The most important page on your Web site

Posted by Michael Martinez on October 25, 2007 in SEO Theory

If you had to pick one page on your site that anyone could ever see again, what would it be? I don’t think most people would choose their sites’ root URLs. Maybe some folks would, but I for one would not — not for all of my sites.

My root URLs are gateways or portals to the deeper content on my sites. They tell people what to look for on the site, or what is newest and most interesting on the site. But the meat of my Web sites is not really posted on the root URL.

Many Web site operators nonetheless seek links to their home pages, or promote their home pages. Some companies will only promote their domain names in advertising and product packaging. But some other companies choose to promote deep links (like customer support and product catalogues) on their advertising and packaging.

Some Web sites create special promotion pages and they place those URLs in marketing literature, advertising, and press releases. Some mass marketing letters also include special tracking URLs rather than the root URL.

The value of promoting deep content is pretty thoroughly understood among companies that have robust marketing plans, but the scramble for search results visibility tends to lead Web site operators to focus almost solely on promoting their root URL. They want high Toolbar PageRank or maybe they struggle to achieve a high placement for their service query.

By focusing all your link promotion on one URL you sacrifice a rich depth in link anchor text resources. Those resources, if they deep-linked to your immediately useful content, would help drive converting traffic and build out your own site’s ability to cross-promote itself.

Furthermore, you’d offer a more natural selection of content to attract those deep links, and your root URL would not be the most important page on your site.

Another way to ask the question is, what if every page on your site were as important as your root URL? Or, what if every page on your ste was a root URL, an isolated, independent Web site.

Suppose your only Web presence consisted of profile pages on social media sites and Web forums, where you literally have only one page of content for yourself. How would you string together 200 profiles to give people the impression that they were looking at a 200-page site?

Which profile page would be the most important one? Why?

In the old days, when everyone was dependent upon doorway pages, Altavista slammed millions of doorways into the wall in an event dubbed Black Monday. It was in October 1999, as I recall. I had only just completed my first year of learning about search engine optimization. Suddenly, people I had never heard of started showing up in the only SEO forum around, asking what had happened.

It was the first of several Great Awakenings to rock the search engine optimization industry. Maybe what Google has done this month is another Great Awakening. I don’t know, yet. I haven’t really been affected by all this Toolbar hoopla.

But people who had been dependent upon doorway pages suddenly had to find a new way to promote their sites. They began looking soon afterward into the concept of Content-Rich Doorway pages, which were robuts, attractive pages that participated in on-site navigation. They were not as easy to optimize as regular, bland, barren, ugly doorway pages but they worked pretty well and search engines accepted them.

Nowadays we call such pages “landing pages” and they are used mostly for pay-per-click advertising. In fact, many sites block robots from crawling their landing pages. But the principle of designing every page on a Web site to act like a doorway has fallen out of popularity. I think it’s still there, buried amid the clutter of SEO tactics and tools. It’s just not as pristine and compelling as it once was.

Every page on your site should provide some value, maybe not to everyone who visits your site but at least to someone. You should be able to express that value in some way without feeling or acting ashamed.

You subtly, unconsciously place value on your own pages when you don’t think about how you regard them. You design a site and you instinctively place value according to your gut instinct.

In many cases, people just need to adjust their gut instincts. For example, earlier today I looked at a blog where someone was complaining that his site didn’t rank first for his company’s very unusual name. When I looked at his root URL I only found the word in the title, and alt= attribute, and in a link pointing back to the root URL. In other words, the guy had placed so little value on the name of his site he didn’t even bother to mention it clearly and distinctly on his front page. He didn’t emphasize how important that name is to him in his copy.

I have no doubt he was relying on link anchor text to tell people how important his company name is.

I have a very strong feeling that a lot of his inbound links were not very good links.

I may be wrong about the guy’s backlinks, but I know you’ll find my root URLs for the keywords I want you to find them listed under. I don’t depend on link anchor text to do my search engine optimization for me.

Why? Because every page on my site is important to me. I make sure the pages will be found for something — something relevant to their topics.

That’s what search engine optimization is all about, in my opinion.

6 Comments on The most important page on your Web site

By wibbler on October 27, 2007 at 3:40 pm

I added 12 links to a domain recently. The target was at number 11 in g for its two word term.

I added links to my target on 12 different sites, some links were from the home page of the giving site, some were from existing indexed pages in g, some of the links to my target domain I placed on new pages which I created on sites which were indexed already in g.

