DropDown Menu with 175 links in headers, Can it hurt SEO?
-
I'm planning to add a dropdown menu in my online store header.
The dropdown menu will have about 175 options with 175 internal links to different products.
Can it hurt my SEO for aving more then 175 internal links on my header.
This header will be on every pages.
Thank you,
BigBlaze
-
Thank you for your help.
How about using the TOP horizontal menu with this options:
1 inch thick filter
2 inches thick filters
4 inches thick filters
5 inches thick filterseach option in the menu with a dropdown menu and 30 sizes option.
example:
1 inch filter>>20x20x1 furnace filterswhen selecting 20x20x1, the will land on a page with a product option and select the options quality they want to buy.
QUESTIONS:
- all my products descriptions are the same, the only difference is the filter size.
[u][b]Shopper are searching for there furnace filters sizes first[/b][/u], then they will select the quality options.
Do you have any suggestions on How to improve my site architecture?
this is the store: http://www.furnacefilterscanada.com
I'm planning to have a BIG search box in the heade where the shopper can enter is filter sizes.
ex: 20x20x1
Thank you for your help,
BigBlaze
-
how about a page like this:
-
I need a clear solution.
We are investing in a new header design and I thought to use one big drop down menu with all the furnace filters sizes was the solution.
Buyer are having a hard time to find there furnace filters sizes on our online store.
If you visit the store: http://www.furnacefilterscanada.com
you will see categories on the left, I would like to improve this and make it easer faster for the buyer to find is filter size.
The part I need to improve is the categories:
5 inches
4 inches
2 inches
1 inches
Those categories represent 95% of our products sales.
Evry furnace filters sizes on our store is avaliable in 3 or 4 differents qualities.
So, when searching for a 20x20x1 furnace filters for example, you have 3 options.
SOLUTION: How about designing a large ''SEARCH BOX'' in the header where the shoppers type is furnace filter size...
Could it be a solution?
Thank you,
BigBlaze
-
I am usually an advocate for "lots of links on a page".... however, in this case I think that 175 links is excessive.
I would reduce the 175 into a few categories and then make beautiful category pages with wonderful images that entice people to drill down. These category pages might rank in the SERPs for lots of diverse terms related to their content.
I would use this as an opportunity to expand my longtail keyword reach.
-
Having that many links in your global nav can hurt you from an SEO perspective. You're diluting the link authority that any given page is able to pass to another page by splitting it across 175 links - and that's before you get to links in the body copy, right nav, left nav, and footer. Essentially, you'll have a site with a large number of pages that each have a tiny amount of link authority. It's great for indexation, but bad for ranking.
Unless you're operating in keyword markets where a tiny amount of link authority is all that's necessary to compete for the super long-tail phrases you're targeting, that means that most of your pages will be unable to compete for shorter-tail terms.
You have to prioritize those 175 links and think about the business value of each of the pages that you're linking to, and the competitiveness of the keyword market that each page addresses.
- If you have lots of lucrative head terms in that 175, but you know you won't be able to rank for the foreseeable future because they're so competitive, eliminate them from the global nav.
- Similarly, if you have lots of obscure long-tail terms in the 175, you may be able to rank very well immediately, but the page will only get one visit per month, even with a #1 ranking. Eliminate those as well. .
Balance the conversion value of each page with its ability to rank for the term. The terms that strike that balance deserve to be in your global nav.
And think about this from your users' perspectives as well - 175 links in a global nav is a usability nightmare, and will cost you sales down the road, because your users will be overwhelmed. There's a saying in conversion rate optimization that "by emphasizing everything, you emphasize nothing." 175 links fits that description.
Hope that helps!
-
We have a "mega menu" that also has a lot, lot of links as part of the drop down. I agree with ThreeDesign - the user experience is very questionable (which is why we are moving from that format). I don't know how much those thing "hurt" SEO anymore - it used to matter but the popular opinion has trended away from it. However it's not a best practice by any stretch so the question is what's the value and is it worth it?
-
Ouch! Our first thought is that having a lot of choices sounds ugly and frustrating, from a user experience side. Remember you don't want to give your customer too many options, you want to guide them through the process and watch them through a conversion funnel.
Why don't you just create landing pages and add those to the header?
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
-
Internal no follow links
I have just discovered that the WordPress theme I have been using for some time has no follow internal links on the blog. Simply put each post has an image and text link plus a 'read more'. The Read more is a no-follow which is also on my homepage. The developer is saying duplicate follow links are worse than an internal no follow. What is your opinion on this? Should I spend time removing the no follow?
