Will and I have a recurring argument about what should and shouldn't be in a site review. My argument has been (and remains) that before you can do a proper site review, you need to do keyword research in order to validate that the site architecture is correct. Whereas Will says his argument is that you can separate a "site review" into two separate parts: technical review and keyword targeting review - which could be separate deliverables, and for which only the second one do you need keyword research.
I have been doing a fair few site reviews recently and one thing has stuck out. Yes, almost every site I've ever looked at has technical issues that should be fixed. Yes, people are still using font tags in a deliberate attempt not to pass semantic information to the search engines, and yes, some people still insist on creating a hideous flash monstrosity. However, the biggest issue (ignoring the hideous flash monstrosity, which deserves everything it gets) is not something that can be fixed by tweaking a template here or adding a mod re-write rule there.
I'd love to stir this up into a big issue, but unfortunately it really isn't. You see, Will knows I'm right but never likes to admit he's wrong. Will wants us to first send the client a technical site review. After that, he argues we can look at the keyphrase research and information architecture. I'm a firm believer that step one should be keyphrase research, which can then feed into a site review which not only looks at if there is a h1 tag on the page, but whether the keywords in the h1 tag are the right keywords.
I see a correlation between big sites and fairly few or fairly small technical issues. However, the opposite is true of site architecture, where the bigger the site, the more site architecture problems there tend to be.
Site/information architecture issues fall into a number of camps: duplicate content, keyword cannibalisation, and a distinct lack of keyword targeting. All of which, in my opinion, are a bigger hurdle to ranking than most of the issues that are picked up in a technical site review.
As an example, I was looking at a site the other day that is one of a number of trusted Cisco partners providing Cisco training. Technically the site was ok (ish), but whoever wrote the content of the site certainly didn't have the search engines in mind; come to think of it, I'm not sure they had anyone in mind.
They had a page linked from the homepage of the site talking about the training they offered. The title tag of the page was Company Name | Training. The header of the page was Training with Company Name, and the page didn't mention Cisco once.
<not very subtle jibe>Obviously Will understands, just as well as you all do, that updating a header (coded in a font tag) to an h1 tag won't make the slightest bit of difference if the keyword isn't in the header.</not very subtle jibe>
With this issue in mind, I'd like to propose the following methodology for a full site review, and see what you guys think.
Step 1 - Keyphrase research. I think it's vital to get this done as early as possible in any process. Keywords drive SEO, so you want to know these as early in the process as possible. I'm as guilty as anyone for thinking I can get by without keyword research. Keywords are obvious right up until the point that someone points out you are wrong.
At this stage, if you can end up with more than just a list with search volumes you are on to a winner. Try to spot patterns in the way people search. You want to start with short tail keywords and find a hierarchy leading you to your pages.
Step 2 - Site Architecture. This step is, in my opinion, where the big bucks are earnt. Coming up with a site architecture can be very tricky. At this stage you need to look at your keyword research and the existing site (in order to make as few changes as possible). You can think of this in terms of your site map. You need a hierarchy that leads you to each of your "money pages" (i.e., those pages where conversions are most likely to occur). Obviously, a good site hierarchy allows the parents of your money pages to rank for relevant keywords (which are likely to be shorter tail).
Most products have an obvious hierarchy they fit into, but when you start talking in terms of anything that naturally has multiple hierarchies it gets incredibly tricky. The trickiest hierarchies, in my opinion, occur when there is a location involved. In London alone there are London boroughs, metropoliton boroughs, tube stations, and postcodes. For you fact junkies out there, London even has a city ("The City of London") within it.
In an ideal world you will end up with a single hierarchy that is natural to your users and gives the closest mapping to your keywords. Whenever there are multiple ways that people search for the same product, it makes coming up with a hierarchy that much harder. Rand touched on this (relating to blogs) when he was talking about solving indexation problems.
Step 3 - Keyword mapping. Once you have both a list of keywords and a list of pages, spending the time mapping one to another is well worth it. It suddenly becomes a very easy job to spot pages that aren't targeting a keyword, and arguably more importantly keywords that don't have a page.
