| 5:24 am on Feb 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I've just read the thread "What to do with duplicate sites?".
This doesn't really apply to our situation as our sites are not duplicates (although I guess that the outcome will be the same).
Is the consensus that a 301 re-direct will have absolutely NO negative impact on our main site?
If there's any risk of Google taking offence at 3 sites starting to point to a fourth site then I think we should leave all as-is.
| 5:36 am on Feb 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I know of a thriving site that has 1200 domains 301'd to it. I'd say just don't further promote the old domains once the 301 is in place and there's no issue with having 3.
| 9:09 am on Feb 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
we were in a similar situation a couple of years back when we rebranded and needed to get rid of a few sites. We did a 301 and everything was fine.
| 9:34 am on Feb 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
now would you 301 domain top level to top level..or 301 top level to most relevant deep inner page?
| 9:34 am on Feb 7, 2007 (gmt 0)|
dmain to domain 301 is your best bet, though if certain deep pages have attracted a life of their own (links, referrals, visitor numbers), then you may find it more useful (though much more work), to do some page to page 301s.
It is wrong to say there is NO risk at all; but there is no safer way, and if done right, 301s are pretty safe.
Anyway, the selected site will not lose; the worst that can happen is is will not gain as much as you hoped.
Either way, avoiding the dilution, visitor confusion and self-competing more than justifies the move in this case.
Go for it!
| 10:23 am on Feb 7, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Did you think of selling the sites you don't need?
Sometimes that is more profitable then taking the plug out.
| 11:30 am on Feb 7, 2007 (gmt 0)|
If you have sites competing for the same spots you would be silly to sell them. Why increase your own competition?
If those site have built up a following or customer base, a 301 is defiantely the way to go.
| 3:32 pm on Feb 7, 2007 (gmt 0)|
When you remove those sites from the SERPS other sites take their places in the SERPS as well. Google will not leave empty places. Maybe those sites have a higher conversion rate then your sites. If you think this is the case selling is most profitable. A succesfull site isn't cheap. Try to buy one and you see. Destroying a site is an investment. Think with your brains not heart to see what is best. Selling to a potential competitor can be most profitable if you concider the pro and cons.
| 4:00 pm on Feb 7, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Tinus is correct imo. If the content is not duplicate, you are not *really* competing with yourself, you are marketing yourself better.
Consider this, the main site *might* be doing well on one keyword, but not another. Have the other sites SEOed to different keywords and phrases. That way you get maximum serps coverage.
| 4:29 pm on Feb 7, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|If the content is not duplicate, you are not *really* competing with yourself, you are marketing yourself better. |
Not necesarily so. you are duplicating your marketing and SEO effort, with little likely advantage.
Packing the serps with a bunch of near clones is frustrating and confusing for visitors, and is not very likely to increase conversion rates.
Selling a site to a competitor may be a good deal, but is so fraught with risks and unknowns, that I really cannot think of a more unwise move, in most circumstances.
Building the one best site you can, best utilizing all your ideas, skills and resources, will almost always be the most efficient way to go. Plus all your incoming links will be to one domain, not split between several. Hit them 301s!
EXCEPT: If you are selling one product to more than one target audience, then there may be a stronger case for more than one site..
Fictional example: You are selling shoes that (you believe) are perfect for the sailing fraternity, for all sorts of grip and safety reasons.
A friend points out that the built-in magnetic compass, swiveling the wearer to face magnetic north in winds of >15 knots, ties in beautifully with a new dance craze hitting 15 year olds - the "Windup" - and he reckons you could sell millions as fashion accessories.
These markets are rather different, with a small overlap, and very different needs.
I'd go for two sites, in that kind of scenario.
[edited by: Quadrille at 4:37 pm (utc) on Feb. 7, 2007]
| 4:55 pm on Feb 7, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Packing the serps with a bunch of near clones |
Oh I agree with that completely. But if they are not near clones, but are orignal, there is nothing wrong at all with hving multiple sites of the same theme.
If they *are* near clones, that should be fixed. It *IS* good marketing and not a waste of SEO if you can gain more keywords AND your other sites are providing useful content.
| 6:13 pm on Feb 7, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I have questions.
What if you have say 20 domains that you dont want to lose, but want to 301 the rest (could be hundreds of domains) in to those 20.
What happens to the links the sites that were 301'd to the 20? Does it transfer the backlink to the said redirect?
Also, lets say that you do have a lot of domains you wanted to 301 to those 20, what would happen to the rankings on those "lots" of sites? Would the rankings transfer to the respective domain you did the 301 to? meaning if you had 100 sites ranking for 100 keywords, would those rankings dissapear completely or would they eventually be replaced by the domain it is 301'd by.
Something tells me that if it was 301'd regardless if it was unique or duplicate content, it would lose rankings on any search engine, and take quite some time to get rankins back for the keywords it was intended for. I have done 301's before and seen some success in Google, but while Google runs the search world, I can't forget about Yahoo, MSN, etc and there is a really good chance that those domains may or may not rank very well on them. Very difficult situation for people to make that have a lot of domains.
| 11:23 pm on Feb 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The code "301" is interpreted as "moved permanently".Slow down: 301 to google indicates that further action needs to be taken by the user agent in order to fulfill the request. Broken apart it means THIS SITE IS VALID, SO TOO IS THE NEXT. This is the problem with 301s.
As the action required MAY be carried out by the user agent without interaction with the user if and only if the method used in the second request is GET or HEAD the idea that we are removing pages for better pages is not correct.
Or --- correct / debate / tell me better. :)