Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi Jorge, Good question! If I understand correctly, you have a choice between two file structures - is that right? Using option 1, is there anything that would actually live on website.com/utilities/, or is it simply a URL directory with no actual webpage? If this is the case, both option 1 and 2 would pass the same amount of link juice, assuming you linked directly to each target. That said, it's usually desirable to have: A flat architecture - meaning you keep your structure as flat as possible using the fewest amount of directories as possible Shorter URLs are generally correlated to better rankings and click-through rates. For this reason, if you are linking directly to each target, I would chose the second option if possible, although the difference it makes probably isn't that great. Hope this helps! Best of luck with your SEOl

Hi there, Although I do understand your reasoning, we have the resources and people quantity to focus on all things at once being a big a company. So at the present moment it wouldn't be a matter of prioritizing work - but rather - delivering the best future-proof strategy. I don't mind doing the same as our competitors, but sometimes stepping out of the sheep line is good. You do make a great and very valid point addressing that this is an extra step for the visitor and could lead to fewer conversions. This is holding me back a little bit. But, if properly implemented, wouldn't a content focused site rank way better than a product page would? I guess the real question is if prospects would really find value in the information about "security testing tools" or they would rather just get the product page instead. But just looking from Google eyes, what do you think of this approach? After re-reading my post I realize I might sound as if all I want is you to agree with me and justify my approach, I don't really. I would really value any honest thoughts and reasoning .