Sitemap style footer effect PR?

[4bidden]

A client of ours currently has their site setup using a mini-sitemap in the footer of every page of their site. I've been trying to tell the owner that sitemap style footers are a thing of the past and that they aren't needed, but he wants some proof.

So....is there any SEO reason to use/not use this method? I'm thinking that adding those 20 or so footer links isn't a great idea, even though most are internal links.

For a look at the site see ranchobernardoinn.com


Thanks!

[wige]

Yes, internal distribution of PR. Most of the items commonly put into these sitemaps (privacy policy, contact us, etc) do not need to be reached by every page on the site. When it comes to internal page rank, Google looks at these links to determine what pages of your site are the most important. This hierarchy can influence how often Google crawls pages, and may have an effect in final rankings.

At the very least, these links should have a nofollow attribute. Ideally, normal navigation should make it easy and intuitive for users to find the pages they are looking for. No flash, no JavaScript only navigation.

[textypisni32]

Take care, do not need to link every page on the site.

May affect your PR.

[incrediblehelp]

As usual I agree with wige here. Of course I would like to see it first before saying it is a bad thing. Maybe the website is small then this type of linking wont matter much.

[Secret!]

We updated our website 02/06 and had the good sense to finally add a sitemap link on every page -- since they we are in the top 10 on dozens of organic search terms on google, and number 1 to 3 on at least a dozen of them.

I believe that was the principal reason.

[likeorganic]

I like the site map in the main nav section and link at the bottom of each page and have done so with my site. I think it helps the user on large sites find what they are looking for I know I have used it on large sites myself. As for seo why would you want a no follow in the link ?

[logodesign77]

I have been doing SEO work on a trucking industry oriented website and I have seen a rise in my search returns on google from 600 plus to the mid 40's for three of my primary terms. I have not reached my front page goal but am on my way.

I say all this to say that I believe footer links can be very beneficial if done correctly. I took the idea of a site-map style footer a step further. I made the links in my footer to appear as search strings or as close to what I think the best search string would be for that page. Rather than one or two words most have 3-5 words.

For instance instead of a link saying "Trucks For Sale" the link says "Find Used and New Big Rig Trucks For Sale" another says "Find New Truck Driver Jobs" rather than "Trucker Jobs"

You can view the links at the bottom of each my pages at TruckerHub.com

This is one of the many steps I have used over the past 5 months to optimize this site and I really believe it has had a positive impact in the serps.

[wige]

There are definitely good reasons to have a footer of links: providing continued navigation at the end of a long page of text without the user scrolling all the way back to the top, an alternative to javascript/flash based navigation, etc. However it is very easy to overdo this and put too many links in. The five or six most important or related pages is one thing, two lines of links might be a bit much.

An example of how this could backfire is a search for a company name. If you do a search for your company, what pages come up? Your home page is probably first, but what is next? Is it your most important product? Or is it your "contact us" page? Your contact page, for example, is naturally optimized for your business name simply by the nature of the content you would expect on a contact page. But if you include it in a footer, now every page on your site links to the contact us page, telling Google that you, as the webmaster, think the contact us page is so important visitors need access from every other page.

This used to be more of a problem about three or four years ago, in part because these sitemap footers are being used less, and I think in part because the algorithms have been tweaked to compensate for this (partially, IMHO, by a decrease in value of internal vs external links).

Basically, tread with care. You don't want to have too much there, and overload your user, and you also don't want to dilute the value of the rest of your internal links.

[billyjones]

What's the difference between footer links and tag clouds? Tag clouds are touted all over the web as a good thing for SEO and most sites that display tag clouds do so on every page. I mean, a link is a link is a link, right?

Or is there really something here I'm missing?

[wige]

Tag clouds are lists of keywords linking to specific content such as articles and blog entries. These footers are more indexes of categories. Its more a matter of where the links point. Relevant content good, "administration" and policy type pages not so much.

Thats from the pure SEO standpoint. From the user standpoint, simplicity is usually best. Tag clouds present a novel way for a user to find content based on a keyword of interest. In the same way, a properly crafted footer presents a lost visitor a way to return to a category index page, without overwhelming that user with a long list of choices.

[billyjones]

wige,
I feel better now... I was thinking about deleting my tag clouds but now I think I'll let them stay. Thanks.

[Drake]

I can't give you an SEO perspective on that site and those links, because I'm not an SEO expert. I can, however, give you a usability and accessibility perspective.

For the main page - those lines at the bottom should be redesigned to look like the news briefs and sales pitches they are. Why not create another section below that image on the main page just to push the things that will get people in the site beyond the front page?

For the sub pages:
I don't think the problem is having the links at the bottom. In fact, it's usually easier on the user if they have more than one way to get to a page. It's particularly nice to have links at the bottom when there is page scroll. However, there is an altogether different problem with the links at the bottom of this page. There are too many, and the contrast is just terrible for reading. Three rows of page menu is way too much, it shouldn't have to be more than one across.

