Why website internal linking still counts - a lot.

Written by Peter Graves on .

User Rating:  / 0

An article in eConsultancy recently caught my eye, if only to get back out of the cupboard an old SEO technique which was at one point hailed as nearly dead, but actually remains extremely important.

 It also reminded me that Joomla, one of our most preferred CMS systems, and how some of the most SEO-friendly features come with it straight “out of the box” so as to speak.  We have been using these features for years and they continue to work very well indeed thank you.  Let me explain.

The original eConsultancy post looks at some examples of UK newspaper web sites that ranked well for major search terms during the football world cup this year, and looks to see which ones used their internal web site structure, and internal “Hub Pages” in particular, to ensure that key pages on a topic rank well, and continue to do so as new news on that topic rolls through your content-marketing system.  Naturally a top ranking for “World Cup” related searches was able to deliver very large traffic numbers to newspaper web sites during 2014, and so this was an important battleground for eyeballs and revenues this year.

The Guardian Newspaper’s top-ranking World Cup “Hub” page:

http://www.theguardian.com/football/world-cup-football

The crucial take-away from this article is that the Guardian web site through good use of hub pages and internal linking strategies, were able to out-rank their competitors for some very high volume search terms, in particular the “Mail Online”, who completely failed to get this important aspect of web design right. 

The way this used to work back in the day (pre 2009) was that the web site owner, ably supported by their SEO team would decide which pages in the site were the most important, and then push all the signals towards those pages to make them rank as highly as possible.  They would do this essentially by:

  • Linking to the topic page from the home page,
  • Always adding links from sub-pages back to the topic page as well, (i.e. from each piece of football news back to the main “World Cup” page)
  • By adding “NOFOLLOW” tags to links pointing at their less important pages;  the “Terms & Conditions”, insignificant blog posts, privacy policy, and the rest of what might be considered “non-landing” pages.  These being pages that you need on the web site, but don’t really promote your core offering, so you’d rather keep people off them and on your sales pages, unless they really want to go there to get that information. 

Together this would mean that the available Page Rank within the site would be pushed towards the pages that you most wanted to rank, these would rank more highly on the search engines, and people would be more likely to land on your key sales pages.

Killed off by Google:

Then Google announced in 2009 that part of this strategy was to be killed off.  They didn’t see the value in webmasters trawling through their own web sites adding NOFOLLOW to internal links, when they should just be creating great content for their users, so Google announced that from now on internal “NOFOLLOW” links would be ignored.

So the SEO industry and many web site designers decided at this point that sculpting internal page rank was now dead, and that from now on the only links that counted were those from other sites – external links.  

The Baby and the Bath-water

This new article reminds me yet again that this missed a very important point.  Google didn’t stop counting internal links, nor did it stop making decisions about which of your internal pages you, and it, should consider the most important.  It has continued to work that the most “linked-to” internal pages have always ranked the best.  Google still does count and weigh your internal links, and these have always continued to provide very important signals as to which pages you, and Google, should value the highest.

Silo structures:

One way of describing this is a “Silo” web site structure, where within the main site, each important sub-topic doesn’t just get its own page, but it gets what you might call a mini-site or silo of related content pages, all revolving the main topic “home” page or hub page.  Within one of these silos there is more linking between “related” articles.

Some of the common ways of providing this navigation include:

  • Link back up to the topic’s parent page.
  • Next and previous links to other pages in the same topic.
  • A list of articles within the same topic. 
  • In-text links from relevant words in each article, to related articles in the same topic.
  • Breadcrumbs which show the way from the lower level articles back up to the parent pages within the same topic, and then all the way back up to parent categories, should they exist, and then the site’s home page.
  • “Tags” which link to other articles, tagged with the same subjects, in any category.
  • Second-level menu lists taking you to lower level articles within a topic, dropping down from the top level menu link which takes you to the parent page. 

