Subdirs -v- Subdoms

[aZooZa]

I'd really appreciate some opinions on this.

See here: http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/threads/directories-vs-subdomains.40330/#post-154796

Thread is closed so I can't post there

Have a big build coming up on a very premium generic .co.uk domain that we've just purchased. It's business-related, and will need geo and descriptive (qualifying) subdoms or subdirs.

In advance of the question; yes, the individual content for each will be substantial.

As per another thread, we're also trying to decide whether to use the .uk or .co.uk:

Is Nominet violating UK competition law?

Thoughts anyone?

Thanks!

 

[martin-s]

If you go with subdomains, you'll split out your SEO value. I'd go for subdirectories and aggregate all SEO to one hostname personally.

Oh - and I wouldn't consider using the .uk. Too much of a white elephant thus far.

 

[DomainManage]

I would go with sub directories for the bulk and use .uk, I can't see any logical reason why not.

Might be an option to float some specific content via a few sub domains down the line if you need (I would use no more than 2).
I'm not a great fan of sub domains, use many and things can get messy. They should be mostly unnecessary if the site architecture is correct.

 

[bensd]

...and use .uk, I can't see any logical reason why not.

Would be interested to know what your basing this opinion on?

 

[Edwin]

By "substantial", are you describing content so comprehensive and so different that each of the top pages of a particular subdomain/subdirectory could easily qualify (if viewed in isolation) as the homepage of an entire site dedicated to that geo area?

I mean, if we take the example of world.com, I could imagine a subdomain france.world.com where there's enough content to "qualify" as a "full" site about France in its own right, with hundreds or thousands of pages of on-topic content, its own blog or forum or newsfeeds, etc. etc. It might also potentially have a different look and feel from germany.world.com.

But if we take the example of windowcleaners.com, it's hard to imagine that even something like london.windowcleaners.com would be "interesting" enough to qualify as a full site, even if somehow the content was totally different from say birmingham.windowcleaners.com (e.g. different business listings). It's just too monothematic.

If each subdomain would "qualify" the way I defined it, go with subdomains. That way, you can start promoting each one completely independently, chasing links from places that link to other "sites about France" (to recycle my example). If they don't "qualify", go with subdirectories...

 

[aZooZa]

Thanks for the replies - much appreciated. It would appear that subdirs are the way to go according to Edwin's qualifying criteria, but I'm still stuck on the .co.uk -v- .uk quandary. From what I've read here, it doesn't appear that .uk has even now gained any traction so it could still be a dead dog two years from now, which would be a nightmare. I assume my original stance on this and suggest that Nominet were a pest to have introduced .uk, although that debate has been flogged to death elsewhere.

 

[Skinner]

I would only use subdomains if its an independant section of the site, say a members area, app interface or something that's essentially stand alone. members.domain.co.uk, app.domain.co.uk, perhaps even api.domain.co.uk all acceptable, I still maintain m.domain.co.uk is acceptable for a highly optimised mobile site rather than just a style sheet.

Anything else subdir all the way.

 

[aZooZa]

@Skinner makes a lot of sense, and these are the subdoms that we see regularly.