"Fourth-level" subdomains. Any negative impact compared with regular "third-level" subdomains?
-
Hey moz
New client has a site that uses:
subdomains ("third-level" stuff like location.business.com) and;
"fourth-level" subdomains (location.parent.business.com)
Are these fourth-level addresses at risk of being treated differently than the other subdomains? Screaming Frog, for example, doesn't return these fourth-level addresses when doing a crawl for business.com except in the External tab. But maybe I'm just configuring the crawls incorrectly.
These addresses rank, but I'm worried that we're losing some link juice along the way. Any thoughts would be appreciated!
-
If you check out Rand's Intro to SEO slideshare (http://www.slideshare.net/randfish/introduction-to-seo-5003433) slide 46 and 47 talk about URL structure and specifically sub-domains.
As Rob said you do want to sub-folder structures and avoid sub-domains. Hopefully you are old enough to remember when websites like lycos.com were big and people could make their own websites. These were all hosted on subdomains like moz.tripod.lycos.com and because of this structure search engines needed to see subdomains as separate websites. For this reason they have separate grading, change the flow of link juice and can easily count as duplicate content.
Sub-domains are best utilized for information that is distinct enough. Like in the moz example Rands personal blog could theoretically sit at rand.moz.com as its a separate theme, different content, etc it would just loose out on the flow of value.
Once again Rob is right about using 301 redirects to move your subdomains into folders.
Now moving on to the more specific nature of your question "Are fourth level sub-domains any worse than third level sub-domains" I am going to suggest that when asking such a question you've already lost a big chunk of the SEO/inbound marketing battle.
The question you are framing is "I know it isn't good - but is it any worse?" Well even if it's not any worse you already know that it's not great and you should be taking structural steps to build on a sites accessibility, user functionality and it's SEO. If you find yourself asking "Is X any worse?" "How bad is Y?" "Can I get away with Z?" then you should immediately stop pursuing that idea and try and find a different method.
In this case that method is sub-folders and a 301 migration, but remember the framing of your questions and your over all directional strategy need to change to really drive home your campaigns!
-
HAHA. Great. Thanks for the 'prop's. Going 4th and 5th level deep for sub-domains can also impeed the user experience when wanting to reach it directly (typing it manually is a pain!!)..
Thanks anyways, glad I could be of some help.
-
Again - thanks a lot. I totally agree. Next client meeting I'll stress that not only do Ifeel strongly about the subfolder issue, but the good people at SimplifySEO feel the same:) And they know their ish. Or something.
-
Stay away as much as possible for 4th, 5th and 6th level sub-domains, although I have never seen it go beyond 5. I would really try to emphasize the value of re-tooling the domain structure for long term benefits and linking. Keeping sub-domains running isolates link value and doesn't benefit the entire domain - thus making link building a much harder challenge. You are losing link 'juice' for every level of sub-domain used, as the value drops for each section of the domain that extends - hence the reason sub-folders are the way to go (as you already know)...
Good luck with the client and site. Sounds like a tough call. All the best and I hope it works out
-
Hey Rob,
Thanks a lot for this. This is great advice and really well-written. And you're preaching to the choir. I also prefer subfolders, but it's just not in the cards for this client for the time being. As it stands, we're stuck with subdomains.
Any other thoughts re: fourth-level vs. third-level domains, folks?
-
Hey there!
You should try to stay away from sub-domains, unless they really serve a purpose for the domain - then different strategies can be put into place. As I don't know if it's the route you need to take, I am going to proceed to give you an alternate option :).
1. You could always use sub-folders which in a nutshell would allow you to build links to the domain on many fronts and have them all count.
** NOTE: any links built to sub-domains don't flow link 'juice' to within the site. Those links build for whatever reason, will only pass value within that specific sub-domain.
2. What I would do, it replicate and migrate the structure of the sub-domains into the root domain of the site (www.site.com/subfolder1/ and 301 and rel-canonical all the sub-domain pages and structure to the new locations. That way, all link juice, value, etc already established is already kept in tact and just redirect all that value, trust and back-links to pages within the domain.
