Microsites for Local Search / Location Based sites?
-
Referring to the webinar on SEOMoz about Local Search that was presented by Nifty Marketing (http://www.seomoz.org/webinars/be-where-local-is-going). I have a question my client asked us regarding why we broke out their locations into microsites, and not just used subfolders. So here are the details:
- The client has one main website in real estate.
- They have 5 branches.
- Each branch covers about a 50 mile radius.
- Each branch also covers a specialized niche in their areas.
- When we created the main site we incorporated the full list of listings on the main site;
- We then created a microsite for each branch, who has a page of listings (same as the main site) but included the canonical link back to the main site.
- The reason we created a microsite for each branch is that the searches for each branch are very specific to their location and we felt that having only a subfolder would take away from the relevancy of the site and it's location.
- Now, the location sites rank on the first page for their very competitive, location based searches.
- The client, as we encourage, has had recommendations from others saying this is hurting them, not helping them.
My question is this... How can this hurt them when the microsites include a home page specific to the location, a contact page that is optimized with location specific information (maps, text, directions, NAP, call to action, etc.), a page listing area information about communities/events/etc., a page of the location's agents, and of course real estate listings (with canonical back to the main site)?
Am I misunderstanding? I understood that if the main site could support the separation of a section into a microsite, this would help local search. Local search is the bread and butter of this client's conversions.
AND if you tell me we should go back to having subfolders for each location, won't that seriously hurt our already excellent rankings? The client sees significant visitors from their placement of the location URLs.
THANKS!
Darlene -
Hi Darlene,
I found your question rather interesting as I have also been looking into the entire Local SEO thing recently.
I opted to go for localised pages on the main site though:
http://www.jhbathrooms.com/showroom/stockton-on-tees
Couldn’t you rather use your microsites for back-linking purposes in an attempt to boost your main site’s DA (and pages PR)? You could probably get away with more aggressive linking techniques towards these microsites without putting your main site at risk? Or am I wrong in assuming this? I would love to see other people’s opinion on this…
I am rather an SEO newbie, only being back into SEO for about 6 months after a very long absence. Used to do SEO back in 2000-2001; remember Alta Vista and Webposition Gold anyone?Cheers
Greg
-
Darlene,
I think there are a couple of issues here that may be causing confusion. First and foremost, are the sites "microsites?" It does not sound like they are in the most exact sense. Because you are not giving an example, it is more problematic. Secondarily, it is easy in SEO to get caught up in should you or should you not do a specific thing and what are the effects of that, as if all is in a vacuum. Obviously, it is not and there is more at play than just the variables you describe.
Otherwise, if it were simple the question would be: We can build an RE Site with listings, title tags, etc. based on location such that BigCity/neighborhood/address (All - I am being simplistic for brevity only). Or we can build big city with listings in that city then build micro sites based on the neighborhoods.
If that were the case, I am going with big city and sub directories as opposed to multiple sites due to competing against myself. Also, if you are really the same company, and you are using the sites to appear as 5 different companies and be in the rankings 5 or 6 times (to "lock" others out) that would be against Google guidelines.From what you have, I would say you have this:
MainTownRESiteExample.com (This site receives all MLS listings)- I am assuming using IDX or RETS feeds for the MLS to sites. You covered your duplicate content bases for the listings by using a canonical tag for each back to the main site (and this was likely not necessary IMO if using IDX or RETS feeds)
AreaofGeoSiteA - you said each covers a niche which to me means say TownHome sales or Leasing, etc. Do you mean niche to mean geographic niche?
AreaofGeoSiteB
AreaofGeoSiteC, etc. (I am assuming there is over lap of each of the 50mile radius points. If not, and main site is city center, you are in a city larger than Houston in area.
You state: "We then created a microsite for each branch..." I am assuming therefore, that each of the "microsites" has its own physical location with its own NAP.
Most importantly, you state
The reason we created a microsite for each branch is that the searches for each branch are very specific to their location and we felt that having only a subfolder would take away from the relevancy of the site and it's location.
To this, I would say, uhhh, nope, it does not decrease the relevance of the main site in the least. Nor, would a search on neighborhood X be more or less relevant due to the whole site being neighborhood X versus being MainSite.com/neighborhood-X. Either way, what ranks in the serps is a page, not a site and that is relevant to what you say about the site. If main site has a ton of DA, and small site has OK DA, where does the page better reside?
You also state:
**I understood that if the main site could support the separation of a section into a microsite, this would help local search. **From where did you understand that? I have not heard of separating sites into locations to support local. I am not saying you are wrong, just had not heard of it.
So the big questions are: will your arrangement hurt your client and if so, how? It can end up just competing with the main site and even if it wins, why do you have the data in two places to start with? But, if you are seeing no harm and the client is ranked well for a given area, you have to walk them through how a change would take place and what might happen, etc. Then, they get to make the decision, not you. (At least in my shop that's how we do it).
For me, for real estate, I would rather use small sites for an individual listing and the big site for the mls feeds. So, while I would not do it the way you have done it, it does not mean you are not getting a result you want. I personally believe you could have done it with sub directories, but you are where you are. Again, personal preference for me is in RE to have a site for Townhomes, Single family, Condos, etc., but again, the SEO in me says you can accomplish the same with other means.
Yes, if you change back to main site, you will lose your rankings when you remove your pages but you can 301 to capture some of that juice, etc. It won't guarantee that ranking though.
When people say you are taking "power" away, I believe they mean you are competing with yourself and your efforts on one site would be better served. Not that the micro site in some way leeches from the main.
Dave is on the right track from a business perspective and I would caution rushing out and taking the sites down. But, again, having done a LOT in dating starting back in the late 90's, I can tell you the microsite in its original iteration was meant to look like a different business and be able to rank organically and in PPC five different ways. That is against the rules and will get you penalized no matter how unique the content might be.
So, I hope I helped you out a bit and let us know what you did. If the decision is to take them down, get the clients to agree to start with one and track what happens, etc. Then learn and go to number two.
Best to you and to Dave,
Robert
PS - I am a vegetarian
really.
-
Power? That sounds like some SEO guru baloney. If the sites are ranking and full of high quality non-spun unique relevant content - what's the problem?
-
Thanks Dave,
They aren't really complaining. It's more of the advice that's being offered to them by other parties. Other's are saying that I'm taking "power" away from the main site by using these smaller sites.
But...these smaller sites are pretty substantial in their own right. I believe that keeping them as microsites is the better way for local search.
Like Dave said, ANY info from anyone else is greatly appreciated.
-
I've done a TON of research on this to get Google's opinion and the only thing I could find was this:
As long as the new site has unique and relevant content it is not considered spam.
I've probably spent over 20 hours researching this EXACT topic and that was the best I could find in terms of spam vs not spam.
Another route to take is to create relevant content on the main site specific to each location. Perhaps you can create 1 page for the location with the NAP, site manager etc. and then another page off of that page that lists that specific location's directions and then another page off of that page that lists the reviews for that location. That gives you 3 unique relevant pages and 3 new Title tags. You can target the main city on the main page with the NAP info, a sub-city on one of the review pages and another sub-city on the direction page. I suppose this method is more "whitehat" but who really knows.
If the client has good rankings in all of those cities with your microsites what are they complaining about? Fear of a penalty?
If anyone else has ANY info on this I would LOVE to know as well!
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
-
Canonical tag on search.asp resultpage or what to do?
