Changing Domain Names

Will Google serps and PR follow?

[morty]

We have a client who is changing domain names. They have good serps and PR, will they lose their results once they change the domain name or will they follow?

In terms of content it's the same exact site.

Any advice?

[Hunter]

morty, the consensus at the moment is that you should avoid changing domain names for sites that already rank in Google (especially if they rank well). Sandboxing is believed to be the culprit. If you can, don't :)

[ogletree]

That is a very bad idea. Don't move. You will lose all you have.

[pmkpmk]

I second that. DON'T DO IT! Just say no :-)

[inbound]

Aaaaargh, this sounds like the type of client I would hate to have.

Tell them no, then hit them for thinking about it. On second thoughts, get them to point out the person responsible and then tattoo 'I must not suggest fixing things that are not broken' on his forehead, backwards.

Twice.

Then write up some good reasons why they should not do this and charge them $500 for the pleasure.

[Powdork]

All of the above.

[markis00]

You'd have to rebuild all your incoming links
e-mail all your old link partners to change the link text

kind of a pain

[walkman]

DO NOT move.

[the_nerd]

1. Print this thread and show it to them.
2. If they don't see how bad their idea is, tell them there is a nerd out there willing to pay 15$ for the old domain name ;-)

[siteseo]

Morty,

Doing a 301 is the correct way to forward old traffic to the new domain. Just know that pagerank and link popularity will NOT be passed to the new site via a 301, so the other posters are correct in stating that your SEO work will have to begin from the top. You may be able to contact some of the people linking to the site and get them to change their links, but this is a huge process and many of them won't do it. And Google will undoubtedly sandbox the new site/domain.

That said, if your client is in a situation where they need to change domain names for legal reasons, or for reasons that supersede SEO, AND they understand that they'll be looking at a 1-2 year hiatus to return to good rankings - then that's a decision they'll have to make. Sometimes you must sacrifice in the short-term to gain more in the long-term.

[walkman]

"If they don't see how bad their idea is, tell them there is a nerd out there willing to pay 15$ for the old domain name ;-)"

$16.50 ;). I don't care if it's IamStupid.com

[Robert Charlton]

Yes, 301s are the correct way to redirect a site to a new domain, but I wouldn't do it now... and yes, there is something akin to sandboxing happening with 301 redirected domains that's been going on since March 2004.

Just know that pagerank and link popularity will NOT be passed to the new site via a 301...

I don't believe this is an accurate statement of what's happening. PageRank and link popularity are being passed to old sites, and there's every reason to believe that 301s are continuing to work as they have been, and to pass PR and link popularity on to new ones as well. There is an extra barrier in the index, though, that most cannot explain, that is affecting the ranking of new sites.

There have been numerous discussions in this forum, some of which are suggesting that the problems may be related to the indexing limits of Google's 32-bit architecture. Google and MSN are undoubtedly both developing new 64-bit systems.

Others are suggesting it's an age quality factor, but I myself don't think so. Too many completely meritorious sites are being kept out, and I don't think that Google wants this to continue.

I've seen what look like test results on Google in the past few weeks that have temporarily popped many sandboxed sites up to where I would expect them to rank. I have hopes that when Google can make this work without spam sites also popping up, that we will see a lot of movement. Until that happens, though, I wouldn't consider redirecting a domain that is currently ranking.

...AND they understand that they'll be looking at a 1-2 year hiatus to return to good rankings

Thus far it's been about 10 months, and it feels like centuries, but I dont see any basis for saying "1-2 year hiatus." If Google continues not to show recent domains once the new MSN really launches with fanfare, I think they'll find themselves in some competitive difficulty.

This is one of the more interesting threads on the sandbox...
Why does the 'Google Lag' exist?
[webmasterworld.com...]