| 11:49 am on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
| 1:29 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
In terms of Google you probably won't be increassing the number of pages - those dynamic pages are most likely already spidered by Google. If you change to static pages you could set your server up to either return 404 Not Found or (better) 301 Moved if a request is made for a page using its dynamic URL. Google should soon learn the topology of your site.
| 1:53 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Sorry the dynamics are a definite addition. They don't exist in any form - dynamic or otherwise right now. I just don't want to increase the load on an already harried system!
| 4:08 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yikes!... If you are adding static versions of dynamic pages to relieve the load on your database, it's time to upgrade your dbase! Anything else is just sticking plaster.
| 7:08 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I know, I know, but it's a short-term fix while I get things sorted. Scared witless of changing anything too quickly and losing all my lovely traffic.
Please, someone take pity on a thickie and answer the question....
| 7:13 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If the pages make your site more useful, damn the PR and add them.
Nicer sites get more links.
Those static pages will add more links and link text to your other pages.
They will give the user what they want.
They will give the bots more keyword combinations.
So what if the PR of a couple of pages drop by a fraction. Get more links to compensate.
| 7:38 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I suppose... I'm also a little concerned about the affect of adding all those pages at once. There's been some speculation on the board that it can trigger a penalty?
What do you think about that Big Dave - I respect your opinion as one of the main voices of reason here.
| 8:15 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If you add more pages to a sub-network, you will absolutely dilute the PR assuming they are new pages with no PR to contribute to the network.
The good news is that pure PR doesn't count as much as it used to in ranking.
Haven't seen the "too many pages added" penalty, but adding lots of pages with duplicate content (from page to page, or duplicate with other pages on the network) can definitely trigger some sort of negative results.
| 8:42 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
How many pages do you have and how many are you adding?
On my big site (around 7000 useful pages), which is the only one that adds a lot of pages each month, there are around 200 content pages added each month. In addition, there are around 50 navigation pages. With all this going on, there has only been one down traffic month in the site's history.
And that is not even counting the thousands of additional pages that google adds to their index of our site each month as they dig deeper into the calendar and other useless pages in the blog section.
This past spring, in the course of a couple of days, I added a page listing "other reviews by this reviewer" and "other reviews of equipment by this manufacturer" which would have been similar in concept to what you are suggesting adding. Back then, there were no problems with this.
So I just can't say that I have experienced any such problems myself. But I am not adding 2000 pages to a 300 page site. I am adding 500 pages to a site where google already knows about well over 10,000 pages.
So to get back to the question that I started with, how many pages does your site already have, and how many will you be adding?
| 10:11 am on Dec 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hi Big Dave
Sorry for the delay - busy dying of TB.
Basically I reckon I would be adding 100 pages to a 350 page site.
| 6:22 pm on Dec 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm not going to guarantee that you won't have a problem, but I would be surprised if it was more than a temporary blip.
Anything that you do has a chance of causing a fluctuation in your traffic. But unless your ranking relies almost totally on your PR, it sounds like what you are doing will create a stronger, more stable site.
Yeah, it will dilute your PR, but it will add content and anchor text. And you are doing it for your users, which is the most important thing.
And before you discount the value of that internal anchor text, my two top pages, as far as referrals from google, have no known external links. They only made their way up in the SERPs when I added those pages that I mentioned earlier. YMMV
| 6:44 pm on Dec 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Like the last tip Dave! I've been trying to work out how I am going to get suffient external links to each of hundreds of articles, guides and contents pages. I thought that was essential.
Thanks for all your help.
| 8:54 pm on Dec 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Don't forget: Make a link back to the homepage from every new page. That is suposed to help against the reduction of PR.
| 9:06 pm on Dec 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I've been trying to work out how I am going to get suffient external links to each of hundreds of articles, guides and contents pages. I thought that was essential. |
Nope. Not at all. Internal links will work just fine.
FWIW, linking to your new pages from the home pages can be useful. That's been my experience, anyway: When I link to a new page from the home page, it's usually in the Google index within a day or two.
| 12:06 am on Dec 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If the site has 350 pages, I suspect that the PR of the home page is not that much of a concern. It is the PR of the internal pages with all the content.
Linking to every page above the current page, all the way back up to the home page is simply good site design. It is just convenient that it also works well for search engines.
See that line up above where it says
Home / Forums Index / The Search Engine World / Google News
and they are all links. Those are known as cookie crumbs, and you should put that on every page (using your own style, of course)
They are good for your user, and they are good for the search engines.
A couple of comments about internal anchor text:
While there is quite a bit of discussion about varying your anchor text from other sites so that it does not appear unnatural. There is little concern about that when it comes from your internal links. It is the nature of internal links, especially those in the navigation template of all your pages, to use the same text.
While they are not an honest vote of what other people consider that page to be about, if it is in the template of the site, it is generally what the publisher of the page thinks the page is about. While some webmasters will use this as an opportunity to jam in keywords, most will be considering the look of their site to their users.
So it certainly does make sense for google to put some weight on internal anchor text
| 12:27 am on Dec 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
suggy, back to your initial problem of trying offload some work your server does. Do you implement any type of caching...either client or server side? This could help reduce strain on your DB.
| 1:02 am on Dec 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If adding too many static pages at one time a concern, you might want to try this, add a just few pages addressing major sections of you FAQ or whatever ir is.
Then subdivide those pages later as needed.
If you study the on page traffic on a page using the bookmarks (how many clicks on a link to a bookmarked section) you'll get an idea of which content is more important to visitors. Those are the first sections to split off onto new pages.
That'll give you a reasonable rate of increase in page numbers. And those new pages will probably help you with the search engines too.
And, yes, the power of anchor text in internal links can be dramatic. Dramatically good, and dramatically bad, so be careful.
| 1:58 am on Dec 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have two mature sites displaying symptoms of extremely advanced sandboxitis. With both sites, I more than doubled the number of pages since February.
My pet theory is that PR is being drained from outbound links faster than it is being assigned to the recipient pages. Although this is just speculation, I have definitely stopped adding pages in massive quantities