:P :) Every time I say "period" I get flack from the UK contingent LOL
So now I say full stop ... :)
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Vivec wrote:
>
> FULLSTOP guys! .
>
> FULL.
> STOP.
>
> roarsies
> the Ewika has spokens
>
> .
>
~
FULLSTOP guys! .
FULL.
STOP.
roarsies
the Ewika has spokens
.
On 24 March 2011 17:29, Erika L. Rich wrote:
>
> Ditto.
>
> Search engines rank pages. Not directories. If the content is rank worthy,
> it doesn't matter how deep it is, it will be ranked ... full stop.
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 a
Ditto.
Search engines rank pages. Not directories. If the content is rank worthy,
it doesn't matter how deep it is, it will be ranked ... full stop.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Jacob wrote:
>
> From an SEO prospective, does not make that much of a difference.
>
>
~~~
>From an SEO prospective, does not make that much of a difference.
-Original Message-
From: Justin Scott [mailto:leviat...@darktech.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 1:20 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: seo and subdirectory depth
> The guy I'm talking to didn't want any subdirectori
site.com/news/ or site.com/blog/ definitely inform search engines as to the
type of content they contain.
/category/ or /tag/ does not help search engines afaik, but they do inform
readers as to the taxonomy of the site, and help them form a cognitive map.
from a pure readership standpoint,
/pre
> The guy I'm talking to didn't want any subdirectories or as few as possible.
> He has a bunch of categories and he wants a page for each category in the
> site root. I'd put them all in a categories subdirectory.
"The Art of SEO" from O'Reilly (October 2009) advises on page 210: "A
URL should
I'm having a small disagreement with someone over subdirectory depth and
seo. My understanding is that subdirectories are to give contextual
descriptions and grouping to their content. A subdirectory of news would
lend it's name ('news') to the content of the directory, enhancing it's
'news-ness'.