This to me is the best option to relocate the content, improve the domain structure using sub-folders instead of sub-domains, and maintain the back link profile already build (or existing) on the site/domain URL.
Other factors might affect reasons not to pursue this option, but I have always had success with this in large enterprise sites, when wanting to restructure the way domains handle sub-domains
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
-
Quick Fix to "Duplicate page without canonical tag"?
When we pull up Google Search Console, in the Index Coverage section, under the category of Excluded, there is a sub-category called ‘Duplicate page without canonical tag’. The majority of the 665 pages in that section are from a test environment. If we were to include in the robots.txt file, a wildcard to cover every URL that started with the particular root URL ("www.domain.com/host/"), could we eliminate the majority of these errors? That solution is not one of the 5 or 6 recommended solutions that the Google Search Console Help section text suggests. It seems like a simple effective solution. Are we missing something?
Technical SEO | | CREW-MARKETING1 -
Google Webmaster Tools is saying "Sitemap contains urls which are blocked by robots.txt" after Https move...
Hi Everyone, I really don't see anything wrong with our robots.txt file after our https move that just happened, but Google says all URLs are blocked. The only change I know we need to make is changing the sitemap url to https. Anything you all see wrong with this robots.txt file? robots.txt This file is to prevent the crawling and indexing of certain parts of your site by web crawlers and spiders run by sites like Yahoo! and Google. By telling these "robots" where not to go on your site, you save bandwidth and server resources. This file will be ignored unless it is at the root of your host: Used: http://example.com/robots.txt Ignored: http://example.com/site/robots.txt For more information about the robots.txt standard, see: http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/robots.html For syntax checking, see: http://www.sxw.org.uk/computing/robots/check.html Website Sitemap Sitemap: http://www.bestpricenutrition.com/sitemap.xml Crawlers Setup User-agent: * Allowable Index Allow: /*?p=
Technical SEO | | vetofunk
Allow: /index.php/blog/
Allow: /catalog/seo_sitemap/category/ Directories Disallow: /404/
Disallow: /app/
Disallow: /cgi-bin/
Disallow: /downloader/
Disallow: /includes/
Disallow: /lib/
Disallow: /magento/
Disallow: /pkginfo/
Disallow: /report/
Disallow: /stats/
Disallow: /var/ Paths (clean URLs) Disallow: /index.php/
Disallow: /catalog/product_compare/
Disallow: /catalog/category/view/
Disallow: /catalog/product/view/
Disallow: /catalogsearch/
Disallow: /checkout/
Disallow: /control/
Disallow: /contacts/
Disallow: /customer/
Disallow: /customize/
Disallow: /newsletter/
Disallow: /poll/
Disallow: /review/
Disallow: /sendfriend/
Disallow: /tag/
Disallow: /wishlist/
Disallow: /aitmanufacturers/index/view/
Disallow: /blog/tag/
Disallow: /advancedreviews/abuse/reportajax/
Disallow: /advancedreviews/ajaxproduct/
Disallow: /advancedreviews/proscons/checkbyproscons/
Disallow: /catalog/product/gallery/
Disallow: /productquestions/index/ajaxform/ Files Disallow: /cron.php
Disallow: /cron.sh
Disallow: /error_log
Disallow: /install.php
Disallow: /LICENSE.html
Disallow: /LICENSE.txt
Disallow: /LICENSE_AFL.txt
Disallow: /STATUS.txt Paths (no clean URLs) Disallow: /.php$
Disallow: /?SID=
disallow: /?cat=
disallow: /?price=
disallow: /?flavor=
disallow: /?dir=
disallow: /?mode=
disallow: /?list=
disallow: /?limit=5
disallow: /?limit=10
disallow: /?limit=15
disallow: /?limit=20
disallow: /*?limit=250 -
SEO question: Need help on rel="alternate" hreflang="x"
Hi all, we have webcontent in 3 languages (official belgian yellow pages), we use a separate domain per language, these are also our brands.
