URL Structure (Adding sub folders)

[RuralWeb]

As far as I am aware Jon, spiders crawl a site by following links, not by working through a folder, one file at a time.

Correct

The fact that a deep link is less likley to be indexed than a top level one, is down to the restrictions placed on the spider - presumably to keep indexing more manageable (the deeper you go, the more pages need to be indexed, and even google must have limits on what it can or wants to cope with).

Very true - Googlebot will in general only go 3 to 4 links deep - so if you have a linear page structure then only the top 4 pages will be indexed. If your page is not indexed then no matter what you do to the page it will never rank. This is the first aim of on page SEO ie get the page indexed.

By the addition of a site map then you effectively place all you pages at the same level ie 2 pages deep - this is why you will see a constant reference to placing a site map in the forum. So however long your file name is it will not indicate to google any level of "importance".

[RuralWeb]

However acatalog/gizmos/electronic/purple/gizmos.html is a much deeper page and not of the same level of relevancy or importance. It only shows info on a specific type of gizmo.

I am referring to importance as in the relationship to other pages on your site, not importance judged by back links.

Therefore using subfolders allows you to show relevancy in relation to content. This also means that you can bring important content to the top level folder, effectively making it appear more important than the specific content found deep within a subfolder.

If this theory were correct then a single product per page would not work as google would see it as a less important page than say a section page. But the opposite is true in that by creating a single product page you can optimise on page factors and get it to rank highly. I therefore stick by my knowledge of how google works and suggest that IMO page depth has no effect on rankings other than what I have already mentioned ie indexing and file name length.

[wjcampbe]

Experiment:

Make a web page 5 levels down. PM me the URL and I will link to it. Make a daily change to that page for 30 days and see how it compares with a level 2 page that remains unchanged with no links for the same period.

[RuralWeb]

PM me the URL and I will link to it

And if I also link to it from a high page rank page then the "google effect" will increase regardless of its page depth.

[fatoftheland]

I think this experiment may be a good idea. I can certainly understand the deep linking issues with 4/5 link deep pages and obviously spiders will stop visiting deeper pages in this daisy-chain format.

Obviously the use of sitemaps changes this effect, giving all pages an equal linking level.

This post really started as a way to merely ask if using sub folders was possible since I have both seen high ranking pages using this URL structure and also read about the benefits of this from an SEO pov.

I'll see if I can PM a url next week so that we can try the test you guys suggested. It sounds like a good idea regardless of what it may or may not achieve.

Thank you everyone who has contributed to this post it certainly has got the brain cells ticking over... Even if after all I don't really think either method of URL structure really makes that much difference!

[RuralWeb]

I don't really think either method of URL structure really makes that much difference!

neither do I so I dont need to waste time experimenting.

[fatoftheland]

Why waste time posting then!?

And if I also link to it from a high page rank page then the "google effect" will increase regardless of its page depth.

[RuralWeb]

Why waste time posting then!?

Because it stops others reading the post setting off on a wild goose chase - changing their sites in the hope that it will increase their rankings.

[Darren B]

I read with interest,

IMHO page depth is irrelevant content is king, i have pages that are 2,3 & pages deep and they have poor ranking but i believe this is more to do with the content than the depth simply because they do not have much on then, they did not fit in another section so they sit on there own and google sees it as a minor page.

However i also believe this is not true for your home page, google has always rated this page higher on all my sites than any others, why i gave up wasting time looking at it as i could see no point is spending time on it.

Cheers
Darren

[RuralWeb]

content is king

Exactly

However i also believe this is not true for your home page, google has always rated this page higher

It does and so it should be optimised for your primary keyword/phrase as you stand the best chance of getting a top ranking from this page.

[wjcampbe]

google has always rated this page higher

You will also find it the most common page to link to on any website. Home page links are almost equal to the total of 'otherpage' links on BC Ness, and I would have expected that one to be different because it does not have a checkout.