| This 33 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 33 ( 1  ) || |
|Network of 3000+ websites|
| 9:22 pm on Jun 30, 2011 (gmt 0)|
early this year we started to build a network of financial websites.
there is 2 main sites we are aiming to be very big portals, and a network of 3000+ domains (keyword domain, each domain targets different keyword) that should rank for specific word.
the network is doing fine, the sites is getting nice ranking on google, but we have huge problem with the 2 major domains.
although that they are the source of all the content (usually original) that we spread all over our network, and the fact that they are getting hundreds of new links everyday from other financial portals all over the web.
the linking structure:
there are 2 kinds of links to our 2 portals :
1. we are spreading our content via rss to hundreds of other domains and getting links from inside the articles .
2. linking from our on network , on the footer of each site, we put link to our main site.
we suspect the source of the problem is that google marked our linking profile as unnatural .
the question is what we should do ?
should we take off all the internal links form our network to the main site in one phase ?
should we take them step by step
maybe we can try to speak to google via webmaster tool, and explain them that although most of our links, coming from our own network,
we are on the right side :) ?
Thank you .
| 12:43 am on Jul 8, 2011 (gmt 0)|
You can cancel all of your mini sites for starters and I strongly suggest you merge the two 'main' sites together. You really can't win online with such a divided effort.
| 1:05 am on Jul 8, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Panda has changed much of the old time SEO landscape... Refinement, consolidation, and presentation seems to have more pull. That said, the outlay for 2,998 sites in domain fees alone is problematic. That might be funds put to better use in two (2)...
| 7:50 pm on Jul 12, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|FYI creating a network of 3,000 sites to link back to your main site for 'editorial' reasons is not whiter than white! |
In the end, it may be "bluer than blue".
| This 33 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 33 ( 1  ) |