Some sites like bbc.co.uk place the most important category links at the bottom of the page while other sites will place the whole site map there. What are the benefits (or not) of both approaches?

[KnutDSvendsen]

Placing site category links bottom of pages.

[Andy.Drinkwater]

I think you will find for the BBC that they are more interested about getting the content up there first, rather than just categories. And I have to agree with why they do this.

There is no point in a visitor coming to your website and just seeing half a page of links before they get to the content itself. For the user experience, this would be a bad move. Not sure there are really any times I can say having a huge list of links above the content is a good move.

Regards,

Andy

[KnutDSvendsen]

Agree, wouldn't put links above content. What I see is that links are put at the bottom of each page. My issue is that my CMS won't allow me to edit my links so I put all sections or none as I can not edit individual links out.

[Andy.Drinkwater]

What CMS are you using? It might be that you need to get someone to do some code editing for you?

Regards,

Andy

[Goetzman]

I think examples like the BBC are bad to look at their layout strategy. They are too credible for Google to punish for placement.  You and me on the other hand, aren't credible enough to play those games.

[Christy-Correll]

If I were to put a site map at the bottom of a page, I would not list every single page but only the most important category and page links, along with the links required for legal purposes. You don't want footer links to drain your page of link juice, nor overwhelm your page design. What's more, placing a ton of the same links on every single page of a site is definitely considered spammy these days.

For news sites, yes, the lead story should be the first thing a user sees. For most other sites, though, a few links in a well-designed top nav bar should be placed near the top of the page or directly underneath a branded banner.