wanderingmind
msg:1583491 | 8:12 am on May 30, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Umm.. URL drops are not allowed.
|
jkerschb76
msg:1583492 | 12:26 pm on May 30, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Sorry about that.
|
wanderingmind
msg:1583493 | 4:23 am on Jun 1, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Normally, I would consider every website as a property which loses some of its SEO value when merged into one. On the other hand, larger sites are usually better if there are no other problems. If having a single brand is critical, you hae no option, right? For example, you can have a CNN and a BBC and grow both to their max. Or you can merge both and have one. I normally always prefer the second option, and to have two quality sites instead of one.
|
jlr1001
msg:1583494 | 12:10 am on Jun 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Are the purposes for having multiple sites so distinct that continuing this makes sense? For example... A main hospital administration website with a secondary site geared for patient education through articles and video streams. In that example both sites could be branded differently to make the best use of their purposes. Unless your client's target niches are so disparate that it wouldn't make sense to "bunch all the sites up" I'd opt for your portal idea. -jlr1001
|
Harry
msg:1583495 | 3:11 pm on Jun 5, 2006 (gmt 0) |
It really is a case by case scenario. As a rule of thumb to start out with one site to lower your workload which is usually big when you start. Later, if the site is strong and there are specific sections that could be launched into their own site, you could split.
|
|
