Representing categories on my site
-
My site serves a consumer-focused industry that has about 15-20 well recognized categories, which act as a pretty obvious way to segment our content. Each category supports it's own page (with some useful content) and a series of articles relevant to that category. In short, the categories are pretty focal to what we do.
I am moving from DNN to WordPress as my CMS/blog. I am taking the opportunity to review and fix SEO-related issues as I migrate. One such area is my URL structure.
On my existing site (on DNN), I have the following types of pages for each topic:
/ <topic>- this is essentially the landing page for the topic and links to articles</topic>
/<topic>/articles/ <article-name>- topics have 3-15 articles with this URL structure</article-name></topic>
With WordPress, I am considering moving to articles being under the root. So, an article on (making this up) how to make a widget would be under /how-to-make-a-widget, instead of /<widgets>/article/how-to-make-a-widget I will be using WordPress categories to reflect the topics taxonomy, so I can flag my articles using standard WordPress concepts.</widgets>
Anyway, I'm trying to get my head around whether it makes sense to "flatten" my URL structure such that the URLs for each article no longer include the topic (the article page will link to the topic page though).
Thoughts?
-
Note: I didn't understand your comment that tags should be mutually exclusive. If I have an article about saving money on flowers, why would I not tag that with both "budgeting" and "flowers"?
You absolutely would want to tag the article with both "money" and "flowers". Mutually exclusive means there should be no overlap in the meaning of two tags, in this example, "money" and "flowers". Clearly these two tags reference different topics. An example of undifferentiated or non-mutually exclusive tags would be "money" and "cash", or "flower". "flowers" and "flowering".
All articles belong to one and only one category, as implied by their URL structure. This creates some challenges because some articles may have some relevance to more than one category but I think I can live with this
You could actually replicate the article in more than one category, but you'd have to pick one as the primary and tag the other as canonical. Hopefully this would the exception as opposed to the rule.
Am I making sense?
Absolutely. Good plan.
-
This absolutely helps - a lot Thank you, Donna.
So, I am narrowing in on the following:
-
Navigation (across the site) links to four or so "topic" pages, which are flagged as categories in WordPress. These would be something like "Planning", "Your Wedding Day", "Love and Marriage", etc. They are the "big buckets"
-
I have tags like cakes, dresses, rings, guests, etc. Note: I didn't understand your comment that tags should be mutually exclusive. If I have an article about saving money on flowers, why would I not tag that with both "budgeting" and "flowers"?
-
Articles
-
All articles belong to one and only one category, as implied by their URL structure. This creates some challenges because some articles may have some relevance to more than one category but I think I can live with this
-
URLs would be of the form <category>. So, for example \your-wedding-day\choosing-your-wedding-ring</category>
-
I can flag articles with one or more tags
-
For each of category
-
The term I expose on the page (visually) will be "human friendly". What I mean by that is I will use a natural terminology that reads well and is NOT focused on SEO-specifically. So, the navigation menu might simply be "Planning" (as opposed to "Wedding Planning", given that the whole site is about wedding)
-
The URL to the category page will be SEO-friendly (so, \wedding-planning, not just \planning)
-
The category page will be SEO "aware" (decent title, keyword focused, etc) but also a darned good read for the visitors (quality of content being a factor in SEO anyway)
-
The thinking here is that the URL relays the essence of the page for URL but I don't need to clutter the visual expression of this (what the visitor sees) by prepending "Wedding..." to everything.
Am I making sense?
Thank you again.
Mark
-
-
Yes, your thinking is correct.
Don't rush it. (And I see you aren't.) Map out your information architecture carefully cause, as you know, it's difficult to change after-the-fact.
I'd use the big, broad terms as categories and the topics as tags (which should definitely be noindexed). Your categories seem to be related to where you are in the wedding process - engagement, wedding service, reception, honeymoon, follow-ups. Tags seem to be specific to products, vendors and services and tools e.g. hair, dress and makeup, photographers, officiants, and DJs, invitations, speeches, songs, and so on. Tags can span different stages in the process but are mutually exclusive.
I hate to share stuff I've written on Moz in case it gets interpreted as link planting, but in this case I really think this post might help (www.b-seenontop.com/seo-blog/how-to-pick-blog-categories-and-tags/). This one from WPBeginer is also quite good. (http://www.wpbeginner.com/beginners-guide/categories-vs-tags-seo-best-practices-which-one-is-better/).
Does that help? You're definitely on the right path.
-
Thank you, Donna. So, I've been doing some more thinking about this and it's a difficult balance. I have two ways to look at the whole issue.
- Through the aforementioned "big buckets", such as Planning, Looking Good, Your Wedding Day, etc. I see 4, maybe 5, of these.
- Through the "topics" (cakes, dresses, etc). We have quite a number of those.
The first one is best suited as the second tier ("folders" under the root) numerically - there are, say, 4 of them. However, they are pretty broad and I don't know how successful we'd be in what are very competitive SEO areas (wedding planning, for example, is right up there). Also, apart from the article/post lists (which would be featured in those pages), I am not sure how often they would change.