Hi, Im starting out doing SEO on my websites. My issue now is, that I have this searchpage called search.asp where it's possible to search for profiles on my website. When you go to search.asp the page displays all profiles as default, and it's then possible to change things like age, hairlenght and lots of small variables. When you submit the queries, the url would be some linke this:
Algorithm Updates | | KasperGJ
wwww.site.com/search.asp?agefrom=10&ageto=40&haircolor=1&area=Denmark and so... There is thousands of different "urls" it could change to, which is kinda bad in SEO i guess. ATM the title tag is always "Searching for profiles", but i plan to change that, so the searchquery would be part of the title. The problem is, that right now, this page generates tons of dublicate content. So, my issue is, what to do? 1. Should I create a or would that "harm" my site? 2. Other ideas? /Kasper0 -
Future address change and local search
I have a client who targets a particular city, and up until now has had his physical location in the suburbs of that city. This April 1, his office will have the city address he has been targeting. I have spent a lot of time over the past year claiming ownership of all local directory listings and consolidating addresses as he has moved several times in the past 5 years. Looking at this as an opportunity to get the official USPS address he will be using and use the exact same address for everything. So many different variations out there right now for him. Wondering if it would be ok to start promoting the new address before the April 1 move and also when to start with the directory listings. Also, have held off on purchasing the yahoo directory link because of the suburban address but reconsidering this as of April 1 as well.
Algorithm Updates | | c2g0 -
Changes in Google "Site:" Search Algorithm Over Time?
I was wondering if anyone has noticed changes in how Google returns 'site:' searches over the past few years or months. I remember being able to do a search such as "site:example.com" and Google would return a list of webpages where the order may have shown the higher page rank pages (due to link building, etc) first and/or parent category pages higher up in the list of the first page (if relevant) first (as they could have higher PR naturally, anyways). It seems that these days I can hardly find quality / target pages that have higher page rank on the first page of Google's site: search results. Is this just me... or has Google perhaps purposely scrambled the SERPS somewhat for site: searches to not give away their page ranking secrets?
Algorithm Updates | | OrionGroup1 -
Google Webmaster Tools: Quality Issues on http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/
Specifically, we detected low-quality pages on your site which do not provide substantially unique content or added value. Examples could include thin affiliate pages, doorway pages, automatically generated content, or copied content. We encourage you to make changes to your site so that it meets our quality guidelines. Once you've made these changes, please submit your site for reconsideration in Google's search results. Google Webmaster Tool send me this message I think the low-quality pages is like the this http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/detaylar/bursa-fethiye-ucevler-nakliye-5834 page and we have so many pages like this... Example 1: http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/detaylar/evden-eve-nakliyat-5906 **Example 2 : **http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/detaylar/cekmekoy-izmit-5905 **Example 3: **http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/detaylar/evden-eve-nakliyat-5906 What should I do to these pages HELP 😞
Algorithm Updates | | iskq0 -
Does Search Volume Directly Effect Organic Search Result Rankings?
For example, if 20,000 people searched for "seomoz toasters," do you think a page on seomoz.org that mentioned toasters would begin to rank well for the query "toasters"?
Algorithm Updates | | tatermarketing0 -
No longer ranking for non local local terms
Anyone seen this lately; I have a client who is in the food catering business and for the seo we target a lot of local keywords (event catering Hampshire, for example). In the past couple of weeks search engine traffic to the website seems to have dropped by about 60%. However, rankings do not seem to have dropped. What I have noticed is that up until a couple of months back, the client would be ranking first page in the Google local and also have a listing in the 'normal' serps. It appears that the non local pages have vanished. Checking a couple of their competitors and it seems the same there. This has led me to start to believe that Google are now only giving a local position or a normal position on the first page and not both, as previously. The non local pages are sitll listed but seem to have dropped way back to the 4th or 5th page when previously they would have been first page. It would of course help if the client were to give me access to the webmaster tools!!! Hate it when client's only give you half the information you need and then expect you to tell them what's up!! Anyone seem this? Thanks, Carl
Algorithm Updates | | ccgale0 -
Can you compare overall search volumes year on year for specific terms?
Hi. I was wondering whether anyone knew if it is possible to compare search volumes for keywords year on year for absolute figures (so not using Insight). For example: How many people searched for computer mouses from 1.1.11 - 1.4.11 Compared to How many people searched for computer mouses from 1.1.12 - 1.4.12
Algorithm Updates | | SEOclient120 -
Dedicated IP Address on my forum site www.astigtayo.com?
Hello and Good Day, Does having a dedicated IP Address to my site affect my search engine ranking? https://www.astigtayo.com
Algorithm Updates | | ificallyoumine0