Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
We want to start out RIGHT this time around. In our previous niche, our "website" was distributed across about 4-5 different domains, strictly due to server load limits when we first started (we're talking about the days when it cost 10 times more to double your bandwidth on one domain than to simply start a new domain.) Thus as we added content and got more popular we had to add new domains or pay the inflated bandwidth costs. These were all highly interlinked, before we had any idea what SEO even was. Visualize each link on your home page going to a separate domain - and each of those domain pages linked back to the home page or the other domain links. Each is on a separate IP address (originally they were at different ISPs). This structure has served us pretty well and we've been afraid to change it because it HAS worked well. The benefits were, if one domain got a penalty, the others still strived. Some did better on different SE's, or for different keywords, etc. Lots of different sites linked to lower level pages on each domain creating backlinks for all domains. Also some SE directory indexes would frequently link more than one of the domains, not realizing they were part of the same overall website.
On a new project we have reserved 4 domain names along the lines of (not actual names of course):
1.GreatestAmericanWidgetManufacturer.com - Actual recognized company name, and the title on home page, but only one diluted keyword.
2.GreenWidgets.com - Short, to the point, easy to remember, two major keywords.
3.keyword1-keyword2-Widgets.com
4.keyword3-keyword4-widgets.com - both have different major keywords separated by hyphens in domain name
My question is: what is the general consensus on putting the entire site on one domain, versus splitting it up, with appropriate parts on differnet domains, and linking back and forth a lot.
On the one hand, Google for instance, seems to like keywords in the domain name. On the other hand, will the high level of interlinking, make it look like a link farm? Will G be impressed by multiple domains on the same subject linking profusely or be put off by it?
Right now we are considering making #1 the primary domain, with #2 being simply an alias resolving/pointing (not redirected) to the same IP for offline marketing purposes, and then splitting a few major pages dealing with the various keywords between #3 and #4 so they can be indexed under their own more specific keywords. Each of the three would be on it's own IP within a close IP block. The other alternative is to just forget about the other keyword domains or maybe redirect them also to #1 (not like anyone would be able to find or link to them) and use subdirectories with the keywords off the main domain.
Any advice or other suggestions about this structure versus SE preferences would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
> resolving/pointing (not redirected) to the same IP
Duplicate content [google.com].
301-redirect all alternate domain names to the main domain, promote only the main domain on-line, and make sure that each page of the new site is directly accessible at one and only one URL. This includes http vs. https, example.com vs. www.example.com, "/index.whatever" versus "/", and any and all query strings. One page must be accessible by one and only one variation of any of these, and the others should 301-redirect to that one canonical URL.
I'd advise that if you have a "Brand" you should use it; Forget about keyword-in-URL and use your brand [webmasterworld.com], because in the long run it will be worth far more than simple and only-moderately-effective SEO tricks like keyword-in-URL.
If you get stuck in the "server performance bind" again, then use load-balancing. If that's too complex for your organization to configure or support, then consider using subdomains of the main domain: They can be pointed to individual IP addresses as easily as separate non-branded domains can. Take www.yahoo.com, finance.yahoo.com, and search.yahoo.com as an example of both techniques used together.
Also, take a look at some of the big corporations on the Web. They use their brands, and do quite well both in organic search ranking and with (brand) type-in traffic.
Think about mind-share: Do you use "best-search-engine.com" or do you use "Google"? How about "best-portal.net" or "Yahoo!"?
Jim
"A link farm is no more than a collection of links, typically uncategorized, and displayed in a haphazard way. Link farms are designed for the sole purpose of manipulating search results, with no benefit for a user, and little, if any benefit to the site owner.
A web directory, while also a collection of links, is categorized, and all listings undergo editorial review. The directory should be built in a manner that is intuitive and provides users with relevant resources. A directory is built for the user, not for the search engines. "
In that case, if either applied, our site would much more resemble a directory (in which we own all the destinations), since ALL the links are directly related to different aspects of the same subject.
As far as 301 redirects, I remember when this was a big issue, especially with the www vs non-www addresses, but from what I have seen recently G is now handling that issue properly and only indexing one copy as far as I can see (much to our chagrin since our biggest competitor is not doing it properly, and not getting double indexed). