Safely building a themed network. . .

how should it be done?

[alphacooler]

An example will hopefully make this easier to see.

Say I have a passion for dogs. I have individual sites for 5-10 different types of dogs. All 100% unique content and different site designs. NO interlinking and all have different incoming links(although from same type of sites).

The whois info is the same for each site and they are all hosted on the SAME dedicated IP. I used to think this was absolutely dandy, but now I don't know what G would think of the fact that a single owner(they easily verify same owner) has all these semi-related sites.

Any postulations on how G now sees loose site networks like these? Penalty/dampner applied? Impossible to get all sites to rank for their respective keyword?

G is just a mystery to me these days. . .

[glengara]

I'd have thought a network implies something more than just common ownership, and your description is not that of a network, IMO.

[helleborine]

What might constitute a network that might be subject to penalties?

[alphacooler]

I would call it a 'loose network', all same theme and single owner. Regardless of what you call it, how should it be done? All sites shared on same dedicated IP? Each site on different c-class IP?

[glengara]

*All 100% unique content and different site designs. NO interlinking and all have different incoming links*

Well that sounds like a pretty good start to me, only problem I might see is if they started coming up for the same KWs.

If not, what's to penalise?

[alphacooler]

I agree, 'I' don't see anything wrong with this, but what does G think about a single owner making MULTIPLE related sites? I know I can make many valuable sites with quality content, but in many cases a person launching multiple semi related sites is spamming. So it might just be easier for G to look for multiple sites owned by the same person and drop an automatic penalty/dampner. Maybe I should just take my tin-foil hat off now?

[glengara]

Based on no commonality in linkage, and the sites not competing for the same KWs. you're being unnecessarily paranoid, IMO. ;-)

[helleborine]

Can you expand on what you mean by "commonality in linkage?" Thanks.

[nuevojefe]

This doesn't even sound like a network. Your only concern should be that if anything is awry and a quality control person starts looking into things, they could find all your sites. Other than that - seems like a non-issue.

[hutcheson]

I agree, this isn't a network. This is a website with brain-damaged navigation.

Fix the links so people (and spiders) can easily explore and navigate the whole site from any page.

If it were all under one domain, you wouldn't be worrying about penalties -- so why in the name of Google not just put it all under one domain.

Design for people, and Google will follow.

[glengara]

Sorry Helleborine, just meant there were no links in common between the sites, from either within the "network" or from outside it.