One thing that springs to mind now is that we find web site owners and their designers are quite often united in not wanting this type of navigation.  For web site owners who run businesses, they are often not brought up on the web, and seem to find information-rich web sites with lots of navigation quite intimidating.  This is a legitimate concern and you certainly don’t want to overwhelm your users, particularly if they are likely to be older and less technical.  However to respond by taking out all but the simplest types of navigation is not the best solution.  By stripping out internal linking structures listed above, you end up with plenty of pages linked to only once, sometimes even orphans, not linked to at all.  Visitors are denied the choice of easily finding the content they want, search engines find the site more difficult to crawl, and the important signals of multiple links to important pages, can be lost altogether.  Look at the eConsultancy article again, the argument for a “Hub page” properly structured and linked to, is overwhelming;  if you want good rankings, and lots of visitors that is. 

Conversely sites with insufficient internal navigation are essentially being designed for poor rankings and low visitor numbers – not really the sort of thing we want to get involved in.

How to set up these internal linking structures?

What I really enjoy now is, how easy our preferred CMS systems make all these desirable navigation styles to implement.

Let’s look at Joomla first.

In Joomla you store your content articles in categories and subcategories, and this has always been a core feature of the system.  It makes content easy to manage, to find, and to relate information together by topic.   Out of the box Joomla comes with features which allow you to create all the navigation styles listed above, and which automatically update themselves as new content is added, and most of the popular templates utilise or enhance these.  The World Cup “hub page” listed in the eConsultancy article would in Joomla be known as a Category page, and this category page could both have its own text, and also contain various lists of links of all its sub-pages.  If preferred it would also have sub-categories, so if we were to stick with the “World Cup” example, the World Cup category could contain subcategories with:

  • News about England (“Home already?”)
  • News about Italy (“Nice hair boys”)
  • News about Columbia (”Another big bite”)
  • News about Germany (“Wins again, and again, and again, and…”)
  • News about FIFA (“You paid them how much to vote?”) 

What works so well is that because these sites are dynamic, these pages can update themselves.  When you add a new article to the “World Cup” / “England” section, it automatically gets added to those pages, and also updated with all the relevant navigation links.  As soon it appears on the site it could have:

  • A link to the parent page
  • Next and previous links to articles in the same category
  • A list of other articles within the same topic (sub-category)
  • Breadcrumbs to find your way back up to parent category and home page
  • Tags to find similarly tagged articles in any category 

If you want in-text links to related articles, you normally need to add yourself, and if an article is important enough to be added to a menu or sub-menu, then this is also a job that would normally need to be done by an administrator.  However as you can see from the following  link, there are also Joomla extensions where you define the keywords that you want to change into links, and which content pages you’d like them to link to.  Then the extension goes through the site and makes those internal links for you, every time a new article is added to the site, so this can be a nice touch on some web sites, for labour-saving internal site SEO.

Text links in Articles:

Here is some more information on how to structure Hub (Category) pages in Joomla:   http://docs.joomla.org/Category/en


Hub Page Example:

An example of a “Hub page” in a recently developed web site for Young Epilepsy:

The page “About Epilepsy” (http://www.youngepilepsy.org.uk/about-epilepsy/)  is the hub page above a number of sub-pages, in this case, “What is Epilepsy”, “Causes of Epilepsy”, “Diagnosing Epilepsy”, and others. Note that these pages use Joomla to create several of the types of navigation listed above.  With a site like this, once you started undertaking serious SEO to work up its rankings for “Epilepsy” type phrases, these hub pages would be the places you would target for ranking for the most important search terms.

Perhaps the most crucial thing about using a CMS like Joomla to create your hub page, is that to a certain extent the page is self-updating.  What happens is that you add a new article into the Football World Cup / England category, and if it is set up that way, a link to that article will immediately appear on the category parent page – the “World Cup” and “England”, pages.  If you want it can also appear on the higher level parent: “Football” page, and if you want this as well, it can appear on a list of “Newest Articles” or “Most viewed articles” on the web site’s overall home page.  So this instantly and dynamically creates important links to your article from the main relevant pages in the site.  In addition the article will get immediate links from any other page where there is a list of “related pages” to do with the World Cup.