Technical SEO | | TruvoDirectories
ex. for the restaurant Wagamamahttp://www.goudengids.be/wagamama-antwerpen-2018/ corresponds to nl-be
http://www.pagesdor.be/wagamama-antwerpen-2018/ corresponds to fr-be
http://www.pagesdor.be/wagamama-antwerpen-2018/ corresponds to en-be The trouble is that sometimes I see the incorrect urls appearing when doing a search in google, ex. when searching on google.be (dutch=nederlands=nl-be) I see the www.pagesdor.be version appearing (french) I was trying to find a fix for this within https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/189077?hl=nl , but this only seems to apply to websites which use SUBdomains for language purposes. I'm not sure if can work for DOMAINS. Can anyone help me out? Kind regards0 -
Negative Stuff - Post Edit
Is google to blame? I feel like something of this magnitude requires legal action but havent found anything online about what I can do legally, whether I should collaborate and if simply bringing all this to google's attention is enough. Thanks
Technical SEO | | Southbay_Carnivorous_Plants0 -
Will I still get Duplicate Meta Data Errors with the correct use of the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags?
Hi Guys, One of our sites has an extensive number category page lsitings, so we implemented the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags for these pages (as suggested by Google below), However, we still see duplicate meta data errors in SEOMoz crawl reports and also in Google webmaster tools. Does the SEOMoz crawl tool test for the correct use of rel="next" and "prev" tags and not list meta data errors, if the tags are correctly implemented? Or, is it necessary to still use unique meta titles and meta descriptions on every page, even though we are using the rel="next" and "prev" tags, as recommended by Google? Thanks, George Implementing rel=”next” and rel=”prev” If you prefer option 3 (above) for your site, let’s get started! Let’s say you have content paginated into the URLs: http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1
Technical SEO | | gkgrant
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4 On the first page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1, you’d include in the section: On the second page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2: On the third page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3: And on the last page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4: A few points to mention: The first page only contains rel=”next” and no rel=”prev” markup. Pages two to the second-to-last page should be doubly-linked with both rel=”next” and rel=”prev” markup. The last page only contains markup for rel=”prev”, not rel=”next”. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” values can be either relative or absolute URLs (as allowed by the tag). And, if you include a <base> link in your document, relative paths will resolve according to the base URL. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” only need to be declared within the section, not within the document . We allow rel=”previous” as a syntactic variant of rel=”prev” links. rel="next" and rel="previous" on the one hand and rel="canonical" on the other constitute independent concepts. Both declarations can be included in the same page. For example, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2&sessionid=123 may contain: rel=”prev” and rel=”next” act as hints to Google, not absolute directives. When implemented incorrectly, such as omitting an expected rel="prev" or rel="next" designation in the series, we'll continue to index the page(s), and rely on our own heuristics to understand your content.0 -
Why crawl error "title missing or empty" when there is already "title and meta desciption" in place?
I've been getting 73 "title missing or empty" warnings from SEOMOZ crawl diagnostic. This is weird as I've installed yoast wordpress seo plugin and all posts do have title and meta description. But why the results here.. can anyone explain what's happening? Thanks!! Here are some of the links that are listed with "title missing, empty". Almost all our blog posts were listed there. http://www.gan4hire.com/blog/2011/are-you-here-for-good/ http://www.gan4hire.com/blog/2011/are-you-socially-awkward/ MaeM3.png TLcD8.png
Technical SEO | | JasonDGreat0 -
Can Search Engines Read "incorrect" urls?
I know that ideally a url should be something of the nature domain.com/topic, but if the url contains additional characters, for example, domain.com/topic?keyword, can the search engines still understand the complete words in the domain? Even though there are additional "incorrect" characters? Or do they stop "reading" once they find odd characters? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
"Too Many On-Page Links" Issue
I'm being docked for too many on page links on every page on the site, and I believe it is because the drop down nav has about 130 links in it. It's because we have a few levels of dropdowns, so you can get to any page from the main page. The site is here - http://www.ibethel.org/ Is what I'm doing just a bad practice and the dropdowns shouldn't give as much information? Or is there something different I should do with the links? Maybe a no-follow on the last tier of dropdown?
Technical SEO | | BethelMedia0