The second ones are more specific, but are numerically probably too broad for the second level. But the
So, still not sure how to structure this. But one thing I would like to clarify is that if I go with the former (big, broad areas) then having them as second-level entities is no worse, presumably, than just having /blog at the second level, right? It would seem to me that /blog has very little SEO value, whereas even something broad like /wedding-planning has at least some value, right?
Thanks.
Mark
-
Hey Mark,
Yes, "flat" IS confusing. I'm very concrete. When I hear "flat" I picture a plank. Yet when it comes to SEO, you should really envision (and aim for) a short, wide, pyramid-shaped information architecture. You want to keep the most important (money) pages closest to the top of the structure as they tend to receive the most SEO equity and therefore have an advantage when it comes to ranking.
I also agree there's little consistency when you're scanning blogs looking for examples. Blogging is still relatively new and I think you'll start to see more consistency as competition and player sophistication continues to grow.
I like your thought about using topic labels instead of a vanilla "blog" folder; it's the number of topics I'm not keen on. I think a good rule of thumb is to aim for no more than 5-9 pages at the top of your information architecture for the reasons you yourself have observed above. People do search for "wedding blog" and a bunch of other related but similar terms (perhaps one in your niche? "wedding planning blog") so that could work.
I also think your goal of having rich static + variable topic content pages is an excellent one and agree that yes, once you get there, they should definitely be indexed.
-
OK, here is something else that is on my mind. We're starting to get into IA at this point and comments are very much appreciated.
So, as I have mentioned I have a number of topics and all of my articles will be associated with one or more of those topics. I plan to use WordPress categories (and maybe tags) to represent those, with the ongoing discussion about URL hierarchy on my mind.
I see the categories as the "meat and potatoes" of how I structure my content. (Since the cat is out the bag) This means cakes, dresses, flowers, etc.
But there's another way to look at the wedding - more along the lines of Planning, Looking Good (dress, makeup, etc), Love and Marriage, etc. These are additional buckets through which a bride might view her wedding.
I'm trying to get my head around whether these concepts are superfluous and/or unnecessary. My worry is that the categories are too granular - though still meaningful - and don't present a simple "roadmap" to the visitor.
Anyway, the reason I am asking is that there may potentially be more than one way to present all this. I like the idea of the "big buckets" above because that first impression is important (I'm taking about the human response here, not search engines) and a list of 15-20 "topics" can be overwhelming. Many of the web sites I used have a first impression that is simple, direct and easy to "consume" - a "1, 2, 3" step process, etc.
I don't know how that maps to SEO-related factors though.
Still chewing on this.
Mark
-
Thank you. Ryan. I had seen articles like this. It's tempting to see an article that is so old as outdated - but there's also the idea that there are some basic, common sense "primitives" that are just as true today That's a good list and I appreciate the pointer.
So, the flatting is something I have convinced myself is worthwhile. The open issue now is "how flat" See the other comments in this thread.
Thanks again.
-
Thank you Donna. Yes, I'm finding this issue of "flatness" to be somewhat tricky because I'm getting plenty of alternative opinions - the nature of this while thing, I guess
You are right about the number of articles, which will run into the hundreds. I've been looking at some successful sites and find very little consistency in this area - some are very flat and some have well-defined structure in their URL schemes.
Can you expand a little on why placing the articles under /blog would be better than having them under one of the topics like /wedding-cakes (I am referring specifically to the URL now, not just from where they are linked)?
Your comments have clarified one aspect (and I'm asking here in case there are some contrary thoughts on this). The topic pages may initially be a simple listing (perhaps auto-created by WordPress, based off of categories). For those I could ensure they are not indexed. Eventually, though, I plan to make these more than mere link pages - I'd like to have useful content on them, pertinent to the topic. So, while the page would hopefully be a "darned good read", that content - once done - would be relatively static. If I achieve that goal (the page has useful but static content), would that be the point to have it indexed? If so, that gives me a framework I can work in and one I can move towards over time.
Thanks.
Mark
-
Hmm.
Will you have a folder for your blog? Something like http://www.domain.ext/blog/<topic-or-category>/articles/<article-name>? I think I found your site (wednet) and it looks like you already have a blog and a few other important pages in the root directory. </article-name></topic-or-category>
I would NOT park the articles themselves in the root domain. While you want a flat(ish) architecture, you don't want it to be completely level; you want your most important "money" pages in the root directory. If you have 15-20 categories and 3-15 articles per category, you'd have between 45 and 300 posts in the root directory and that's too flat.
If it were me, I'd go with http://www.domain.ext/blog/<article-name>. (Notice I removed "/<topic-or-category>/articles" from the example you provided.) You can use Wordpress to set up topic-or-category pages e.g. http://www.domain.ext/blog/<topic-or-category>/<article-name>, but these should be noindexed. They're there only to make it quick and easy for your audience to find what they're looking for. </article-name></topic-or-category></topic-or-category></article-name>
At some point you may want to start indexing your category pages. There has been lots of discussion about that on this Q&A. It's a personal choice and it can result in increased traffic and conversions BUT you should make an effort to customize category pages so they are absolutely unique before you decide to do that.