Links from the new page will also automatically be in place.  It will have links as soon as it is published, to its parent hub pages, either the close “England” page, or the second level up “World Cup” page.  It will already have links in it to its related (brother / sister) pages, and pages tagged with the same subject matter.  

And when you add the next article the same happens again.  Our previous page is still there and retains its important internal links, but it drops to second on the list, behind the newer page.

So all this means that it is very easy to set up and keep a really good SEO structure in the web site, the tools for doing so are built in to the structure, it only remains for your designer to understand and set them up properly, and for you to keep creating great and informative content for your users.

SEO Automation:

Another aspect of this, and one you can readily see on the Guardian site, is that the correct structure for SEO is inherited by all the articles that are added.  This means that the authors adding the articles don’t need to be great at SEO, they just need to write great content.  Good SEO allows you to effectively automate parts of your content SEO as the life of the site continues, and the authors can just do their job and write.

Other Systems:

Similar features exist in each of the other popular CMS systems. 

WordPress and Tags.  WordPress being a blog tends naturally to put posts chronologically, in “blog style”, and can link them together by category, or using tags for similar content types. 

A blog also often has an “archive” where older articles can be accessed by month.  While this allows you to access that older content chronologically, it doesn’t give the benefit of adding “keyword” links to those articles which help with search rankings, instead the links are by date, so that one small benefit is lost.

Each “Tag” is a single word that appears on one or more articles, and by clicking on it you can see a list of those articles, which are therefore grouped by content. Clearly an article could have a number of tags, as many as it has words.  Tags both allow users to follow their interest through a web site, and they give you keyword-rich links to related articles, which Google also loves.

A Tag can be added either by an Administrator, saying in effect “we want to let our users see a list of all articles related by this topic”, or they can be added by the system itself.  In this event the system simply lists the most used words in the web site, excluding meaningless and small words: “and”, “or”, “read more” “submit”, and other words that don’t really indicate a subject or topic.  Clearly both allow you to have a keyword-rich navigation between related articles, but the first system gives you control of which keywords you want to emphasise, while the automated version just creates a large cloud of linked words.

Drupal and Taxonomy.  Drupal is the granddaddy of taxonomy, which means that an article can be in one or more categories.  With Drupal you have always been able to put an article about the finance of the England team at the world cup into several categories: “World Cup”, “England”, “Finance”, and “Football”, all spring to mind.  This means that you can have a hub page for any or all of those categories, each of which will link into all the articles that have been deemed to be relevant to that category.  Now this isn’t really all that different to the “Tags” that you get in a blog. The main difference is that it is unusual to actually create a hub page for a tag, while for a category of content or a taxonomy term, it is far more normal.  In other respects, a tag and a taxonomy term are quite similar.

In latter days the other CMS Joomla and Wordpress have both introduced “Taxonomy” type extensions which make it possible to add an article into multiple categories, in fact nowadays all three CMS systems offer all these types of navigation, so the simple availability of one navigation type in one of the CMS, would not on its own be a reason for selecting that platform.

 Who makes this happen?

The important thing about Hub pages from our perspective as a web development / marketing company, is that it comes down to us to put them in.

  • The client is unlikely to ask for Category pages, they often “don’t like them”.
  • A graphic designer is unlikely to specify category pages, with them not “clean enough” looking for a typical designer-type web site. 

The most popular CMS systems already contain features that can provide dynamic category pages out of the box, but most web site designers will at the request of their client, and as a result of their own instincts, not utilise them.

At Channel we believe that building SEO and search engine friendliness into a web site from the start is the best way to go.  We make the assumption (yes we do ask you of course!), that what our web site owners want is good search rankings and as much good quality traffic to the web site as possible.   This is why we select the tools that we do, and use them wherever possible to create the most user-friendly and search-engine friendly structure that we can, in order to maximise  the value to your business.

“Taxonomy” , “Tagging”, “Silo Structure”, “Hub pages”, call it what you like, but this is one of the aspects of web site design that most users don’t see or understand, but which can make the biggest possible difference to your web site’s chances of success. It is not enough just to store the content under the right category, tag or taxonomy term, but it is necessary for the designers and the SEO team to work together to set up the signals which stress the importance of your most important pages.

