How Domains and URLs Relate to SEO

[letscounthedays]

http://www.shayhowe.com/seo/how-domains-relate-to-seo/

[randfish]

I left this on the blog post (it's awaiting moderation), but think it's relevant here as well:

Shay - I think it's great that you're thinking more about SEO, but I'm really concerned about the advice you're dispensing in some of these points. There are clear best practices and plenty of correlation and testing data that refute or add complexity to the recommendations you're making. Please be cautious in giving out SEO advice if you haven't done the research and testing to back it up.

In particular:

- 301s are permanent redirects and engines pass query independent ranking factors (like link juice, anchor text, etc.) through them. 302s do not always have this benefit.

- Trustworthy IP address; this is very, very seldom an issue in SEO anymore (though historically, there were problems with engines like Ask Jeeves)

- Separate domains over subdomains is very poor advice if you're giving it universally. I'd check out http://www.seomoz.org/blog/understanding-root-domains-subdom...

- .org is not preferrable to .com or .net in any meaningful way, nor is it harder to come by. There are no restrictions on a .org

- Older sites are not necessarily "better." While there may be correlation between the age of a site and its ability to rank, this is much more typically due to the links and reputation its earned, not simply the fact that it's been registered for a lengthy period.

- There's a big, big difference between HTML Sitemaps and XML Sitemaps and your statement that it "doesn't matter" which you choose shows a concerning level of understanding of the subject...

Commendations are definitely due for tackling the subject, but please don't give bad SEO advice; there's so much out there already.

[rwolf → randfish]

I visited this article twice this evening, and it appears to have been edited to address your point about separate domains vs. subdomains.

The author failed to indicate an edit occurred, which I consider a bad Reader Confidence Optimization.

edit: edited to indicate I had visited the site twice.

[rwolf → rwolf]

and I see the "I have updated..." way down in the comments section--it doesn't count.

[Estragon → randfish]

  There's a big, big difference between HTML Sitemaps and XML Sitemaps

What's the difference, practically speak? (Not doubting, just curious. It's a field I know nothing about.)

[btn → Estragon]

XML Sitemaps are specifically designed to be a machine-readable list all of the individual pages on a site, when they were last updated, how frequently they're usually updated, and how important a page is to your site.

HTML Sitemaps are the user-friendly (YMMV), human-readable equivalent.

[Estragon → btn]

Thanks for the explanation.

[pyre]

How much of this is 'proven fact' vs just 'internet superstition?'

[btn → pyre]

Indeed, almost all of these practices seem idiotic for a modern search engine to pay any attention.