Subdomain vs Subdirectory - does the content make a difference?
-
So I've read through all of the answers that suggest using a subdirectory is the best way to approach this - you rank more quickly and have all of your content on one site. BUT what if you're looking to move into a totally new market that your current site/content isn't in any way relevant to?
Some examples are Supermarkets such as Tesco (who seem to use a mix of methods) http://www.tesco.com/groceries/, http://www.clothingattesco.com/, http://www.tesco.com/bank/ which links out from their main site to http://www.tescobank.com/ etc and Sainsburys http://www.sainsburys.co.uk/ who use subdomains - here they have their grocery offering, their bank offering, clothes, phones etc split into subdomains.
If you have a product that is totally new to your Brand and different from all the products on your current site, does this change the answer to subdirectory vs subdomain?
Would be great to hear your expert opinions on this.
Thanks
-
for the subdomain to domain issue:
From a SEO perspective a subdomain is less favorable.From a user perpective: Please explain to my father the domain zoekmachinemarketing.stramark.nl how are you going to explain that there should not be a www. in front of it? how are you going to explain the fact that it is not only stramark he has to go to, but actualy the subdomain because it has a different offer?
I think young people can adapt somewhat better, but they are very used that they do not have to think. They just search from the adres bar and need the top result.
-
I agree with what John Cross said here - multiple domains means more work. If there is a business case to justify that increase in work, then that is an easier decision. If there isn't enough business case to justify the work, then maybe from an SEO standpoint you should keep it on the same domain to get the new content ranking more quickly.
Along with SEO considerations, though, there are a few other ways to break down this question...
First, what are the user expectations? Yes, the products are different and not highly related but are the customers different? In the Tesco example, would people who are interested in groceries also be interested in banking? Or, put another way, would people who are interested in groceries (but not in banking) be offended to see that this company also offers banking services? If the users are interconnected or are (at minimum) not put off by the variety of products, then why not have everything on one domain? That way you get the strong SEO benefit of using sub-directories. This isn't always a cheap investment though, as it requires a strong architecture to keep the directories and content types/voices distinct, but totally doable and a good solution from an SEO standpoint.
Second, I'd look at this from a brand perspective. Is this all the same company delivering these goods? Is it all Tesco or Sainsburys? If it is the same brand name, then why not have everything live on one authoritative domain name (assuming you aren't going to chase away customers by showing the breadth of products offered)? Google is an example of this - look at the wide variety of services they offer mail, analytics, drive, G+, search, etc. - it is all Google, even though they offer a wide range of products to a diverse range of customers. Now, if New Product A is a different brand and a really different thing from anything else being done by the company (in Google's case - Android), then that likely justifies a separate domain and a larger business investment (not just for SEO, but for design and other types of marketing too).
Finally, you do need to look at this technically I think. Chances are that Tesco Bank has to live on a different domain just because of security considerations. Some times the technology limitations have to dictate what we do with SEO. If those are great enough, then we may have to do the work to create two distinct domains and get those domains earning rankings/traffic. In that case, the business/technical needs justify the work required.
Hope that helps!
-
To optimize SEO outcomes the short answer answer would use your current domain.
However a counter argument could be you own an exact matching domain to keywords so that maybe push you to a new URL. Big marketing budget or maybe you just want a clean start - because of pigeon or panda issues plaguing teh current site.
That said using Tesco & Sainsbury as examples both have in common "big wallets". So they would have planned multi million dollar marketing campaigns around the new products/URL's. Hence they can drive backlinks. So if the company is a monster - with a massive marketing spend for the launch you may think a new brand and URL are in order.
I am old school - a brand new domain to start from scratch - new domain, no history and no backlinks is a far harder task, but certainly not unachievable. I would steer form it. Personally I believe you should try and limit new domains as practically it increases your required SEO output in this case by double. Have to review two lost of GA and Webmaster each day... So just to keep level you need to work extra hours each week with a new domain...
They are my views but there is plenty of info on moz heading the other way.