-
Hi Mark. Rand's comments here still hold true: http://moz.com/blog/11-best-practices-for-urls, especially these in relation to your question, "Fewer Folders" and "Keep it Short" Looks like you'll be hitting on both of those while still maintaining an appropriate amount of keyword usage. Cheers!
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
-
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
Technical SEO | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
How to handle mobile site with less pages than the main site?
We are developing a mobile version of our website that will utilize responsive design/dynamic serving. About 70% of the main website will be included in the mobile version. What (if anything) should be the redirect for pages not included in the mobile version of the site? Also - for one specific section users will be redirected from that page to the homepage, what is the redirect that should be used for this? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | theLotter0 -
Redirects in site map
I have a site with the ace/sef ( creates friendly URLS) in a large data base site. It creates a site map dynamically. Yet I realize one issue which I am trying to think through. I recently changed my urls to include an ID number example: homepage/houses/1134-big-blue-house The prior url was: homepage/houses/big-blue-house the original url above redirects to the new one with the ID like I want. However the site map has both URLS in it which go to same page I am not sure but it seems rather stupid to have the new URL and OLD redirected URL in the site map. Yet beside stupid I am wondering if this is duplicate content and will cause a penalty from the google bot. What is your opinion ?
Technical SEO | | aimiyo0 -
On-site adjustment opinions
Hi folks, I've got a fairly interesting scenario. I'm trying to rank this page (http://www.staysa.co.za/sa/1-2-0-0-1/East-London/accommodation) better for the term, "accommodation east london". The client isn't keen on making many changes and it was built horribly with ASP, half CMS, half not. I have made the following changes today: I introduced two paragraphs of text below the H1 tag. I changed "East London Bed and Breakfast", "East London Conference Venues", "East London Cottage / Chalet" to just "Bed and Breakfast", "Conference Venues", "Cottage / Chalet" as the continual key phrase duplication in my experience is a bad move. I've made a change to the title tag (this is a huge mission as it's not CMS controlled, so I had to teach myself some basic ASP to do so). Meta data.. nightmare to change unfortunately, at least not without rewriting part of the CMS. I'm wondering, are there any other on-site factors that I'm missing? I'm not a fan of site-wide links, so I don't want to put an exact match anchor text link from the sidebar/footer to the page, not unless someone can motivate why I should. Keen to hear everyone's opinions 🙂
Technical SEO | | ChristopherM0 -
Multiple Domains for One Site
We are building a site for a new miniature golf course. They have a long name, which they don't want me to mention, but it's equivalent to a name like Golden State Golf and Putt. They also have a restaurant with its own name and brand that will be a part of the mini golf course and its website, much how Hotel websites have their restaurants on their sites. Before becoming our client they purchased golfandputt.com and want to go with this domain for simplicity sake. In addition to this domain name they purchased 7 others that contain the bussiness' full name in some way, such as: goldenstategolfandputt.com goldenstategolfandputt.net, goldenstategolf-guitar.com etc., As well as: 3 variations of the golfandputt.com domain 3 variations of the restaurants name They wish to have all of these redirect to the main website or the restaurant page to "help with SEO," as they told me. From what I have researched on SEOmoz it seems better to simply optimize the website for Golden State Golf and Putt and the restaurant page for the restaurant's name. Additionally, I'm worried that redirecting the domains to the site will actually hurt them in rankings. If someone can shed some light on what the best practices for this sort of situation are I'd be much appreciative. Apologies in advance for the lengthy explanation but its a bit of a unique situation.
Technical SEO | | TVI0 -
Redirecting a old aged site to a new exact match site?
Hi All, I have a question. I have 2 sites with me in the same sector and want some help. site 1 is a old site started back in 2003 and has some amount of links to it and has a pr 3 with some good links to it but doesn't rank much for any keywords for the timing. site 2 is a aged domain but newly developed with unique content and has a good amount of exact match with a .com version. so will there be any benefit by redirecting site 1 to site 2 to get the seo benefits and a start for link bulding? or is it best to develop and work on each site? the sector is health insurance. Thanks
Technical SEO | | macky71 -
How to do a no follow on site search
We have a site search that is causing a huge amount of errors as the SEOmoz crawler is showing these as duplicate content. Our first thought was to do a no-follow on the site-search directory, but we realized that the site search is /site-search.aspx and URl strings appear at the end for hundreds of pages. How dow we/how can we no-follow an undetermined amount of URL strings?
Technical SEO | | Apptixweb0 -
Too many links on my site
Hi there everybody, I am a total SEO newbie and i am burning with questions. I had my site crawled and found out that it contains too many links. The reason is that it is a site where I constantly write news and articles and each one of them is a new Joomla item, thus a new link. I actually thought lots of content is good for SEO. How am I supposed to reduce the link amount?
Technical SEO | | polyniki0