homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 50.17.27.205
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Paid Inclusion Engines and Topics
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Brett Tabke

Paid Inclusion Engines and Topics Forum

  posting off  
alias domains listed
pete




msg:29506
 11:31 am on Aug 30, 2000 (gmt 0)

We have two domains registered:
Example:
2search.com
tosearch.com

Many of the visitors find us via offline referrals (word of mouth e.t.c)and type in the second variant. As a result, the client wants the default page to be consistent and identical for both variations.

So, I aliased the second variation and have never marketed it in the engines.

But AV has picked up the second domain and it is listed above the other.

For the time being both are well positioned for the same terms and are providing fantastic traffic. But my fear is that this could be the honeymoon period before the storm and that both could be penalised and dropped for being duplicate listings.

Anyone else had any experience with this - whats the best way out?

 

NFFC




msg:29507
 12:00 pm on Aug 30, 2000 (gmt 0)

>Anyone else had any experience with

Not quite the same but have had various www.domain.com/ & www.domain.com/index.htm listed at the same time. They seem to find them within a few weeks, delete one and bury the other for a few update cycles.

tedster




msg:29508
 6:04 pm on Aug 30, 2000 (gmt 0)

>>They seem to find them within a few weeks, delete one and bury the other for a few update cycles.

My experience as well, with a hyphenated and run-on version of the same domain name.

A week or so after AV found the domain I didn't submit, it was deleted and the listing for the originally submitted domain name got buried. Seven weeks later, it's climbing and starting to generate AV traffic again.

In this case, I'm pretty sure someone made a referal to the site in a forum, and Alta followed that link. So they picked up the alternate version of the name when they did that, and the troubles began.

I'm concerned that this cycle might repeat, but I feel the alternate domain still has too much value to nuke it.

metaman




msg:29509
 4:56 am on Sep 1, 2000 (gmt 0)

Wouldn't a robots.txt come in handy here?

seth_wilde




msg:29510
 5:31 pm on Sep 1, 2000 (gmt 0)

"Wouldn't a robots.txt come in handy here?"

This is definitely an option. But you would need to host the different domains on seperate hosting accounts. (I have a feeling pete has both domains pointed to the same IP)

rogerd




msg:29511
 6:53 pm on Sep 1, 2000 (gmt 0)

I've been wondering about this, too. If the primary domain is "smithjones.com" but the client, quite correctly, wants to use "smith-jones.com", "smithandjones.com", "smithjonescorp.com", and other possible variations, perhaps the solution is two IPs. One would be used for the primary domain, and the other would be used for all the variations. The second one would include just a home page with a noindex tag. The page content could either be a redirect to the primary domain or a duplicate of the primary home page with all links pointing to the primary site. It seems like the SEs would be happy, plus any user-bookmarked pages would be on the primary site. Any flaws in this logic?

seth_wilde




msg:29512
 7:53 pm on Sep 1, 2000 (gmt 0)

"Any flaws in this logic"

I hope not, because you just pretty much laid out my routine step by step. However I don't use redirection, I just points all links to the primary site.

pete




msg:29513
 7:13 am on Sep 4, 2000 (gmt 0)

Seth, I am afraid you are on the ball. Unfortunately, both point to the same I.P which is not great.

RogerD, that seems like sound advice. Unfortunately, I should have followed it a bit earlier as now the damage is done and all I can do is wait.

Do all the spiders still honour the noindex tag?

Thanks for the input!

Brett_Tabke




msg:29514
 7:57 am on Sep 4, 2000 (gmt 0)

All the important ones do Pete.

What I do in your situation is use absolute addresses to the main site on EVERYTHING from hrefs to images. Don't give the spider a chance to think there is something there that isn't. Even if the spider stumbles in the side door on a page on your secondary domain names, they should see all links pointing to the main domain. Most of the se's won't index the page unless it has atleast one internal link pointing at it.

2_much




msg:29515
 11:10 pm on Sep 6, 2000 (gmt 0)

In order for the spiders not to classify the pages as "mirrors", would it suffice to change just a few things around, such as the HTML title and meta description? How much should a site be changed? Somewhere I read that the sub-site should be 60% different from the main site...

Finally, does the HTML template have to be altered? Or can the HTML template be left unaltered so that primarily the HTML text would change?

Thanks for any info. on this!!!
2M

seth_wilde




msg:29516
 11:28 pm on Sep 6, 2000 (gmt 0)

2M-

The only "official" info I've seen on mirror classification is from google (thanks James). In that report it said that if 75% of the information is duplicate then they consider it a mirror, I said 60% in another thread just to stay on the safe side.

"HTML template have to be altered?"
In the google report they did mention using link structure to help classify mirrors, but I haven't seen any evidence of this in AV yet.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Paid Inclusion Engines and Topics
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved