26 replies to this topic

[McFox]

I was wondering if I made a mistake on one of my websites. Although I was receiving traffic and was listed in most of the major search engines, I decided it was time to restructure the entire site.

Obviously I am not getting the same level of traffic just now, which was to be expected.

So, my question really, is what damage has this done long term?

Thanks
McFox

[Scottie]

Very likely no damage at all. You've just got to give the search engines time to go through the pages again- probably a couple of times- and things will get back to normal.

If your site doesn't go back to exactly where is was in a month or 2, remember there are a lot of factors to ranking. The change could happen because your competitors changed their sites, Google made a slight change in the ranking algo, or any of a number of reasons. But changing folder structure probably just has the SE's temporarily confused.

[McFox]

Very likely no damage at all.

I was hoping someone would tell me that!

I made the changes on the advice of all the SEO experts (you guys) I have been studying, which was, regarding folder structures, not to go 'deeper' than 2 folders in order for the spiders to find pages easily. At least, I hope that's what was meant.

Since some files were sitting about 4 deep, I took the (long overdue) plunge!

Thanks
McFox

[mcanerin]

It's not so much the folder levels, it's the clicks it takes to get to the folders that is the issue.

Since most people try to structure their site (at least at first) using folders in a similar manner to their link structure, it's common to get the 2 confused.

But it you put them 5 levels deep but provided a direct link from home, the SE would consider it to be only one click away and therefore no problem.

Likewise, you could have a page in your home directory but only have a link to it 4 levels deep in the menu structure, then the SE's would consider it to be 5 clicks away and therefore not as likely to be ranked as highly.

SE's care about clicks and links, not folders. Designers usually make them similar in structure just because it's easier to find and organise stuff behind the scenes, but it has nothing to do with what the SE sees.

Several of my pages are localized - so it goes: domain.com/country/province/city/product/page.htm for both the URL and the folders, but one of the pages is important and therefore linked directly from the main page.

As far as the SE is concerned, it's only one click away and therefore important, and the rankings for that page seem to support this, compared to otherwise similar pages at the same level without the link.

BTW, this also mirrors the user experience - they don't care how far deep the page is (usually) but rather how hard it is to get there.

My 2 cents,
Ian

Edited by mcanerin, 18 October 2003 - 05:52 PM.

[DianeV]

But it you put them 5 levels deep but provided a direct link from home, the SE would consider it to be only one click away and therefore no problem.

That's an interesting idea. I'd assumed that SEs looked at folder structure. Have you verified that the above is really the way they do it? Empirical evidence, perhaps?

[mcanerin]

I have the evidence that I've got 2 essentially equally optimized pages (but not duplicates), at the same folder level, but the one with the direct link is ranked higher. AND it achieved that higher ranking after I added the direct link later on.

It's not perfect, but it's the best I have. It also makes intuitive sense to me, as well (not that things making sense seem to matter on the net...)

Ian

[Ron Carnell]

LOL. How's this for evidence, Diane?

Without the right passwords, a spider can't do a DIR on a properly configured server. Just like your visitors can't. Ergo, there's no way for them to examine folder structure, except as deduced through your links.

[DianeV]

Aw, c'mon, guys, I wasn't issuing a challenge for evidence (although perhaps "evidence" wasn't the best word to use) so much as trying to ascertain something.

It's been touted for years that site directory structures should not be more than three deep. Is this true? I don't know. I know it came from the person next to the horse's mouth at the search engine. But since mine have never been more than 2-3 directories deep, I have no, well, evidence either way.

Ron, many web servers aren't configured to disallow display of files in directories that don't contain an index.html page (or whatever page the server is configured to display as a default directory home page), assuming that's what you're talking about. In such a case, the browser will often display a list of directory contents.

My question, though, was the idea that a SE would consider a page linked to from the home page as "one click away" even though it was several directories away. My question is whether it's a matter of how many clicks away or how many directories deep.

It would seem to me that a link could be examined for directory structure; although that too can be altered via redirects and, I believe, mod_rewrite, the link itself still shows directory structure. Whether search engines actually examine such a link ... there is some "evidence" <grin> to show that they check for session ID's, for example, possibly for the purpose of avoiding 404 spider traps -- so we do know something.

[DianeV]

mcanerin, that's good info. I'm wondering if -- given the similar/identical optimization of the pages -- the one linked to from the home page possibly had "outside" factors weighing in, such as PageRank. Or, perhaps, it's as you say: that it's just the apparency of the one-click-away thing.