I hope this article has helped you to understand that a little more, and when you ask us to build your web site, you won’t need to say “I don’t really like those extra navigation links”, because you will understand how important they really are to your web site’s potential success.

Take-aways

·         If you want your web site to attract visitor traffic and be a success, then SEO needs to be included within the design of the site from the very start, and then re-considered every time a major event or change occurs.

·         This is what the team at Channel have always done, and with the interests of our clients and their web sites at heart, we aim to continue on these lines as long as they deliver results.

·         Popular CMS systems such as Joomla make this very easy, if you use them properly.

·         The result should be good rankings in search engines, and your web site being found for your most important search terms, or to put it another way, by the audience that you want to attract. 

 

Google Authorship is dead. Long live Author Rank (or something else?)

Written by Julian Hook on .

User Rating:  / 0

The ever-changing pursuit of better search results.

Google doesn't always make things easy for the SEO industry, nor for the web site owners who they are so important to. In the ever-changing pursuit of better search results, less Spam and greater advertising revenues, they often introduce and later roll back changes to which we all have to respond.

When Google says "Jump", we say "How high?".

So it should come as no great surprise to us, that after pushing "Author Markup" in a big way for about 3 -years, as a method of determining the authority of web-authors and therefore allowing content from those known "decent" authors to rank better, Google have first removed the author bio images from their search results (June), and now excluded Authorship information from search results altogether.

It certainly makes a degree of sense. Authorship only worked for people who had set up a Google+ profile, AND markup in their web site (saying "rel=author") which linked to that profile. For something that technical there was only ever going to be a fairly limited uptake. While it certainly helped get a little more traction for Google+ and more users from within the SEO and web marketing community, it would not be accurate to say that the vast majority of decent authors ever started using it.

So the main benefit was to the technical SEO community, who like Google's own Matt Cutts were able to both set up the Google+ profile AND add the relevant markup to their web sites. Good for the SEO world, but less good for Google's ability to filter the better author's work from the rest in the wider world.

So should we be surprised that Authorship has now been removed?

What was authorship anyway?

Here is an example from our own blog a couple of years ago.

In a nut shell, for some organic search results, where the author could be determined by Google, they displayed the listing with a small square author image (from their Google+ profile), and a link to their Google+ profile.

In fact, Google was pushing authorship so hard that we even contributed a plug-in to the Joomla community, allowing authorship information to be automatically inserted into the header of every article, along similar lines to extensions that were also become available in the WordPress world.

So when Google announced the final dropping of the authorship markup a couple of weeks ago, through the slightly unusual route of John Mueller's Google+ page , the SEO community was in turns; (1) grumpy that they had gone to all the effort to set up all that authorship markup, only to have it removed 3-years later, and (2) puzzled as to Google's next efforts to determine the authority of authors and help people find and rank their content accordingly.

Well Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Land probably hit the nail on the head the best, with his post explaining the difference between "Authorship Markup", and "Author Rank":

I won't re-hash everything that Sullivan said, but his central premise is that Google has another way of determining Author Rank which does not rely on the defunct author markup. However, they only really use this in determining the results that they return in the "In Depth Articles" section that they sometimes include in the search results – not the main search results.

Google's own advice for how to appear in the "In Depth Articles" section does advise you on what to do to your site in order to maximize your chances. As well as writing great content of course, it basically involved the following:

  • Using correct page structure
  • Using Schema.org markup
  • Having and linking correctly to a Google + "Publisher" page.

There's more about it here . It remains to be seen whether this advice will now be changing in the light of the removal of the Authorship results, but it looks more like it relates to the (retained) "Publisher" markup anyway. Many of the features that this requires are actually built in to the popular CMS systems like WordPress and Joomla, either being there as default, or you can switch them on, or add them in quite simply with a plug-in.

Other points of interest are:

Although Authorship markup has been killed off, its sister "publisher" markup is still retained. This was always less significant as it didn't show in the search results, so it is currently hard to see whether this will have very great significance now.

