Site architecture
-
Hi guys,
I have a new website in the recycling bins sector called recyclingbins (dot) co (dot) uk. We are building it as we speak and just wondered if the below would be a good choice for our category pages?
office recycling bins
kitchen recycling bins
outdoor recycling bins
school recycling bins
home recycling bins
What i am particularly interested in is whether having the keyword recycling bins at the end of every category is too much?
Thank you
Jon
-
I would aim to have the page name with the full phrase (for example www.example.com/office-recycling-bins.html) and also have the full phrase in the title tags however in the navigation I would go for Office Bins, Kitchen Bins, Outdoor Bins etc.The user is aware that site is about recycling so doesn't need to be told on each navigation label.
-
Hi Jon,
If your homepage is targetting "Recycling Bins", then your categories could be called "For Home" , "For Office".
Then you could have a page title "Recycling Bins For Home", also your breadcrumbs would look good Recycling Bins>For Home
Just adding my thoughts.
-
Hi Ryan,
Its my fault, the site will be an ecommerce site with around 100 products in 5-6 categories and a integrated blog, the blog will have all that information targeting the longer tail keywords and low competition keywords.
Each category will have between 10-20 products in and many colour variations but these will be grouped as one product with product options.
Some products will fit in more than one category.
I am thinking about a category header Called "Recycling Bins For" then underneath having the categories as:
School
Office
Home
Outdooretc.
Do you think that would be best?
Thank you
Jon
-
Without knowing a lot more information I would think a flatter architecture would be more appropriate. How many models to you have for each category? Do you plan to write articles that would apply specifically to "office" recycling bins?
I recycle myself and recently learned that I should not through pizza boxes into the recycling bin. Apparently the grease is an issue. An article can be written on the topic but it would fit best in the general "recycling bin" topic rather then any of the categories you mention. I am having a hard time thinking of any topic which would apply to only those categories. I can see "personal" and "commercial" use but not much further. It could be my lack of knowledge on the subject which is where your expertise comes in.
-
You can still target them keywords even by not including "recycling bins" in the category name.
You can optimize on each page by using meta title,content,headers etc..
-
Hey Ryan,
I guess i am trying to see how i could split the categories up to target those keywords, still be relevant to the site and not be spammy.
Ultimately i am only selling recycling bins. I could use just the first word of each suggested keyword above, but then from any seo point of view i would be struggling to rank those category pages more wouldnt i?
Thank you!
Jon
-
Those titles seem fine for pages or articles. For categories the inclusion of "recycling bins" on a site dedicated to recycling bins does seem spammy. I would especially not recommend using those titles in your navigation.
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
-
To avoid the duplicate content issue I have created new urls for that specific site I am posting to and redirecting that url to the original on my site. Is this the right way to do it?
I am trying to avoid the duplicate content issue by creating new urls and redirecting them to the original url. Is this the proper way of going about it?
On-Page Optimization | | yagobi210 -
Does no-follow for pages affect site ranking?
Hey, I have a question. On my site, it's divided into the main site and the blog is in a subfolder of same domain. Within the main site (same domain), there are MANY checkout pages and other internal pages we use though all with "NO FOLLOW" on each. Despite it having "NO FOLLOW", will it affect our blog rankings in any way or domain ranking?"
