bwnbwn
msg:3894896 | 9:11 pm on Apr 17, 2009 (gmt 0) |
My feeling here if the content is good for the site there shouldn't be any negative effect but then again you might want to read this thread [webmasterworld.com...] We have added about the same as you without any serious effect but we are talking about an 11 year old domain name as well. I would play it safe and if at all possible stagger the pages over lets say a month if possible.
|
Silicon
msg:3894992 | 11:58 pm on Apr 17, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Yeah thats what I'm worried about. Wonder if you can block via robots.txt and unblock on a schedule...
|
anallawalla
msg:3895083 | 6:18 am on Apr 18, 2009 (gmt 0) |
We run a few large directory sites that were not open to search engines nine months ago. Then the doors were opened to over 2 million pages or more per site. Didn't hurt at all. But bear in mind that high TrustRank sites can get away with actions that seem not to work for small sites. I will be adding over 50,000 pages to a personal directory soon and won't be staggering the release. If it is good for the user, I do it.
|
Whitey
msg:3895095 | 7:45 am on Apr 18, 2009 (gmt 0) |
| Then the doors were opened to over 2 million pages or more per site. Didn't hurt at all. |
|
That's likely a very high trust site, as you indicate. Was the release in one go ? I can't recall where I saw it , but Matt Cutts recommended staggering the release of pages for large sites.
|
acac
msg:3895473 | 7:52 am on Apr 19, 2009 (gmt 0) |
> But bear in mind that high TrustRank sites can get away with actions that seem not to work for small sites. I think this statement has a lot of merit. Google has different rules for different sites. Possibly their system triggers with percentage changes in no of pages which can explain many of the observations.
|
|