It's worth pointing out that between step 2 and step 3 you will remove any wasted pages. Rand covers exactly this problem in his 2nd Headsmaking tip, how to come up with top level navigation naming conventions.
If this stage is causing you issues, I suggest you revisit step 2. Your site architecture should lead naturally to a mapping that is both easy to use but, importantly for the search engines, includes your keyphrases.
Step 4 - Site review. Once you are armed with your keyword mapping, a site review becomes a lot easier. Take a look at Tom in Whiteboard Studios, who talks you through a site review process. Now when you are looking at title tags and headings you can refer back to your keyword mapping and not only see if the heading is in an h1 tag, but also if it includes the right keywords..
So, to help finish my debate with Will, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how you go about a site review. Do you prefer to send through one document with everything included, or would you rather send multiple documents over time, but with the first technical site review being delivered earlier?
By: Duncan Morris
Information Architecture - A Site Review is Nothing Without It
On-page SEO
The author's views are entirely his or her own (excluding the unlikely event of hypnosis) and may not always reflect the views of Moz.
You present some super key points for analyzing a site and its search-engine readiness. Ideally, clients would understand the importance of such analysis. Unfortunately, many clients don't understand that if their technology is wrong, issues such as dynamic pages and session IDs serve as a "wall" around their "city."
I vote for for reviews in the following order:
Summary approach: Break down the "walls" and then optimize the pages once the spiders can enter the city.
Great comment, PixelBella. I think this is closest to my point of view. Well said :)
Yes. Really she has a great comment on this. Well done!
Hi PixelBella. Great summary, and one that makes a lot of sense. I agree that there are certainly cases where the technical architecture is so bad that doing the site architecture first is a waste of time. As a couple of people commenting have said, having a nice site architecture is worthless if the robots can't get to the "city".
Recently I've been doing a lot of site reviews where there isn't a wall around the city since the technical stuff is broadly ok. The biggest problem with these sites is the architecture.
I think the main sticking point between Will and I, is that I want to wherever possible send as few documents as possible to the client, and I want the first document to be the one that gives the client the most benefit. Clients are really bad at making changes, especially, in my experience content (or architecture) changes, and by sending these first I'd like to think they would get the attention they deserve.
I love site reviews where the problem is 90% technical, and there are "walls" up. It makes the document easy to write and the actions have immediate effect. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending how you look at it), the site reviews I've been doing recently have had major keyword targeting issues, and relatively few / minor technical issues.
I worry that sending through a document that doesn't address the fundamental issue(s) with a site makes us look bad.
Thanks! And you bring up some super good points. You identify an example why the process cannot be totally automated. You and Will are both right! :-)
Different sites require different levels of analysis. I'm envisioning a decision flowchart with an "If, then..." If the technical aspect is acceptable, then proceed to Keyword Research as you've defined.
Client comprehension is also a huge factor. We can put them in overload mode. They look at 16 pages of analysis with terms they don't understand, and their eyes glaze over. Each audit should close with a summarized prioritized list broken down between:
Your post also shows us how important it is to educate clients along the way so they understand the issues, consequences and possible ROI.
I think that we probably fall somewhere between Duncan & Bella. I prefer to send a client as few docs as possible, and all at once (I'm not that long from being a client, and that we ceryainly my preference). And I also think that a number of the reviews/audits being mentioned tend to blur into each other.
We typically end up sending 2-3 docs: site audit which details major technical issues, but also will include recommended changes to navigation, recommendations for new content, etc.., keyword document which details competitive nature of keywphrases, along with titles etc.. mapped against important pages, and finally (but all as part of the same package) a recomended 1st batch of link targets.
Well said. I've found that taking down the walls on enterprise level sites to allow the search engines to properly index what is already there is generally the most difficult step. Massaging the titles, content, navigation structure, and so on once the keywords are finalized is easy once you get past that first step.
For sites being built or rebuilt from scratch, I would agree with Duncan's point of view that keyword research should come first.