That's not just a problem with the bottom links though. Here are my visual impressions of the sidebar links:

1) Way too small in proportion to the rest of the page. The navigation should be prominent and.

2) The text is too small and the menu items are too crammed together - add some padding to separate them and make the more easy to read.

3) There are, again, WAY too many links. That needs to be consolidated because it's just too overwhelming. For instance, why are 'Meetings and Events' and 'Weddings' two separate menu items? I'd consolidate that into 'Events' with two subsections, one that is 'Meetings' and one that is 'Weddings' but I'd also put 'Calendar of Events' in that section. Similarly with 'Things to do', 'Spa,' and 'Golf' - they could all be together. The same with 'Take a Tour,' 'Photo Gallery,' and 'Interactive Map.' You get the idea.

So, that said - I think the site would benefit HUGELY from a lot more consolidating of those menu items and making them more prominent and readable.

On another note, I'd definitely say keep the text footer links for accessibility sake while your sidebar submenus continue to be reliant on Javascript. But like I said, I like the links at the bottom anyway - makes it easy to pick where you want to go when you are at the bottom of reading a page.

My last thing on this - If you want your client to 'modernize' and do things that are 'in' with their website, why not start by suggesting a 'modernization' of the code behind that site? I had flashbacks looking at it.

[jrb@w3f.com]

I believe it is a good thing. but.....

Textlink footers were to provide links to site pages whos links were
either not on all pages, or when the normal navagation bar is image
links. That way you always had a text link. Mini-sitemap? Ok.

I find that less wordy is better here.

If I can't find a subject/group on the normal navigation, because it
is more specific to a page, rather than the whole site, I look to the
footer text links for single word links, like contact, policy, etc.
I certainly don't want to see links like "this is a link to our contact page"
to know what it is for. I believe yours are way too long.

A short named list of everything, even in small type is good for me.

My two cents....

Drake has some good ideas, consider them. Yeah, clouds are good IMHO.
Really helps visitors focus on a group. Long list nav-bars are hard to read,
and many times they miss what they are looking for. It gets lost in the list.

[TrafficProducer]

I've foud wesite Site maps helpful at sometimes helping me find the link I need.

Think People not search engines.

[Traffic Master]

I believe it's a waste of time.

[chrisJumbo]

We use to have about 8 - 10 links in our footer. It looked cluttered. We changed over to just have "Return to Top", "Contact Us", and "SiteMap".

Looks cleaner and I believe makes it easier for visitors to get to where they may want to go next.

cd :O)

[4bidden]

Originally Posted by Drake

I can't give you an SEO perspective on that site and those links, because I'm not an SEO expert. I can, however, give you a usability and accessibility perspective.

For the main page - those lines at the bottom should be redesigned to look like the news briefs and sales pitches they are. Why not create another section below that image on the main page just to push the things that will get people in the site beyond the front page?

For the sub pages:
I don't think the problem is having the links at the bottom. In fact, it's usually easier on the user if they have more than one way to get to a page. It's particularly nice to have links at the bottom when there is page scroll. However, there is an altogether different problem with the links at the bottom of this page. There are too many, and the contrast is just terrible for reading. Three rows of page menu is way too much, it shouldn't have to be more than one across.

That's not just a problem with the bottom links though. Here are my visual impressions of the sidebar links:

1) Way too small in proportion to the rest of the page. The navigation should be prominent and.

2) The text is too small and the menu items are too crammed together - add some padding to separate them and make the more easy to read.

3) There are, again, WAY too many links. That needs to be consolidated because it's just too overwhelming. For instance, why are 'Meetings and Events' and 'Weddings' two separate menu items? I'd consolidate that into 'Events' with two subsections, one that is 'Meetings' and one that is 'Weddings' but I'd also put 'Calendar of Events' in that section. Similarly with 'Things to do', 'Spa,' and 'Golf' - they could all be together. The same with 'Take a Tour,' 'Photo Gallery,' and 'Interactive Map.' You get the idea.

So, that said - I think the site would benefit HUGELY from a lot more consolidating of those menu items and making them more prominent and readable.

On another note, I'd definitely say keep the text footer links for accessibility sake while your sidebar submenus continue to be reliant on Javascript. But like I said, I like the links at the bottom anyway - makes it easy to pick where you want to go when you are at the bottom of reading a page.

My last thing on this - If you want your client to 'modernize' and do things that are 'in' with their website, why not start by suggesting a 'modernization' of the code behind that site? I had flashbacks looking at it.

Thanks a lot Drake! I've only been with this company 2 weeks and a LARGE meeting to go over some coding/SEO type standards is already in the works. None of the current sites were done by me, I'm just now starting to review them and suggest improvements from my previous work experiences.

I'll definitely take what you said into consideration for future sites. I can already tell the design team is set in their ways and will take some convincing to "tone down" some of their design elements to lend itself to easier/better design and coding.