I'm an editor for a couple of these online directories where all the sites are manually approved before being added. One of the rules is that pages aren't added. Therefore the following are ok: http://www.mysite.com/ http://example.mysite.com/ http://www.mysite.com/example/ but not http://www.mysite.com/interesting.html I find that alot of sites cover more than one topic. Makes sense and there is no problem with that. But it makes it hard to add the site to the right category in the directory if each topic is denoted by a page and not a folder/ directory. The philosophy, I guess, is that the files in a directory are a clear grouping. A folder can be deleted or renamed just as easily as a page, but there you go. That's the way it works. So, webmasters, when setting up new sites consider how your site will be viewed by the directories when deciding how to structure the site. A working example: My husband's site is http://www.propertyinvestor.info. It covers property investment coaching in New Zealand, probably of limited interest to anyone reading this but I'm not trying to drum up business, just to give an example. When I created the site I had 3 pages to talk about the books he has written. * books.php * toc.php * toc2.php No need at all for these to be in a separate directory, no management problems with the 3 pages. However I decided to try to submit the books category to one of the directories. Don't know if they'll get listed, but it's worth a punt. That would mean submitting books.php, which wouldn't be acceptable. So I reworked the site and added a books folder, renamed books.php to index.php and I now have * /books/index.php * /books/toc.php * /books/toc2.php In my .htaccess I added a 301 redirect which tells the search engines and browsers who are looking for the old pages that the content has moved permanently and where to find the new pages. /books/index.php is now the default page, so I can submit http://www.propertyinvestor.info/books/ to the directory. Fingers crossed, wait a few months and I'll be able to report back how I went. Either way, it was worth getting the site in order! Sarah
I concur We have a number of lifestyle type sites that do not sit in directories very happily so some years back I created folders/directories for most of them to house the different aspects but then also I created separate specific domaines for the individual folders and, yes, cross linked. Nowadays I believe the approach is a little more complex and have developed/am developing a space station/bicycle wheel approach where the hub has two main sites stongly linked and a number of satellites on the rim with the linking themed from the folder in the hub out to the satellite across in two directions to broadly similar sites and back to the hub sites and folders. This way you get triangular linking in a 3d effect
I'm afraid I'll be surprised if it makes any real difference. Most directories just want a site, so put your keyword in the site title link, not in a folder for URL instead. So if you want to cover books, then "xx books" as the title of your link when you submit. Personally I consider it just a little messy when people start redirecting within their site.
I'm assuming you are talking about Inktomi/Yahoo mucking up the 301s? There are a lot of problems with that search engine that I took for granted with Google... does not follow redirects. strips trailing slashes from links (this makes a client request an invalid URL, then the web server redirect them to the correct one). Or in an extreme case, you could have www.site.com/name/ and a file named www.site.com/name and they would end up at the file instead of the directory. Does not support robot.txt disallows with a "?" in it. - Shawn
This one is pretty annoying - for example, see this msn search for "biggest bbq" where I have the #1 and #4 entries - note no trailing slash - Redmond gang should really fix this - no excuse for this since it is so simple to address. alek
The redirects aren't part of the normal navigation, just there so that any links from other sites / emails don't "rot". Thanks for your comments