Interesting post. I agree with you that initial KW research should be part of the site review. That said, I'd add a second phase: ongoing KW research, using AdWords to test new KWs, monitoring conversion rates and optimising accordingly. But I guess that's obvious anyway.
Also, when you're doing KW mapping in the site review, it makes sense to look at conversion rate optimisation too. For every page, you should have three things mapped out: KWs you're targeting, what you're trying to say, what you want the visitor to do. The last two are normally forgotten, which leads to some pretty bollocksy websites.
Great post, Duncan, but I'm afraid I'm leaning towards Will's side. There are certainly going to be exceptions to any rule, but I think in general, most sites would see the most-significant improvement from addressing the technical issues first and foremost. In my experience, most clients have a "good enough" understanding of their keyword phrases, and you can get by on those for at least long enough to address the technical stuff. I see a couple of benefits to Will's 2-part review process. First, technical issues are typically easier for us to identify and explain. So after a project begins, you can deliver something to the client fairly soon, and therefore, the site begins to change as soon as possible. Second, solving technical issues is usually more straightforward than architectural issues, so you can usually just send a client the document and let them "keep themselves busy" while you focus on writing Part 2 of the site review. So while I CAN imagine circumstances that would make keyword research the first priority... overall, I'd say that most SEO projects should start with a technical review.
I prefer the technical one first. Reviewing a website with perfect keyword targeting, cleverly disguised as a disfunctional flash site, feels like running uphill.
How am I ever supposed to do keyword targeting research if all keywords are hidden in a flash file, or perhaps worse, as a block of hidden links?
I agree that the technical review needs to occur first. If technical issues exist that the client isn't willing to address and/or pay to have corrected, you'll be de-railed before you get a chance to do keyword research.
I've often seen a site's search engine rank increase dramatically from correcting simple technical or archetecture issues, even though the site's usage of content (keywords) wasn't optimimal. Many times these technical issues are glaringly obvious and need to be addressed upfront.
Build a better mousetrap...then you can worry about filling it with the right bait (keywords/content).
I think to a certain extent, there are actually two kinds of technicals reviews -- a review of the headsmackingly obvious (like whether the whole site is a Flash movie with a single URL), and a review of technical issues that are more closely related to keywords (such as titles and h1s). Just from an efficiency standpoint, I wouldn't think there's a lot to be gained from turning that font tag into an h1, and then coming back a second time to add the keywords that were never there in the first place. The same hold true with navigation and archtecture issues -- if you're taking the time to redo your navigation, you're going to want to be darn sure that it's targetting the right keywords. I guess to a certain extent, how you break it down boils down to how comfortable you are with iterative execution plans.
Once again the comments on the Post are as good as the Post Itself.
PixelBella makes a good case. Essentially, you're both right. To my way of thinking the website goes nowhere without knowing what the target is or should be. Obviuosly, all the keyword research and content won't overcome a site that is invisible to the Search Engines.
I think the crux of the approach depends on the customer. If they have a good feel for the target keywords they want to rank for, you can start with the technical issues. If they start to roll their eyes back in their head when you talk about the tech then start with the Keywords.
I try to explain the what technical changes we need to address once we figure out what level we can communicate on.
I like the "wall around the city" analogy. "Bouncer at the front door" works too. Basically, we want to end the things that block the website from being seen by the Search Engine first and the Human Eyeballs a very close second.
<emphasize thumb up> Good Post Duncan </emphasize thumb up>
Great post, and some definite food for thought.
With Google continually dropping that optimizing the whole user experience is something we should be focusing on, revisions to the architecture are probably the most important part of a good site review.
In my mind, someone asking for a site review already knows they've got technical issues, even if they can't tell you what exactly they are. The value we provide is showing them the problems they don't know they have.
Nice and informative article. Unfortunately, most of our clients prefer the technical part be done first.
Great point:
Wanted to add that many clients don't know they have technical issues. They just know they are not ranking.
i been doing seo from quite some time now, i think the bigger problem for me is getting customer relize that how important their site articture is? i recently come across a Holiday website which has a crap site architecture, when i told them look we have a big problem in site architecture and URL, they told thats all i can have i donot know what to do. website contenet are very unique i love them but i donot know how to make them agree to change their structure and URLs, any good suggestions.
