Flat Structure URL vs Structured Sub-directory URL

[newspore]

We are finally taking our classifieds site forward and moving into a much improved URL structure, however, there is some disagreement over whether to go with a Flat URL structure or a structured sub-directory.

I've browsed all of the posts and Q&A's for this going back to 2011, and still don't feel like I have a real answer. Has anyone tested this yet, or is there any consensus over ranking? I am in a disagreement with another SEO manager about this for our proposed URL structure redesign who is for it because it is what our competitors are doing.

Our classifieds are geographically based, and we group by state, county, and city. Most of our traffic comes from state and county based searches. We also would like to integrate categories into the URL for some of the major search terms we see. The disagreement arises around how to structure the site. I prefer the logical sub-directory style:

[sitename]/[category]/[state]/[county]/
mysite.com/for-sale/california/kern-county/
or
[sitename]/[category]/[county]-county-[stateabb]/
mysite.com/for-sale/kern-county-ca/

I don't mind the second, except for when you look at it in the context of the whole site:

Geo Landing Pages:
mysite.com/california/
mysite.com/los-angeles-ca-90210/

Actual Search Pages:
mysite.com/for-sale/orange-ca/[filters]

Detail Pages:
mysite.com/widget-type/cool-product-name/productid

I want to make sure this flat structure performs better before sacrificing my analytics sanity (and ordered logic). Any case studies, tests or real data around this would be most helpful, someone at Moz must've tackled this by now!

[DirkC]

I didn't check all the references of Patrick - but yes, the way you build your url (folders or "flat") will have no impact on how you are positioned in the SERP's (if they contain the same keywords)- so both of the options you mentioned in your original question are equal if you only see it from SEO perspective.

rgds

Dirk

[newspore]

Thanks Dirk and Patrick, those are both very helpful resources!

Going back to my original question, even after reviewing all of these links, it appears that this is a preference issue, and not a performance one, yes?

[DirkC]

The resources mentioned  by Patrick are all good ones - I am even going to add one: http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/structured-urls/ . You don't even have to read it :

• structured url's help semantics  - the folder like structure helps search engines understand how the site is structured
• it's easier to check which pages are indexed as you can do a site:mysite.com/folder/
• reporting is way easier with a structured url

Apart from that, and probably most important argument: a site depth is measured on how many clicks you need to get to a page and how pages are cross-linked - Google is not counting the number of "/" in your url's to determine if your site is flat or not.

rgds

Dirk

[PatrickDelehanty]

Hi there

I personally like hierarchy and categorization. If I were you, I would check out these resources:
How to Create a Site Structure That Will Enhance SEO (KISSmetrics)
Information Architecture for SEO - Whiteboard Friday (Moz)
Site Architecture & Search Engine Success Factors (SEL)
User Redirection Based On Location Is Not Spam (SEL)
Sitelinks (Google)
Set up Site Search (Google)
Categorize parameters with the URL Parameters page (Google)

There are a TON of great resources above with lots of great information. I would suggest checking these out and passing along to your team and having a discussion.

Hope that helps! Good luck!