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
-
404s in Google Search Console and javascript
The end of April, we made the switch from http to https and I was prepared for a surge in crawl errors while Google sorted out our site. However, I wasn't prepared for the surge in impossibly incorrect URLs and partial URLs that I've seen since then. I have learned that as Googlebot grows up, he'she's now attempting to read more javascript and will occasionally try to parse out and "read" a URL in a string of javascript code where no URL is actually present. So, I've "marked as fixed" hundreds of bits like /TRo39,
Algorithm Updates | | LizMicik
category/cig
etc., etc.... But they are also returning hundreds of otherwise correct URLs with a .html extension when our CMS system generates URLs with a .uts extension like this: https://www.thompsoncigar.com/thumbnail/CIGARS/90-RATED-CIGARS/FULL-CIGARS/9012/c/9007/pc/8335.html
when it should be:
https://www.thompsoncigar.com/thumbnail/CIGARS/90-RATED-CIGARS/FULL-CIGARS/9012/c/9007/pc/8335.uts Worst of all, when I look at them in GSC and check the "linked from" tab it shows they are linked from themselves, so I can't backtrack and find a common source of the error. Is anyone else experiencing this? Got any suggestions on how to stop it from happening in the future? Last month it was 50 URLs, this month 150, so I can't keep creating redirects and hoping it goes away. Thanks for any and all suggestions!
Liz Micik0 -
Google sets brand/domain name at the end of SERP titles
Hi all, I am experiencing that Google puts our domain name at the end of the titles in SERPs. So if ia have a title: "See our super cool website", Google would show "See our super cool website - Betxpert.com" in the SERPs Well. This is okay. Apart from the fact that i myself often put the brand name in the title AND the fact that Google mispells the site name. The brand is BetXpert with a upper case X...so when i get a SERP with "See our super cool website - BetXpert - Betxpert.com" I am annoyed 🙂 Any one out the know how to tell Google the EXACT brand name, such that they do not set a value the site owner does not want to have? -Rasmus
Algorithm Updates | | rasmusbang0 -
How can a site with two questionable inbound links outperform sites with 500-1000 links good PR?
Our site for years was performing at #1 for but in the last 6 months been pushed down to about the #5 spot. Some of the domains above us have a handful of links and they aren't from good sources. We don't have a Google penalty. We try to only have links from quality domains but have been pushed down the SERP's? Any suggestions?
Algorithm Updates | | northerncs0 -
Does Site Size Influence Rank?
The Scenario:
Algorithm Updates | | kchandler
Currently one of my clients has 7-8 products that they sell on their website. For each product they have two different pages one with the product info and one with a video demo. So the pages began to split their authority as they began receiving new links. Since only one of the two pages for each product rank i suggested that we combine the two and redirect the video page to the product page to increases it's authority and rank. The Clients Response:
After explaining my reasoning and next steps the client mentioned that he thought a site's size was a ranking factor. I had never heard of this before so i told them i would do some research to prove my point, after a little digging around i am now even more confused. http://www.seroundtable.com/google-size-ranking-17044.html http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4591155.htm The Question:
Does a websites size/amount of content indexed in Google actually effect your sites ability to rank? I look forward to everyones feedback, thanks Kyle1 -
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 -
How do search engines calculate ranking?
On SEOMoz, I can see that when people type in X keyword, my website comes up at Y place. For example, if someone googles "Mobile Productivity", a page on my website comes up at #10. How is that #10 ranking calculated? I would've guessed it's based on some combination of linking root domain and page authority, but I see sites that rank below mine that have higher scores on both. For example, on the aforementioned 'Mobile Productivity' search, my site comes up #10 with a Linking Root Domain score of 2, and a Page Authority of 29. But Honeywell Products and Services comes up #13 on the same "Mobile Productivity" search (ie, BELOW my site), even though they have a Linking Root Domain score of 40 and a Page Authority of 72. Similarly, Mobileproductivity.com comes in at #1 for that search with scores of 7 and 31 respectively, but mpifix.com comes in at #2 with scores of 61 and 47 respectively. How are the search engine rankings calculated? Thanks in advance, Julian
Algorithm Updates | | MobileDay0 -
Keyword search results
Is there any tools that provide information on how many results there are for a given keyword? Also, would this be a good way to do research for which keyword I should optimize my page for google SERP, basically to find a less competitive keyword. My thinking was that if the search results were lower it would be easier to rank for that keyword with SEO.
Algorithm Updates | | bilsonx0 -
What is the most reliable source for search engine market share?
I would like to look at data or sources to get the most accurate measure I can on search engine market share. Does anyone have reliable sources on search engine volume/market share etc?
Algorithm Updates | | MarloSchneider0