version of the page. What I want is a site-wide 301 redirect but can not figure out how to implement it? Any help is appreciated 🙂 Thanks
Technical SEO | | danielmckay70 -
New website branding, differences between http://www and http://
Hey Mozers! We will be creating another brand pretty soon with some pretty cool interactive features and before we start development of the site I was wondering if there are any pros/cons to branding the site sans the www. For example http://example123.com and http://www.example123.com. I would much prefer to brand it has http://example123.com but I just wanted to check first to see if that would have any negative SEO ramifications. It seems that it might just be a preference as I looked at Facebook and Twitter and they both do it differently, same with Groupon and LivingSocial. Looking forward to hearing from you guys!
Technical SEO | | Riggz1