On-Page Optimization | | Mirian0 -
Multiple Organization Schema on the same site
I creating a preferred supplier list on my site and wanted to use the Organization Schema for the company details. Is there a issue with having more than one org schema on the same site? or should I just use the one for my company. Thanks in advance
On-Page Optimization | | gregdicksonuk1 -
URL Structure for Home Decorating site
Hi, I am about to launch a home decorating ideas website. I am stuck to determining the ideal URL structure, and the options are: Category: myhomedecoratingsite.com/room/master-suite/
On-Page Optimization | | adepalma
myhomedecoratingsite.com/kitchen/
myhomedecoratingsite.com/room/living
myhomedecoratingsite.com/master-suite/
myhomedecoratingsite.com/living-room/ Post: myhomedecoratingsite.com/interior/beautiful-master-suite/
myhomedecoratingsite.com/interior/cozy-living-room/
myhomedecoratingsite.com/room/master-suite/beautiful-modern-suite/
myhomedecoratingsite.com/room/living/cozy-contemporary-living Are these any good? What your best suggestion? Thanks in advance for your inputs. Al0 -
Large Site - Advice on Subdomaining
I have a large news site - over 1 million pages (have already deleted 1.5 million) Google buries many of our pages, I'm ready to try subdomaining http://bit.ly/dczF5y There are two types of content - news from our contributors, and press releases. We have had contracts with the big press release companies going back to 2004/5. They push releases to us by FTP or we pull from their server. These are then processed and published. It has taken me almost 18 months, but I have found and deleted or fixed all the duplicates I can find. There are now two duplicate checking systems in place. One runs at the time the release comes in and handles most of them. The other one runs every night after midnight and finds a few, which are then handled manually. This helps fine-tune the real-time checker. Businesses often link to their release on the site because they like us. Sometimes google likes this, sometimes not. The news we process is reviews by 1,2 or 3 editors before publishing. Some of the stories are 100% unique to us. Some are from contributors who also contribute to other news sites. Our search traffic is down by 80%. This has almost destroyed us, but I don't give up easily. As I said, I've done a lot of projects to try to fix this. Not one of them has done any good, so there is something google doesn't like and I haven't yet worked it out. A lot of people have looked and given me their ideas, and I've tried them - zero effect. Here is an interesting and possibly important piece of information: Most of our pages are "buried" by google. If I dear, even for a headline, even if it is unique to us, quite often the page containing that will not appear in the SERP. The front page may show up, an index page may show up, another strong page pay show up, if that headline is in the top 10 stories for the day, but the page itself may not show up at all - UNTIL I go to the end of the results and redo the search with the "duplicates" included. Then it will usually show up, on the front page, often in position #2 or #3 According to google, there are no manual actions against us. There are also no notices in WMT that say there is a problem that we haven't fixed. You may tell me just delete all of the PRs - but those are there for business readers, as they always have been. Google supposedly wants us to build websites for readers, which we have always done, What they really mean is - build it the way we want you to do it, because we know best. What really peeves me is that there are other sites, that they consistently rank above us, that have all the same content as us, and seem to be 100% aggregators, with ads, with nothing really redeeming them as being different, so this is (I think) inconsistent, confusing and it doesn't help me work out what to do next. Another thing we have is about 7,000+ US military stories, all the way back to 2005. We were one of the few news sites supporting the troops when it wasn't fashionable to do so. They were emailing the stories to us directly, most with photos. We published every one of them, and we still do. I'm not going to throw them under the bus, no matter what happens. There were some duplicates, some due to screwups because we had multiple editors who didn't see that a story was already published. Also at one time, a system code race condition - entirely my fault, I am the programmer as well as the editor-in-chief. I believe I have fixed them all with redirects. I haven't sent in a reconsideration for 14 months, since they said "No manual spam actions found" - I don't see any point, unless you know something I don't. So, having exhausted all of the things I can think of, I'm down to my last two ideas. 1. Split all of the PRs off into subdomains (I'm ready to pull the trigger later this week) 2. Do what the other sites do, that I believe create little value, which is show only a headline and snippet and some related info and link back to the original page on the PR provider website. (I really don't want to do this) 3. Give up on the PRs and delete them all and lose another 50% of the income, which means releasing our remaining staff and upsetting all of the companies and people who linked to us. (Or find them all and rewrite them as stories - tens of thousands of them) and also throw all our alliances under the bus (I really don't want to do this) There is no guarantee this is the problem, but google won't tell me, the google forums are crap, and nobody else has given me an idea that has helped. My thought is that splitting them off into subdomains will have a number of effects. 1. Take most of the syndicated content onto subdomains, so its not on the main domain. 2. Shake up the Domain Authority 3. Create a million 301 redirects. 4. Make it obvious to the crawlers what is our news and what is PRs 5. make it easier for Google News to understand Here is what I plan to do 1. redirect all PRs to their own subdomain. pn.domain.com for PRNewswire releases bw.domain.com for Businesswire releases etc 2. Fix all references so they use the new subdomain Here are my questions - and I hope you may see something I haven't considered. 1. Do you have any experience of doing this? 2. What was the result 3. Any tips? 4. Should I put PR index pages on the subdomains too? I was originally planning to keep them on the main domain, with the individual page links pointing to the actual release on the subdomain. Obviously, I want them only in one place, but there are two types of these index pages. a) all of the releases for a particular PR company - these certainly could be on the subdomain and not on the main domain b) Various category index pages - agriculture, supermarkets, mining etc These would have to stay on the main domain because they are a mixture of different PR providers. 5. Is this a bad idea? I'm almost out of ideas. Should I add a condensed list of everything I've done already? If you are still reading, thanks for hanging in.
