Today we’re going to rant about “microsites,” a broad term used to describe creating a “new” website experiences. It will cover the why, some pros, some cons, and probably go off topic.
1/n
Microsites can be subdomains, brand new domains, or even subfolders of a brand - the telling sign is generally the tech stack differs (not always true). Quick hop on builtwith.com and you'll often see React apps powering parallax experiences (RIP Flash websites).
3/n
Microsites are commonplace with large brands because it's easy to bypass red tape. Your average ad agency creative/millennial wants to do something in the 1~2 years they're working with their clients, and the typical "brand manager" wants to be digitally innovative 🤖✨🚀
4/n
Oh, and micro-sites are generally extremely targeted and focused on one objective, whatever they're designed for. Nike React shoes well, let you really experience that $$$. Spotify was likely looking for some media buzz - before "this year in review" content got old.
5/n
So pros of microsite?
🏢 Cut through some bureaucracy. If you've been in an argument about what can be on the home page, you know.
🧪 Really clear attribution. You won't have to share any first/last/mixed attribution.
🎯 Really clear goals. ROI optional.
🤖 Flexible tech stack
6/n... whoops
The cons though?
🌲🪓Campaigns are often short-lived and not evergreen. ♻️Folks let domains expire/no redirects.
🧩You're siloed, when you could be integrated, creating knock-on benefits for the whole website
💿📀💽Data often collected inconsistently.
7/n
I used to be on the camp of "why don't you just do it right the first time?" But as time has passed I've learned that done is better than perfect.
I've learned to let go of "content created" which doesn't require SEO to gatekeep.
8/n
If anything, I've learned to embrace and enable folks who want to do something "different" and help set them up for easier "migrations" once their efforts are wrapped up.
Those are their projects. Focus on your projects that impact your goals, gaining allies as you go.
9/n
"Fight for things you care about but do it in a way that will lead others to join you."
The SEO industry needs less gatekeepers and more pragmatists. The typical lifecycle of a "community" is that pragmatists often become gatekeepers, or incorrectly equivocate their experiences as superior to others'.
We can all be right. We can all be wrong.
1/N
Web rings and blogrolls. Social bookmarking websites. Directory submissions. Article submission/content syndication websites. Authorship. Penguin. Panda. Hummingbird. Mobilegeddon. Interstitials. Locality. Query deserves freshness. PageSpeed. Https.
The opinions don't stop.
2/N
In the early 2000's all the articles on SEO were about trying to get your website in a respected web directory, pages on article directories, and how to take advantage of "web 2.0" social media websites - link building was very manual and websites weren't easy to make.
3/N
Hello friends following me this Friday on "implicit vs explicit search intent."
When you've been around the SEO industry for a while you start hearing new terms emerge. Search intent, user intent, keyword intent. As usual, I'm going to start with a bit of history.
1/n
Informational, navigation, and transactional queries - this categorization has been around since I've been doing SEO, and it takes an internet search to appreciate how old it is - 2002. You can still split up queries this way, but it's not great.
Happy Friday folx - we're ranting about pagination.
We're going to break down the problem pagination was supposed to fix, the problems it ended up creating, and why I want to kill it with fire. Something #passageindexing
And fun. And wacky. And evolving. More people started connecting to the internet, own websites, publish content, sell stuff online (who would trust that?!), and much more.
2/n
Then there were at least three problems:
- Folx created more content, it was no longer feasible to put it all in one URL
- People broke up their content into chunks for better user experience or ad monetization
- Inventory-driven websites were confusing search engines
3/n
Happy Friday - let's rant about keyword density, LSI keywords, internal/external links per N words, and word count - vernacular you want to get out of your processes sooner rather than later.
1/n
Keyword density, usually defined as a percentage of amount of times a keyword shows up divided by the total number of keywords on the page, is product of the keyword-stuffing years of SEO.
e.g. I heard SEO Expert Chad recommends pages should have a Keyword Density of 2% !
2/n
Search engines were still using the keywords meta tags for rankings, the amount of times a keyword was repeated on a page had a huge influence on whether a page would rank, and there were algorithms that would pick up keyword stuffing. Yo it's not the pre 2k or early 2000's.
3/n
The subdomains vs subfolders/subdirectories debate just won't die. Search engines have evolved their treatment of "what is a website" over time, and yet the debates cling to old case studies.
At some point of this rant, we're going to talk about ccTLD's, sub-subdomains, and subdomain plus subfolder combinations with ccTLD's because #teamsubfolders uses the same argument for everything.
2/N
The concept of a "website" in the early days of the internet was that subdomains were separate entities from the "home" site. This article on website boundaries from Bing is worth revisiting. blogs.bing.com/webmaster/nove…
Websites are "leasing" subdomains/subfolders to rank stuff.
3/N