Folder Depth

[GregW]

Is there a general guideline or rough limit to how many folders (or should I call them directories?) that you have on your site? For example, would it be unwise to have pages within 4 or 5 folders on your site like:

site.com/poker/online/rooms/pokerstars/review/

That's a bit of an extreme example, but I hope you get the idea. Also, to put it another way, would a page lose any "weight" for being further down the directory of the site?

For example, would this:

site.com/pokerstars/review/

be considered to be more important than if it was located at:

site.com/poker/rooms/pokerstars/review/ ?

This isn't because I want to stuff loads of keywords in to urls by adding unnecessary folders. It's just an organisational question along with a further question about the impact of placing pages further down in directories.

Thanks in advance for any help.

[MJ]

Been wondering this myself for awhile, thanks for asking.

Seems like a good question for Mr. Randy Ray

[CK]

I dont think it hurts any. I have some that are four folders away from the root and they do fine. For me it makes sense to have it this way from a structure standpoint and keep it organized

[MJ]

It makes sense to me too, even if I don't always do it.

I do think that if you are talking about competitive phrases having "that phrase" being only two folders will be better than if you are on the fifth folder down....but I guess that could be argued.

To me the easy answer is big sites will use more if organized well, and small sites can "focus" and target phrases easier by using less.

[themike537]

I've read that four folders deep is as far as you should go. Personally I've never gone farther, and I've never had a problem with pages located four folders deep.

[CK]

I do think that if you are talking about competitive phrases having "that phrase" being only two folders will be better than if you are on the fifth folder down....but I guess that could be argued.

If your internal linking sucks than yeah you would have a hard time,,but the same thing can happen to a page thats one folder deep.

If the page has plenty of links pointing to it you really shouldnt have any problems.

[GregW]

If your internal linking sucks than yeah you would have a hard time,,but the same thing can happen to a page thats one folder deep.

If the page has plenty of links pointing to it you really shouldnt have any problems.

Thanks, that makes sense. Maybe in general folders that are buried deeper within folders get less internal linking, so if they were not ranking well it would have just been because of the lack of internal links pointing to them and not their folder depth.

I've read that four folders deep is as far as you should go. Personally I've never gone farther, and I've never had a problem with pages located four folders deep.

Yeah me too, although I think I might have read it from you before ha ha. I don't suppose you happen to know where you read it or the reason behind it?

[themike537]

Lol no I can't remember where I read it. I think your point is valid though, that the major reason pages that are five or more folders deep don't rank is because they don't get enough link juice.

[actyper]

Don't go too deep, I don't think the new google update like it one bit. I would only go 2 dirs max now.

[Ridge]

Don't go too deep, I don't think the new google update like it one bit. I would only go 2 dirs max now.

What are you basing that on? Also from what I have seen, this major google change is far from over.

Why would google or any other SE have an issue with organization?