Technical SEO | | Libra_Photographic0 -
Acquired domains for SEO
hi there, For one of our insurance websites we acquired a domain, this domain is going to be redirected to our domain. After some research we discovered the domain we've bought also includes other domains which 301 redirect to specific 'insurance products'. These domains are also included in the deal. But what is the best technical solution for redirecting these specific redirected product domains? They already redirect to the product pages of the domain we've bought, so after redirect this domain, the sub (product) redirected domains will also link to us. It would be like this: A) www.sub-carinsurancesite.nl (301) -> www.domain-we-bought.com/car-insurance -> www.ourdomain.com/car-insurance
Technical SEO | | remkoallertz
B) www.sub-carinsurancesite.nl (301) -> www.ourdomain.com/car-insurance & www.domain-we-bought.com/car-insurance -> www.ourdomain.com/car-insurance etc0 -
Some SEO 2016 questions
Hello MOZ Community, I have some questions where the following is still working for seo in 2016: Is an exact keyword in the domain still a good start? If a domain contains the most important keyword does one still need subfolders with that keyword in the url? Do you need multiple subpages so the main url becomes stronger? Is linkbuilding still the number one factor? Thank you for your thoughts!
Technical SEO | | mhenze0 -
Can Anybody Understand This ?
Hey guyz,
Technical SEO | | atakala
These days I'm reading the paperwork from sergey brin and larry which is the first paper of Google.
And I dont get the Ranking part which is: "Google maintains much more information about web documents than typical search engines. Every hitlist includes position, font, and capitalization information. Additionally, we factor in hits from anchor text and the PageRank of the document. Combining all of this information into a rank is difficult. We designed our ranking function so that no particular factor can have too much influence. First, consider the simplest case -- a single word query. In order to rank a document with a single word query, Google looks at that document's hit list for that word. Google considers each hit to be one of several different types (title, anchor, URL, plain text large font, plain text small font, ...), each of which has its own type-weight. The type-weights make up a vector indexed by type. Google counts the number of hits of each type in the hit list. Then every count is converted into a count-weight. Count-weights increase linearly with counts at first but quickly taper off so that more than a certain count will not help. We take the dot product of the vector of count-weights with the vector of type-weights to compute an IR score for the document. Finally, the IR score is combined with PageRank to give a final rank to the document. For a multi-word search, the situation is more complicated. Now multiple hit lists must be scanned through at once so that hits occurring close together in a document are weighted higher than hits occurring far apart. The hits from the multiple hit lists are matched up so that nearby hits are matched together. For every matched set of hits, a proximity is computed. The proximity is based on how far apart the hits are in the document (or anchor) but is classified into 10 different value "bins" ranging from a phrase match to "not even close". Counts are computed not only for every type of hit but for every type and proximity. Every type and proximity pair has a type-prox-weight. The counts are converted into count-weights and we take the dot product of the count-weights and the type-prox-weights to compute an IR score. All of these numbers and matrices can all be displayed with the search results using a special debug mode. These displays have been very helpful in developing the ranking system. "0 -
"One Page With Two Links To Same Page; We Counted The First Link" Is this true?
I read this to day http://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-one-page-two-links-page-counted-first-link-192718 I thought to myself, yep, thats what I been reading in Moz for years ( pitty Matt could not confirm that still the case for 2014) But reading though the comments Michael Martinez of http://www.seo-theory.com/ pointed out that Mat says "...the last time I checked, was 2009, and back then -- uh, we might, for example, only have selected one of the links from a given page."
Technical SEO | | PaddyDisplays
Which would imply that is does not not mean it always the first link. Michael goes on to say "Back in 2008 when Rand WRONGLY claimed that Google was only counting the first link (I shared results of a test where it passed anchor text from TWO links on the same page)" then goes on to say " In practice the search engine sometimes skipped over links and took anchor text from a second or third link down the page." For me this is significant. I know people that have had "SEO experts" recommend that they should have a blog attached to there e-commence site and post blog posts (with no real interest for readers) with anchor text links to you landing pages. I thought that posting blog post just for anchor text link was a waste of time if you are already linking to the landing page with in a main navigation as google would see that link first. But if Michael is correct then these type of blog posts anchor text link blog posts would have value But who is' right Rand or Michael?0 -
SEO Redirect
If we have several hundred domain names currently using a park page, would we be better served having them redirect to our corporate homepage for SEO purposes?
Technical SEO | | mkessler0 -
We registered with Yahoo Directory. Why won't this show up as a a linking root domain in our link analysis??
Recently checked our link analysis report for 2 of our campaigns who are registered in the dir.yahoo.com (yahoo directory). For some reason, we don't see this being a domain that shows up as linking to our website - why is this?
Technical SEO | | MMP0 -
Drop Down Menu as Pagination
Hi, We currently use a drop down menu option for our paginated pages using JavaScript, what would be the best search engine friendly way around this?
Technical SEO | | CameronT0