Come to the article i think it is well written article, while iwas reading i feel i am reviewing and SEO proposal
Does anyone have an example of a Site Review document -- like a spreadsheet or pdf?
I've found it useful to use a mindmapping software tool, to help with the Architecture of the site. Especially with larger sites, it can be extremely difficult to view the entire layout of the site.
I completely aggree with the importance of architectural issues. If there's a complete site redesign, it's even more important as architectural issues can actually be address.
Here's how we do things here (www.adviso.ca/en):
1. Architectural recommendations (We start with a search trend analysis to uncover the basic requirements for the content tree, you basically want 1 page/section per search trend)
2. Technical recommendations (Everything from server issues to mock-up optimization)
3. Content recommendations (Which include a detailed keyword research, keyword mapping and tag optimization)
Additionally, any tips on how to perform a keyword analysis for keywords with search volume as low as 15-20 on wordtracker. Can you count up on such low figures for the keyword analysis of a website in unpopular indsutries with low search volumes?
I'd test KWs in AdWords instead. You'd get a much more accurate idea of volume, plus you can see which KWs convert and optimise accordingy.
yes stephen. But some times even Google Adwords shows real low search volumes... I mean some have are low and the others show no data at all... I am talking about an industry when all the keywords have negligible search volume yet the competition is reasonably high.
Sorry, I meant you should run AdWords PPC campaigns (rather than using their KW tool). It obviously costs more, but you get live data and can see how the traffic converts on your site.
that is a HUGE waste of money.
also VERY innacurate.
wayyyy too many varibles.
click-fraud, downstream vs. on google only.impressions can actually be same user, depending on how deep they search, i.e. in small KW space, someone going to page 5 of results could show your ad 5 times.
I could go on..
That's fair enough - I do things differently.
I find that it doesn't make sense to spend time and money optimising organically for KWs that may not convert. Instead, you can test them out very quickly with PPC and take a lot of the guesswork out.
This is the case with all my clients, but especially those - as Pulkit007 asks - who work in niches where you get very little useful data from sources like Wordtracker.
I'm with Stephen here - obviously no method is 100% accurate but testing keyphrases via PPC for traffic and conversion levels is something we do too.
Agree to you TOM_C, PPC is indeed a real time keyword alalysis but some times PPC is not in the scope of the project or the client doesnt have the budget for PPC...
the main reaosn i said it was a waste to pay for them is this is a pretty good article on the keyword tool.
https://www.getelastic.com/the-new-google-keyword-tool-how-to-apply-keyword-research-to-your-site/
but i understand wanting to have an actual conversion before you set your keywords.
opinons will vary, different people do things differently..
(opinion)
my opinion is/was that i can fake (i.e. hack, exploit, etc.), what you are basing you decisions on, so the data will be flawed and therefore it's a waste of money. unless you have a conversion or sale, then it's a good indicator.
(/opinion)
i base mine on pscyhology, my keyword studies are going to be approached differently.. i'm going to look at keyword conversions and statistical research methods and indicators slightly different.
How do I get relevant KW phrases from clients?
We do a research project on their current customers, (via phone usually), we will do lots of baseline KW studies, we will set up a word tracker (not the keyword tool), where any of the "incoming touch points" record prospective and current client keywords used in general speech... like the receptionist who gets the incoming calls, their sales team on what people ask for, this includes keyword usage in any inquiries submittied via their website, search term vs. time spent on site, bounce rate, etc...
then after all this is done, i use some psychological indicators to vet the keywords and confirm with client.. this has worked quite well over the last 14 years.
example:client spends $250k /year and can directly show $xxx,xxx,xxx.00 in sales directly from search.. of course their avg. sale is usually $xxx,xxx.00, and btw, no PPC, organic only.
So thumb me down if you will.. i'll just stop giving opinions..
That's very interesting. I like the idea of getting your client's staff to monitor KW usage. Hadn't thought of that before.
