I've been reading a lot of threads about the importance of the "Category" module (http://drupal.org/project/category) for search engine optimization (SEO).
As I understand it, the Category module enables a webmaster to control the (1) body text, (2) meta description, and (3) page title included on category/index pages (pages which are otherwise NOT nodes). Because category/index pages are the most likely (other than the home page) to be ranked high by Google, this enables you to tweak these three elements for superior search engine placement.
However, others point out that the Category module can (1) be difficult to upgrade, (2) be problematic in implementation for large sites, and (3) have some compatibility issues/bugs in using its taxonomy wrapper with modules like "Forum" and "Simplenews."
So are the benefits of the Category module worth the costs?
Instead of using the Category module, what about defining three custom block regions (a block region for "body text," another for "meta description," and a third for "page title") and then creating individual blocks that appear only on each taxonomy/index page?
Would that achieve the same search engine optimization benefits?
Comments
Category. The good. The bad. The ugly. (Newbie experience)
Benk,
I saw your post on the Category module and decided that I should get the latest version. I was using the taxonomy module built into Drupal 5.1 and had divided my site by 8 distinct terms. I had taken the time to go over all of my pages, slideshows, images and stories (maybe about 100 as the site is only 3 weeks old) and use the taxonomy to create smart grouping. But.....I wanted the extra power that the new Category module would offer so I proceeded with getting the 5x version and see what it could do for me.
I uploaded the new module to the server. Went into administration and enabled it.
Ut-Oh....All my previous taxonomy entries were wiped out! Not sure what happened there. Looks like my short experiment just turned into a long night.
I figured there was no turning back at this point (I had no SQL backup as I just added the taxonomy terms yesterday) so I created categories/vocab and moved forward. 5+ hours later I had appropriated the entire site as needed into the proper groupings and used the new powers of controlling the body, meta description et all to my new terms.
For a newbie to this type of CMS I was quite proud of myself......er......until.....
Until I checked the error logs and realized that just hours previously (When I added the original taxonomy terms) googebot paid a visit and I was getting a 404 every 30 seconds. It seems my most popular recent blog entry (a fight video from the road rules show that my website covers) found its way to the top of a search page and it was pointing to mysite.com/category/video/ rather then mysite.com/video which is the way the new classification setting had it. I had totally missed that!
Well......lets just say I became a 301 redirect master in no time! I wasn't about to start messing with the categories again and felt my only recourse was to hit the .htaccess and redirect (I had already submitted the new sitemap and google had accepted it with the new URL's) I tried some code I found (off this group) that would point an entire directory but it just blew up the site (500 internal error) so I did each and every URL by hand (I really wish I could have figured it out but I was short on time. I am sure I had the syntax wrong.)
Whew! .....A mess for sure but I was trying to think on my feet.
Anyways, I went through the rest of what I found in this SEO group and added in everything that looked like it would clean up my mess and help my SERP rank in the future.
A couple of questions:
With all those URL's in my .htaccess is it really slowing down my site? How long before google will purge the old paths if ever? Did I do something terribly wrong to get myself in this predicament in the first place?
Scott
http://roadrulesrevenge.com
URLs in htaccess
I've a fair number of redirects in htaccess; haven't read of these slowing sites.
Keep mine as there were inbound links from various places - not loads, but enough that I didn't want people/search engine robots going to wrong places.
(Tho after seeing your post, maybe time for some housekeeping, to get rid of some relatively ancient and unimportant URLs from htaccess)
If only google has your former URLs, I wouldn't worry about them.
Google can take time purging bad URLs, but if your new ones are indexed, you should find it's these that Google returns in results (if old ones stay, might wind up in "supplementals" or something - frustrating to see them, but not such a big deal I think).
Figured it all out
I just want to say that the "categorization" of my site has totally cranked up my SERP rankings. It was totally worth it for my niche site.
On a side note I am putting together a new site, Inferno 3 and was working on setting up the core taxonomy when I realized something HUGE that I missed last time around....
There is a taxonomy legacy module in category that allows you to bring in your old terms/vocab.
My entire nightmare above was, as usual, created by not reading something or other ;)
passing the pagerank
Sorry, can't help w Category: I gave it quick go, but forum "vanished", took it down (forum reappeared). Plus got bit bamboozled by all the info - and really, I'm new to Drupal so maybe should have a look at taxonomy etc first.
But to address re "category" pages ranking highest.
I think this will depend on your site's linking structure.
I've used Mambo/Joomla, and found that could pass pagerank if link directly (from homepage, say) to articles.
Yes, shouldn't have tons of links from any one page, but maybe can do things w structure to pass the pagerank (or the mojo as called by Chadj, who responded to another question here).
Custom menus could be one way; can have each appear on subset of pages.
Taxonomy Context one way of making such menus, and have them appear on pages related to certain taxonomy terms (loosely, categories). Albeit doesn't create direct links to articles, but still helpful I suspect.
Views could be far better ... I think ... yet to really figure it.