Google still recommends using schema markup such as schema.org , to help search engines and others with the indexing and categorization of your content. For example the "Organization" markup is recommended on the page describing how to make it into the "In Depth Articles" section.

What should you be doing?

As a web site owner or webmaster what should be doing in the light of these changes?

Firstly are the "rel=author" tags worth retaining on your pages? From what we can see the only reason you would want them now is if you are an author that actually contributes to a number of different sites online. In this event the markup would still allow you to use your Google+ Profile as a central place where you could easily list your various contributions to the different sites, as it does now, and allow your readers to easily navigate from one to another.

This however presupposes both:

  1. That the sites you contribute to continue to use the Author markup in the light of these Google changes. You would have to assume that many sites will just drop this markup now.
  2. That you actually want to use your Google+ profile page as a central source of your authorship / contributions. You would need to be fairly committed to Google+ for this to be the case, especially in light of the significant range of other properties that you might prefer to use for your main author bio – not least of all your own web site.

So, I think it is safe to say that in the absence of any new revelations from Google on the subject, authorship markup will now start to drift out of use. I would not be removing it just yet however. Although Google are claiming that they are no longer looking at it, it does seem that the ongoing search for decent authorship information will continue and that being a respected, known and accredited author will still carry weight in the search rankings.

So my action on the rel=author tags would be to leave them in place for now and in a few months time we will start to see more about any benefits of using them and how Google is now using authorship information in its algorithm.

The most important thing you should be doing as a website owner is continuing to create good, relevant content for your website(s) - that has never changed - don't let all this talk about authorship be a distraction. Authorship was never the main game in town, only one small tool in the SEO armoury. Regular high-quality content always has and probably always will be, by far the most important thing you can be contributing to your web site.

And as for Google?

Well finally what does this mean for Google, its search results, and Google+?

There has been a significant amount of talk about the dismantling of Google+, particularly back in April of this year when the head of Google+ moved on. It is certainly the case that the use of Authorship markup and the desire to use it for increased authority for websites has driven quite a large number of users to Google+ and that many of them might decide to use it less now that incentive has been withdrawn.

But Google+ is also much more than that - apart from anything else you now use it to sign into every single Google product, so although it will inevitably change, it won't be going away just yet. Here is an interesting related article from Search Engine Land on the dismantling, or not, of Google+ http://marketingland.com/google-plus-will-die-may-change-82377 .

As for the search results, and the everlasting search for ways to increase the authority and ranking of your web pages? Well Authorship by markup may have gone, but it appears that Google already has other ways of determining authorship and the tried and tested method of all – good quality links / citations to a web page, still remains by far the most potent indicator of authority, despite the many changes that have happened there.

Overall, we can say that these changes while interesting, will only affect a relatively small number of websites & authors and in the bigger scheme of Google changes, are only a relatively minor ripple on the sea.

Takeaways:

  • Keep writing great content
  • Leave the Authorship markup for now
  • Keep using Google+, it still counts.

If you have experience of this or a view on anything covered in the article please let us know by starting a discussion.

Google's "Pigeon" update - what it means for you

Written by Hollie Gibson on .

User Rating:  / 0

Google Pigeon updateNews from the US is that Google's pigeon update has been rolled out over there for the last few weeks, and this has given us SEOs a chance to see what it does, and anticipate how it will affect our clients in the UK.

At this early stage the view is not totally comprehensive, but it should help you to plan a strategy to mitigate its impact on your web site and your business.

Just a couple of initial points:

  1. You should already be listed on Google Local / Places directory. If not go and get listed first here: www.google.com/local/business/
  2. The pigeon update relates mainly to the way local search results are displayed, so is most likely to affect smaller "local" businesses.
  3. The name "Pigeon" was not given by Google, but the SEO industry.
  4. The update has rolled out in the US, and is expected in the UK and Europe soon. This gives businesses time to prepare for it.

We use cookies to improve our website and your experience when using it. To find out more about the cookies we use and how to delete them, see our Privacy Policy.

I accept cookies from this site

EU Cookie Directive Plugin Information