Mixed up anchor text - “visit this site” - “here” - “two word phrase”.

My site has gone from 11 to 700+

Im not yet sure which of my new 12 links are factored or how many.

By Michael Martinez on October 28, 2007 at 8:00 pm

Were the links indexed in the search results? It’s very difficult to show cause and effect.

For example, were any of the 12 linking sites in any way affected by the recent Toolbar PR penalty? Did any of the 12 linking sites lose search engine traction? Do those 12 linking sites link to anything else? Did the other destinations suffer similar loss of visibility?

Also, have you changed anything — anything at all — on the destination site that went from 11 to 700? The least little alteration could cause unexpected grief.

Sometimes the search results just turn upside for a while and then return to normal. You can’t say that anything you do actually caused the brief turnover.

By wibbler on October 29, 2007 at 3:16 am

Thanks for that.

Ok - the links - all the links were placed on domains which are indexed and all are over 3 years old.

However non of the domains which the links were placed on rank well. I have loads of domains sitting anywhere below 100 in the serps - but generally showing somewhere around 500 and later for their phrases.

All this took place on the 11/Oct - so before the PR update as I am aware. Links were placed on the domains over a period of 3 days before the 11/Oct.

Im not entirely sure about the linking sites losing traction - however I WOULD say that they never had any traction anyway and are clearly under some sort of penalty looking at the dross which out ranks them.

Nothing at all was changed on the target domain - not one thing.

Having dropped to the last page of the serps for its phrase around the 11/Oct - I dont see it coming back anytime soon as its about 18 days ago now.

I very much doubt that all 12 links have been found yet - as a couple of them were placed on supplemental pages (determined by a last crawl date of june or july) - and some of the links were placed on brand new pages which were added to the chosen domains (5 of the 12 doms got new pages with the link to the target on them).

With this in mind - I suspect that only 1 or maybe 2 of the links have caused this to happen - depending on how many have been found, it becomes more difficult to trace the offending link.

In summary - I’m not asking for an answer to this its too complex - the sites have links out to others aswell - and my target site also had a few inbounds already from years ago - just letting you and people here know what happened. Basically - adding links is a dangerous thing at times.

I think I could do a test - locate a site which ranks - say a competitor - and give it 12 of my poison links and see what happens.

Personally - although I have no evidence to prove this, my theory is that my affiliate sites are too thin for todays algos or human review. I also theorise that my affiliate codes are being matched across domains aswell - this highlighting the fact I own all the sites.

Setting up a new casino site today (affiliate site) - and am going to try and make it thicker and see how it progresses over the coming months.

If theres anything that jumps out to you from the info Ive tried to give above - anything at all which may help me out - i’d be grateful - but Im not expecting a miracle :)

Cheers
Wibbler.

By Michael Martinez on October 29, 2007 at 7:41 am

I don’t think that adding links is risky unless the links go to risky Web sites. However, the timing for link additions may occasionally cause the Webmaster some anxiety.

By wibbler on October 29, 2007 at 10:57 am

Micheal - the links im talking about being risky in this case, are the ones (12) that point to my site - causing it (well suspected causing it) to drop to 700+.

I think what you said there was meaning that adding outbounds on a site isnt really risky - unless they point to a bad neighborhood.

This wasnt the case with my not so magic 12 links.

Cheers
Wibbler

By Michael Martinez on October 29, 2007 at 11:59 am

wibbler “the links im talking about being risky in this case, are the ones (12) that point to my site - causing it (well suspected causing it) to drop to 700+.”

Michael But how can anyone know that links cause drops in rankings? If you think you’ve violated Google’s guidelines, then undo whatever you do and ask for reinclusion. If you don’t feel you violated their guidelines then wait.

In your case, it doesn’t sound like you’ve done anything that should cause a site to lose positioning. But then, I’m looking at very, VERY skimpy information. If you’d like a private opinion, feel free to contact me privately (NOTE: That is my personal contact form, not the 1st Query contact form).

I’m admittedly curious about your situation, although I can’t guarantee I can explain what happened.

Comment

Log in or Register to post a comment.

More

Read more posts by Michael Martinez

About the Author

Michael Martinez is the Director of Search Strategies for 1st Query, an Internet Marketing firm offering organic SEO and PPC services.

Building trust amid SEOs’ paranoid dementia The Theorem of Search Engine Optimization