7 replies to this topic

[slinky]

Great choice in forums. Great to see since I will use it too.

I have a site on medical information which has about 20-25 major topics. Let's say that the main topics are the following.

ankle
elbow
wrist
finger
knee
shoulder
neck
hip
toe

I need to do two things: (i) set up an area that shows these 2 dozen categories in one place, and (ii) have a landing page for each topic that will tell users where they can find resources on the site and will have latest entries in those areas (like rss feeds on the page.) So I've seen people do two things:

1) MENU: I've seen that sites will either have a dropdown menu with all the topics if there aren't more than about 15-20 or so. Alternatively, they may have links to all the topics in the footer at the bottom of the page.

2) LANDING PAGES: So where should these topic landing pages be where it says we have a forum, articles, etc. and some rss feeds on that topic? I have seen people put these landing pages in a subdomain since they might be thin. Some put it on the subdirectory but I don't know if that's a great idea especially with the thin pages. I wonder if I am better off putting content also on the subdomain or directory because I see Google giving a lot of weight on each subdomain as if it is a separate site when it really isn't.

Would be great to know your opinions.


So I want to have a dropdown in my main top navigation called "topics" which has a link to each page. These pages won't change a whole lot except for some RSS feeds on them. I notice many people are putting these landing pages as subdomains but the content is also on the subdomain. Problem is that if they are on subdomains, I lose the value of the domain having all the content. So since there isn't so much content on these pages I figure I should have the menu go to subdomain.site.com like knee.jointsite.com . So here is a summary:

(1) Do I have any danger in putting about 25 topic links in my main navigation bar on top of the page? That would be 25 links to load. Should I put those topic pages in the footer? If in the header, should they be "no-follow" links?

(2) Should I put these pages into the subdomain or the subdirectory in order to minimize penalties from google or panda for "thin" content?

Thanks everyone for your thoughts.

[chrishirst]

You are WAY over-thinking it.

Just build a website and a navigation structure that is designed for REAL users.

[slinky]

You are WAY over-thinking it.

Just build a website and a navigation structure that is designed for REAL users.

No offense, I know you're a moderator, but that's foolishness. If you don't want to answer the question because you think it's giving away something secret that I'd discuss elsewhere, then say so.

My sites were designed for great usability. The problem is that Panda and Penguin keep ruining the best content and maintaining the least valued content. When I went to the Google forum, webmasters argued back and forth and told me specifically (as did numerous others), that any directories or commerce elements, no matter how small, should be on the subdomain to recover from Panda. And then there were issues of having a beautiful landing page / site map that made it easier for people to know their options. The result? I got absolutely panned for having too much "page depth" because pages were now seen as having deep routes through them because of this index.

From a user standpoint, they were happy to have this page. But from an SEO standpoint, I was told it was killing my pages as was the dropdown menu instead of having one link.

If all I had to do was build a site that users could use easily, then SEO services are basically worthless. If that's not the case, then obviously there are advantages and disadvantages to where you put your pages even though users may not care too much.

[Jill]

My question is, why do you want to put thin content pages on your site to begin with?

Just dont have them and your problem is solved.

[chrishirst]

If all I had to do was build a site that users could use easily,

That's all I have ever done and there has NOT been one moment of time where I have considered "what search engines want"

then SEO services are basically worthless

The so-called SEO "Services" that consider search engines first and users last, ARE worthless.

[chrishirst]

The result? I got absolutely panned for having too much "page depth"

And you KNOW that was the cause because??

But from an SEO standpoint, I was told it was killing my pages as was the dropdown menu instead of having one link.

Told by whom?? Some self professed "expert"?

The problem is that Panda and Penguin keep ruining the best content and maintaining the least valued content

Only according to "webmasters" and "SEOs". REAL, genuine, search engines users are not complaining, they appear to be perfectly happy with the results that Google provide.

If ANY of the so-called SEO "experts" had half a clue they would be able to figure that all they need to do is give Google exactly what they want. Which is:

To show the BEST results to their USERS for their queries. If you provide that very thing at your URLs INSTEAD OF trying to fake it, why would search engines NOT show your URLs to their users?

[slinky]

My question is, why do you want to put thin content pages on your site to begin with?
Just dont have them and your problem is solved.

Because every page on a site can't be "thick" full of content. Sometimes pages are all about providing basic, useful information to a web visitor that doesn't have too much to overwhelm. Users may find it useful but search engines apparently are not fond of it.

That's all I have ever done and there has NOT been one moment of time where I have considered "what search engines want"
The so-called SEO "Services" that consider search engines first and users last, ARE worthless.

Well, then you're lucky. Some very large sites were totally obliterated by Panda and Penguin and it could have been something like having a services directory on a subdirectory one day and a subdomain the next.

And you KNOW that was the cause because??
Told by whom?? Some self professed "expert"?
Only according to "webmasters" and "SEOs". REAL, genuine, search engines users are not complaining, they appear to be perfectly happy with the results that Google provide.
If ANY of the so-called SEO "experts" had half a clue they would be able to figure that all they need to do is give Google exactly what they want. Which is:
To show the BEST results to their USERS for their queries. If you provide that very thing at your URLs INSTEAD OF trying to fake it, why would search engines NOT show your URLs to their users?

I can show you searches on terms and the front 2 pages of SERPS are 50% filled with garbage results. I know a good number of solid competitors. Even they aren't appearing in the top few pages either.

I've been doing this for a long, long time. My site is clean, lots of unique content. Now when I watch sites that (a) stuff their forums with news garbage solely to raise post count and have obvious spammy forum names and a header that is virtually all ads, ( sites with names that don't have virtually any useful content, © sites that have scraped my content and somehow will rank above mine -- then you can start telling me about how just do what you're doing and everything is fine.

So let me ask you this - are Panda and Penguin always right? So what does Google want? "Good content?" OK. Got it. Thanks.

[Jill]

Because every page on a site can't be "thick" full of content. Sometimes pages are all about providing basic, useful information to a web visitor that doesn't have too much to overwhelm. Users may find it useful but search engines apparently are not fond of it.

Then just exclude it via robots.txt if it's not something you think the search engines would like.

So let me ask you this - are Panda and Penguin always right? So what does Google want? "Good content?"

So far, every site I've seen that got Penquined or Pandalized has had good reasons for it. The site owners may not have agreed, but quite frankly, they never deserved the rankings they were once getting. The P's simply fixed what was broken with the algorithm.