| 8:28 am on Oct 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
50 Domains seems a bit much to be linking towards a main site.
Do all fifty deal with diffrent content? Is this content just duplicate content of a certain section from the main site?
| 6:42 pm on Oct 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I doubt it'd help much if all the sites are listed at the same IP address. Google will see that and probably devalue the links.
For what it's worth, each site should almost feel like they have their own identity on the web. Content scraping from the main site won't get you anywhere.
I'm guessing that in the end, trying to manage all 50 sites would be a major pain in the a$$. Unless you leave all the sites alone and never update the content on a regular basis.
50 sounds a bit much, no matter how you slice it. However, it would make one heck of a case study into G's algo, assuming all the sites are within the same nich. Apply a different SEO strategy for each one, and see which ones climb in the serps faster.
As far as making it worth while - I happen to work for a company that has 5 websites. All sites are within the same niche. Got some pretty good links placed for one site, located on a 3 of the other ones. However, thats about all I can manage. Between link building, content writing, and other marketing ventures, I couldn't handle any more.
| 5:06 am on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>has 50 domains to make use of with the overall goal of benefiting one main site
And where are these 50 domains getting any power to send back to the main site? They'll need their own link popularity and trust to have any noticeable impact (on Google specifically) - which means good content and a lot of link dev - if you're going to put all that effort in, why not just put it into the main site instead of creating a network to boost the main site?
| 5:21 am on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Rae has a good point. That's fifty website's worth of authority that's being split into smaller units that together would make a more powerful website.
On a related note, this is a common question and the arguments go back and forth whether one should build a new site or incorporate it into an existing one. Many, including myself, advocating creating one big authority site.
Sometimes it's easier to push the edges than it is to think through what needs to be done to acquire honest links. But pushing the edges is really for sites with their backs against the walls.
I can say it's better to acquire existing websites (instead of domains) and point links from those into the main site, but I honestly could not recommend it if it's not in an edgy niche. Does your client want to go down a best-practices road? Are they in it for the long run?
There's a time to push the edges, so weigh if your client may or may not be in the space for that kind of activity.
| 5:36 am on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The client definetly is in it for the long run but he also wants rapid expansion and has purchased 50 domains with the intent of making use somehow. I already made clear that it could do more harm then good if (as an extreme example), all sites where the same and it was clear they only exsisted to promote another site.
So what would be the best way to use these 50 domains in your opinion?
| 6:32 am on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Roll them out one at a time, each one with a very focused topic and the all the caveats above apply. Your client will need to come up with 50 different and discrete topics and the means to develop and maintain/refresh the content in an ongoing manner. You will also need diverse means to establish authority and trust for each domain, not the same promotional "footprint" for each one.
You can cross-link in moderation, but it's not going to do much good until the "weight" of each domain gets rolling. It's a big-old job, and not to be taken on lightly, least you jeopardize the core domain. The days of easy index spamming and promotion through sheer numbers of backlinks are no longer with us.
| 7:04 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If the 50 domains are to be informational in nature, one option is "subletting" them out to those who might be interested in maintining them. If you can find blogger types who are interested in generating content on your subject, offer them the opportunity to use your sites as their media to do so.
They win because they get free, hosted sites that have every chance of gaining serious traffic and readership.
You win by getting that traffic pointed at your main site through links that you control.
| 9:44 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think it's a good idea. In fact, I did something similar for few companies with success (increased PR and 'authority' for the main site).
My suggestion to you is to split those 50 sites into 5 separate networks - 10 interlinked sites on each. Then you may try different SEO techniques on each network, so if 1 gets banned you still have 4 left. Don't interlink the networks. I also wouldn't go more than 50 pages per site - and as tedster suggested add them gradually. MAKE EXTRA SURE YOU DON'T HAVE DUPLICATE CONTENT ANYWERE.
Also, as MrStitch said, it would probalbly be better to put each network on it's own IP address (though, I know of few cases where IP didn't make a difference, so this is somewhat speculative)
| 11:53 pm on Oct 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
In my previous project I did experiment on this. We had only one topic but we experimented on creating a site on forum, blog, social networking and many other ideas. One of the biggest headake we had was the content. I seriously think What tedster has said is exactly right
You can cross-link in moderation, but it's not going to do much good until the "weight" of each domain gets rolling. It's a big-old job, and not to be taken on lightly, least you jeopardize the core domain. The days of easy index spamming and promotion through sheer numbers of backlinks are no longer with us."