<sigh> I don't usually get into these kinds of discussions.

[mcanerin]

No problem Diane!

We are mostly one big happy family here. I've had to retract my fair share of overly broad statements in view of the older and wiser types around here (of which I am not - well, old maybe...)

You are right in that there *could* be any number of things that could account for a change in page rank, but in this case I'm fairly sure, in view of the fact that it's a pitifully unpopular topic, that external factors likely did not play much into it - though I'd love it if they would.

More to the point, there is a very good reason to have directories - you can make them into keyword rich URLs. That's the secondary reason I did it - I'm able to capitalize on location based searches. The main reason was simply because I use different resources for each location and I find it nice to organise things this way.

I honestly believe there is no evidence that folder depth matters. But I don't have any absolute proof either. You could shoot me down with a single example of it mattering and I'd very very interested in it, as would the rest of us (it would certainly change how I do some things). If you have any evidence (even circumstantial) one way or the other it would be great!

And I never did say welcome! Welcome!

Ian

[Randy]

Like DianeV I've never tested how a file being several directories deep could affect its ranking. Frankly, from the design/coding side of things the only times I've found the need to go more than 3 directories deep is for a membership type of site. And on those the spider can't get into the "members" folder anyway with it being password protected.

I agree with Diane that PR being passed from the main page to a page linked directly from it could have an effect on its ranking. As can several other factors. I'm not sure you could ever run a "double blind" sort of study which ruled out the other factors, in fact I'm pretty sure you couldn't. Not disputing anyone's "evidence" here, just echoing the sentiment that other factors could be at play also.

No emperical evidence here one way or another because I simply always make sure I have a Site Map which provides a link to every public page on every one of my sites. Since the Site Map is always linked directly off of the main index page, there is never a page I want to be spidered that is more than 2 clicks away.

Dunno, to me that just seems easier than having to worry over this type of deep directoy vs. number of clicks x (other possible factors) equation. There aren't enough hours in the day as it is, so I try not to add to my stress level.

[Ron Carnell]

It's been touted for years that site directory structures should not be more than three deep. Is this true?

Three deep from what? The DocumentRoot for most of my sites is something like /home/domain/www/, so I'm three deep before I even get to index.htm. Three deep from the DocumentRoot, then? I see sites that pass dynamic parameters as directories, often going six or seven deep, that still rank very well for very competitive terms. The new SEF pages, Diane, are a good example of that. While it's true that some web servers will display files in a directory if no default page exists, there is NO web server that will display a directory if the default page is there. I think it's safe to assume most web sites have default pages in most directories? A spider can't directly read our site structure unless we give it a clickable map.

While it is certainly possible for a spider to count forward slashes in the URL, I've just never seen any evidence to suggest they care. I'm not even convinced they care how many clicks a page is away from its home, either, except perhaps when "estimating" a PR not in the index. The old Excite spider, circa 1998, was the only instance I've directly seen where site structure played an important role in the algorithm, and then only in terms of "theme." I honestly don't think Google even gives precedence to a site's root home page any more, not for "just" being the home page any way. I suspect many will disagree with that, but I suspect their disagreement will be based on past behavior, not current.

The old rules, I think, don't always apply today.

<sigh> I don't usually get into these kinds of discussions.

But trying to think like a spider can be FUN, Diane!

[DianeV]

Thanks for the welcome, mcanerin; awful kind of you (and that young person in your Avatar is just adorable).

Ron, that statement is meant to mean three directories deep from the home page. I wasn't insisting the statement was true, just saying where I got it ... which is a darn sight more than a guess or repetition of things heard elsewhere. OTOH, that was a while ago, and I've continued to come across it in the ensuing years.

I will say that I was developing a page (for Jim, in fact) some years ago, to which there were no links anywhere. An occasional spider still tries to get the page although it's been several years since I deleted it. So that is the one bit of "think" on hand that says spiders (or at least some spiders) can pick up whatever they find; if I were curious enough, I suppose I'd look into *which* spider does this.

[McFox]

Hmmm ... this is interesting. I thought the 'rules' were kind of rigid(ish) regarding folders.

I can see the point about 1 or 2 click linking making the difference, regardless of how deep a page is set. On the other hand, I can also see the point about making the url keyword rich, i.e. domain.com/keyword/keyword_phrase/keyword_phrase.htm

Interesting discussion (for me anyway) :learn:

McFox

[DianeV]

And me as well. I had never really thought of it that way, which is why I found the comment thought-provoking.

I had only thought of "folders"; but, here again, Ron may be entirely correct.