On-Page Optimization | | loopyal0 -
What precaution should we take to change the default page of the site
For some reason we wanted to change the default page of my site from example.com to example.com/default.aspx. We will be using 301 redirection to get the back link benefits. Do we need to make any changes in webmaster tool and sitemap too??
On-Page Optimization | | CyrilWilson0 -
Altering site structure
I work for a business that operates several sites that were developed a very long time ago. We've been making many different changes over the past 12-18 months to improve these sites in several different ways. One area that we've never discussed or attempted is general site structure. Its pretty obvious that when the business was started they had never heard of information architecture or usability design. To make matters worse, the internal linking strategy appears to have been link everything to everything. Well after being told that it couldn't be done - I'm getting our team to say we must focus on this, if for no other reason that to help consumers figure out how to navigate through our site. Today we essentially have a series of category / information pages. In some cases, we hang more detailed topical content related to a category /informational page in a hub and spoke manner. Although remember what I said about linking everything to everything. In reality there are a series of subtopics that should been designed for every category / informational area. Instead, what happened is in some cases the subtopic is integrated into the hub or category page, in other situations is hung off the page as a spoke page and in others the subtopic isn't even covered. The plan is to standardize - each category will have 'n' subtopics (~10-12, we're still working this out). From a navigational standpoint users will be able to easily navigate both across categories as well as subtopics within a category as well as between categories within adjacent/similar subtopics. This is essentially a grid if that makes sense. The question is this - we have some keywords that do well in SEO and many many more that do not and the trend has not been our friend. We're considering keeping the URLs of the pages associated with strong keywords the same within the nav structure, even though this might mean the URL for a spoke page will be inconsistent with the spoke page name from a different category. I don't see any real danger for pages that either are not associated with any ranking keywords or only very weak keywords. Maybe I'm wrong. What things should we consider in this change? We believe that this standardization should help consumers find the information they are looking for in a much more efficient manner, so page views/visit should go up. Additionally, this prepares us for category and subtopic comparison pages and other added functionality being added in a logical manner. We also think that as we add depth about a subtopic, it will be easier for us to acquire links to our site because the subtopics within a category will appeal to different websites. This is by no means a small project. We have hundreds and hundreds of pages. Do folks think this is a worthwhile endeavor? We've spent a lot of time cleaning up H1 tags, structure of our pages, anchor tags, page load order and speed, image caching, etc. Site structure, URL length and internal link structure are essentially what is left. Once these are done we intend to really get going on better and more organized content on our site. Thoughts?
On-Page Optimization | | Allstar1 -
Best site structure for SEO
Hi, I'm currently in the process of redesigning/rebuilding a well ranking but a dated looking and structured website. Using analytics info I'm trying to put togerther an optimied site map plan for the site based on keywords. Currently the site is structured like this (a few examples) for some of its best ranking keywords / landing pages www.companyname.co.uk/frames/software/companyname-software/keyword/overview.php www.companyname.co.uk/frames/software/companyname-software/keyword/keyword.php I'd like to simplfy this as part of the re build so url's look like this www.companyname.co.uk/companyname-software/softwarecatogry/keyword Obviously I would 201 the old urls. My question is : A. is this a good idea? (From what I've read it is?) B. is there any benifit from having the company name repeated in the url (ie www.companyname.co.uk/companyname-software). My thinking before this is that companyname-software currently ranks well and brings a good amount of traffic. Or should I just go with www.companyname.co.uk/software/softwarecatogry/keyword as opposed to www.companyname.co.uk/companyname-software/softwarecatogry/keyword? Many thanks in advance!
On-Page Optimization | | JamesJacobs0