Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Of cause large sites counteract this by generally having more inbound links anyway.
True or False? Your experience and not opinion please.
We went from 400 to 78.000 pages in some 5 weeks.
Everything is fine. We have a PR of 5 and only 19 backlinks.
Spammer?
That's only about one every six minutes if you work 24 hours a day or one every two minutes in an eight hour shift ;)
I've also heard that adding lots new pages "gradually" is better than "overnight".
Spammer?
I always considered my self a white hat SEO.
This 78.000 pages, one page per keyphrase, with or without preposition, reverse sentences, are not using cloacking.
Linkeage between the pages is very smart and not the obvius "long list of keywords".
And the 78.000 are in 7 languages.
All keyphrases are targeted and we dont have adsense on it.
Spammer?
Pages were created automatically parsing a XLS matrix of keywords using XML to HTML.
I can´t say how long it took to create the matrix of keywords: much more than 2 minutes per page.
The idea is that every page by the virtue of its mere existance has some PR value, so the more pages you have on a site, the more potential PR you have on your site.
It increases your advertising. It's like have 30,000 ads out there in several papers, or just having one ad in a major paper. You'll hit more targetted visitors by using 30,000 ads.
Better yet, you can have a page rank of 0 and still get hits.. if you have thousands of pages. If you have thousands of pages, the chances are one of those pages is going to be ranked number 1 anyway on some specific search term. People search specific search terms, not general ones.
Does increasing the number of pages effect rank?
A post about increasing the number of pages and Search Engine Rankings.
It's my experience that increasing the number of pages does help to improve your ranking. But it's just one factor. Observing some of the skepticism of earlier threads, it's clear that adding 10,000 pages of spam is not the way to improve your ranking. You need original content, as well as following other good practices - page structure and validation, link structure, usability, etc. It's all here at WW.
Experience: 2 years ago a 70 page site was doing OK. Today that site has 1000 pages and is Booming. New pages seem to be indexed faster and rise higher. Pages that are auxillary to the main content are also doing better, faster. For example, the site is about Purple Widgets. When we expanded into Blue Widgets those pages took off. My assumption is that over the last 2 years we have established ourselves as a Color Widget site, based on the original work with Purple Widgets.
In general, you don't want your site to become stale. Adding new pages helps. So does does re-visiting your older pages.
In general, you don't want your site to become stale. Adding new pages helps
I agree with the 100%, Google mentioned this somewhere, I think in their patent.
We add a couple pages a week, and it does the trick.
But, if your site is not established and not ranking at all, new content is not the solution. Only once it's up there, consider doing the following in tandem:
1. Get links
2. Add Content
Oh forgot to mention it again, make sure its Original Content!
Many get right by adding content, the only problem, it's not their content, and they get hit with a duplicate content filter.
1.Website merger (very feasible)
2.A new shop added with thousands of products (very feasible)
3.A database like a encyclopaedia or just a book of previously non public content (very feasible)
4.A new text only version of a website added (sometimes needed as a quick fix to comply with UK Accessibility Law)
5.Automatically converting your PDF documents into HTML to make them more accessible(very feasible)
When you work in the “real world” these issues matter. The issues concerning these sites are overall SERPS and dilution of Page Rank making the page less authority looking due to a lack of green.
I understand Kubano, though I'm no Googleguy.
I think you answered my question anyhow. -Larry
Unnatural link growth has been talked about previously at WebmasterWorld. I guess it's perfectly reasonable to assume "unnatural" page/content growth could trip a penalty too. It's not like google doesn't have plenty of information on how the web grows!
Alternatively, could it be that all those extra pages used something spammy that google didn't like and cursed your existing pages too (via links)?
Similarly, maybe the pages were all too alike (and like those existing already), tripping the mother of all dupe content filters and cancelling each other out?
Suggy