And like you say, when I was talking about using GAW for KW research, I was looking at it more from the POV of sales/conversions than anything else. Rereading my earlier comment, that doesn't really come across.
If done right, I find using GAW for KW research can actually save you money. You get different KWs from clients, customers, competitors and KW tools, but the best way to see what works is to test it out. And for me, using GAW is a shortcut to doing that. There's no point optimising organically for a KW for a few months only to find it doesn't convert.
Interested to hear more about the 'pscyhological indicators' that you use to vet keywords. Maybe a YOUmoz post in the making? :)
i've learned a hell of a lot that i wouldn't have thought of working at a 20year old + (i think it's 22 in sept.) - PR/Ad Agency. sometimes the old ways are the good ways.. (speaking specifically of tried and true PR and Advertising methods i can apply TO SEO)
most SEO clients won't spend 20k on a research project, so your way will work better without the budget, but we usually get PR, Media, print, website, copywriting AND SEO projects for the same client, so it's my job to make sure anything that touches the internet has the right "internet stuph", and if we are ever going to do seo, (and a few times just doing KW for PR team), to do the research on keywords first and have those keywords pushed into everything, brochures, PR, billboard, logos, taglines, mission statements, alt tags and anchor tags on online media buys, everything.
NOTE:
I think a am VERY biased when it comes to anything PPC, except how to use it for free to enhance branding, share of voice and conversions.. it's probably obvious from the tone of anything i post.. seriously, we have clients that have PPC and with every single one, it's my goal to get into the top 3 spots on the left so i can get them to drop their ad positioning to #3 on the right.. I call it a FREE PPC Campaign.. Enquiro came out with this to prove me right.
good info.
Pulkit007, For Wordtracker, it is not uncommon to see some strange keyword phrases showing up in that low of a range, so your personal judgment and intuition start playing a more important role. It is always a good idea to "get a second opinion" on the relative search volume of your keywords, and the obvious choice lately is Google's AdWords Keyword Tool. Hope this helps. =)
I often start with the technical stuff, and I probably delve a lot deeper than most in that regard. There just seems to be an endless number of bad ways to design and code a site.
You make a very compelling arguement that seems logical. Maybe I'll hang-ten until Will makes his comment ;-)
A great post - but with two duplicated links - is that deliberate?
"Site, or Information architecture issues fall into a number of camps. duplicate content, keyword cannibalisation, and a distinct lack of keyword targeting. All of which in my opinion are a bigger hurdle to ranking than most of the issues that are picked up in a technical site review.
"
No, not deliberate! I've fixed the duplicate content one.
Duncan, I follow almost same SEO cyle like you mentioned. But where I get stuck most of the times is keyword mapping when I am ready with a list of hot keywords for the industry and find no page on the website that can accomdate those keywords naturally.
It becomes even more difficult when the client is sitting on my head watching you with a raised eye brow because has a diferent perception then what my wordtracker sheet suggests.
The situation gets worsest when the client is not ready to pay his copywriter to add more useful content. Now I have no clue, how do I optimize a page with just 4-5 lines.
Great post Duncan. I think I'm with you on this one - often what happens when you're doing a technical site review is you end up doing some quick and dirty keyword research anyway to find your bearings. It makes sense to actually do this properly at the same time as your technical review, otherwise you might find yourself going back and duplicating your work when you come to keyword research.
Yep, completely agree.
Another problem I see is that people guess at the quick and dirty keyword research at this stage. These guesses quite quickly become the right answer, and it is only a couple of months later that you realise the keywords are not optimal.
Duncan,
here is what works for us..
1. technical review - very high level, what is on the site now.
2. install metrics for 30 days.
3. 15 days in ask client for keywords and pull KWs from website metrics.
4. complete ALL keyword studies in first 30 days of engagement.
5. 90 days in, revisit keywords
I'm assuming these are for paid clients?
if that is the case, you are right over Will, KW first.
Otherwise, i would say technical prior to KW , because if there page names are pageid=123456?contentId=345xps, it doesn't matter what the keywords are.
We do technical ones as part of taking on a new client.
It allows us to show them where they are weak and also gives us a good hint as to what time will be required.