| 9:59 am on Jun 16, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Presumbly the strategy is to get a higher rank on each site for a specific search term such as red widget, blue widget etc. Personally I think the risk of this strategy simply not paying off when faced by competition with sites ranking far better generally on "widgets" is higher than the chance of being penalised.
| 3:14 pm on Jun 16, 2010 (gmt 0)|
What Google says...
|Doorway pages |
Doorway pages are typically large sets of poor-quality pages where each page is optimized for a specific keyword or phrase. In many cases, doorway pages are written to rank for a particular phrase and then funnel users to a single destination.
Whether deployed across many domains or established within one domain, doorway pages tend to frustrate users, and are in violation of our webmaster guidelines.
Google's aim is to give our users the most valuable and relevant search results. Therefore, we frown on practices that are designed to manipulate search engines and deceive users by directing them to sites other than the ones they selected, and that provide content solely for the benefit of search engines. Google may take action on doorway sites and other sites making use of these deceptive practice, including removing these sites from the Google index.
Your call. ;)
| 6:57 pm on Jun 16, 2010 (gmt 0)|
My reading was that these were distinct sites on different sub-topics.
| 8:14 am on Jun 18, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|My reading was that these were distinct sites on different sub-topics. |
Yes, these are distinct websites separate from each other. The content is also original in most places. The 'about us' sections and some other have the same content all through, so he is using image files instead of text content.
However, the look and feel of the sites are the same and any user can make out that these two websites are actually nothing but duplicates.
|I think the risk of this strategy simply not paying off |
Has anybody had any similar experience. I want to know what kind of risk i am facing. Is there a chance of human reviewers? Or, is it possible for their system to detect the similarity?
I need some concrete stuff with which I can convince my client. Some other guy convinced him that this will work and he seems vehemently maintains that he can go around the policy.
Please suggest what to do. Thanx. Swayam.
| 9:48 am on Jun 18, 2010 (gmt 0)|
You are trying improve ranking for widget+qualifier by creating a dedicated site. For this to be a success or not depends on the relative strengths of "widget" and "qualifier" in the searches.
| 9:03 am on Jun 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Whether the search engines track these "Doorway Pages" is secondary. But, first of all, do you need to have so many domains or websites for one particular business? It's not worth doing it.
To get this done you have to spend extra hours of work since each website expects its own dedicated time for promoting it. Instead, you can have only one official website and invest all your work and dedication into it. It will obviously drive the desired results for you when done exactly the way it should be done.
[edited by: engine at 9:19 am (utc) on Jun 22, 2010]
[edit reason] No self promo, thanks. [/edit]
| 9:12 am on Jun 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
There comes a time that the expense of manhours/dollars reduces any possible benefit. Nikhil Narayan offers good advice in that regard. BeeDeeDubbleU quotes the Google policy. piatkow suggests there might be diminishing benefits in such strategy.
Me, as a user, would only have to hit two of those sites to see the thin content and back off and go somewhere else.
Of course, however, the client is always right. The best you can do is offer your advice---then do exactly what they pay you to do.
| 3:54 pm on Jun 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Plenty of keyword oriented domains do pretty well in google for the specific keywords in the domain. In fact, I'd say a keyword.com site is likely to go top ten within the first week with the minimum of inbound links for 'keyword' in relatively uncompetitive niches. Done it myself and see many other sites do exactly the same. The sites are relatively small sites with unique content.