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
-
Content Strategy/Duplicate Content Issue, rel=canonical question
Hi Mozzers: We have a client who regularly pays to have high-quality content produced for their company blog. When I say 'high quality' I mean 1000 - 2000 word posts written to a technical audience by a lawyer. We recently found out that, prior to the content going on their blog, they're shipping it off to two syndication sites, both of which slap rel=canonical on them. By the time the content makes it to the blog, it has probably appeared in two other places. What are some thoughts about how 'awful' a practice this is? Of course, I'm arguing to them that the ranking of the content on their blog is bound to be suffering and that, at least, they should post to their own site first and, if at all, only post to other sites several weeks out. Does anyone have deeper thinking about this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Daaveey0 -
Subdomain Place Holder
So long story short - we are rolling out a new website earlier than expected. Unfortunately, we are being rushed and in order to make the deadline, we have decided to create a www2. subdomain and release our HTML only version of the site for the next 2 weeks. During that time, the HTML site will be ported over to a Drupal 8 instance, and resume its www. domain. My question is - will a temporary (302) from www to ww2 and then back to www screw the proverbial pooch? Is there a better way to implement a temporary site? Feel free to probe with some questions - I know I could be clearer here 😉 Thanks community!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BDS20160 -
Content position and topic modelling
Hi, Two questions here, First: Does the position of content have any impact on performance? For example say a page displays a league table (20 rows) so eats up most of the above-fold space. Would that table being top followed by content have a negative impact? Would creating 'some' content before a table help? Second: Does topic modelling actually help relevance signals? So say I sold guitars and the page had the word 'guitar' throughout the content, would including electric, acoustic, strings, amps etc also in the content help the page become more relevant for the term 'guitar'? Or would it just expand the terms the page would be eligible to show for? Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | followuk1 -
Broken sitemaps vs no sitemaps at all?
The site I am working on is enormous. We have 71 sitemap files, all linked to from a sitemap index file. The sitemaps are not up to par with "best practices" yet, and realistically it may be another month or so until we get them cleaned up. I'm wondering if, for the time being, we should just remove the sitemaps from Webmaster Tools altogether. They are currently "broken", and I know that sitemaps are not mandatory. Perhaps they're doing more harm than good at this point? According to Webmaster Tools, there are 8,398,082 "warnings" associated with the sitemap, many of which seem to be related to URLs being linked to that are blocked by robots.txt. I was thinking that I could remove them and then keep a close eye on the crawl errors/index status to see if anything changes. Is there any reason why I shouldn't remove these from Webmaster Tools until we get the sitemaps up to par with best practices?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | edmundsseo0 -
Above the Fold Content
How important is the placement of unique content "Above the Fold". Will attention grabbing images suffice or must their be a lot of unique text?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | casper4340 -
How Come Meta is different based on different query?
We have a site we added a number to in the meta description. Once we did that we did a fetch as google to hopefully recrawl the page quicker. A few days later and we cleared W3 cache on WP and clear computer cache, then did search on common search for the site/page. WidgetA for example. The url is OurClient.com/widgetA/ - on organic in meta on SERP and we see our new meta with number. We then do a search on a similar term WidgetingA for example and the same url shows: OurClient.com/widgetA/ BUT THE meta description is different on SERP! It is the old meta. When we look at the element using mozbar, it shows the new meta as it should same as when we look at it under the original search term. So, search for WidgetA, get new meta in serps and search for WidgetingA (which returns same url as WidgetA) and we get the old meta. Thoughts???
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RobertFisher0 -
Category Content Duplication
Does indexing category archive page for a blog cause duplications? http://www.seomoz.org/blog/setup-wordpress-for-seo-success After reading this article I am unsure.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEODinosaur0 -
Duplicate content - canonical vs link to original and Flash duplication
Here's the situation for the website in question: The company produces printed publications which go online as a page turning Flash version, and as a separate HTML version. To complicate matters, some of the articles from the publications get added to a separate news section of the website. We want to promote the news section of the site over the publications section. If we were to forget the Flash version completely, would you: a) add a canonical in the publication version pointing to the version in the news section? b) add a link in the footer of the publication version pointing to the version in the news section? c) both of the above? d) something else? What if we add the Flash version into the mix? As Flash still isn't as crawlable as HTML should we noindex them? Is HTML content duplicated in Flash as big an issue as HTML to HTML duplication?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alex-Harford0