Minimum Viable SEO
blog.priceonomics.com
Minimum Viable SEO
1–10 of 68 posts
Re: Minimum Viable SEO
#2A bit off topic, but relevant to the suggestions in this post: a few of my friends are finding it more effective with Google to use a flat file structure rather than the highly nested folder trees that are usually recommended. Anyone have any thoughts/experience with this?
Re: Minimum Viable SEO
#3A bit off topic, but relevant to the suggestions in this post: a few of my friends are finding it more effective with Google to use a flat file structure rather than the highly nested folder trees that are usually recommended. Anyone have any thoughts/experience with this?
It really depends on how many pages you have. If you just have 10 pages off the domain (/signup, /login, /about, /jobs, /how-it-works, etc) then there's really no benefit of having a hierarchy. If you have > 1k pages, then a flat structure will confuse google/users and do a poor job spreading your site's link equity amongst your pages.
Is that what you're asking?
Re: Minimum Viable SEO
#4I have a small nit to pick in an otherwise great post:
Codecademy is not the same as Code Academy.
It's also noteworthy that codecademy.com ranks higher than codeacademy.org in the google search for "Code Academy".
Well played indeed.
Re: Minimum Viable SEO
#5I have a small nit to pick in an otherwise great post: Codecademy is not the same as Code Academy. It's also noteworthy that codecademy.com ranks higher than codeacademy.org in the google search for "Code Academy". Well played indeed.
I think Codecademy needs to get CodeAcademy.com as soon as they can.. otherwise they're gonna rely on mostly search traffic to get visitors since most ppl won't remember their url
Re: Minimum Viable SEO
#6A bit off topic, but relevant to the suggestions in this post: a few of my friends are finding it more effective with Google to use a flat file structure rather than the highly nested folder trees that are usually recommended. Anyone have any thoughts/experience with this?
I don't think the actual urls matter. In terms of site structure, I actually don't recommend having too many nested folders/directories if you don't have a lot of inner pages. I see a lot of sites with category and subcategory pages with just 5-10 links in each. Google won't crawl that deep if your site is new. and the deeper a page is, the less important Google deems it (based on flow of internal Pagerank).
Re: Minimum Viable SEO
#7I have a small nit to pick in an otherwise great post: Codecademy is not the same as Code Academy. It's also noteworthy that codecademy.com ranks higher than codeacademy.org in the google search for "Code Academy". Well played indeed.
I think Codecademy needs to get CodeAcademy.com as soon as they can.. otherwise they're gonna rely on mostly search traffic to get visitors since most ppl won't remember their url
It seems that they do already - see http://www.codeacademy.com
Re: Minimum Viable SEO
#8I have a small nit to pick in an otherwise great post: Codecademy is not the same as Code Academy. It's also noteworthy that codecademy.com ranks higher than codeacademy.org in the google search for "Code Academy". Well played indeed.
It's practically impossible to reverse engineer the SERP, but if you look at the Domain Authority for both codecademy.com and codecademy.org, you'll find that the former is orders of magnitude higher (65 vs 35). This might explain a lot.
http://www.opensiteexplorer.org
You can also lookup how many inbound links the sites have using different anchor text like "Code Academy".
Re: Minimum Viable SEO
#9The article mentions the beginner's SEO guide, but coming in at 2 pages, the Web Developer's SEO Cheat Sheet from SEOmoz is my go-to resource:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-web-developers-seo-cheat-shee...
Re: Minimum Viable SEO
#10I first read this as Minimum Viable CEO and double face-palmed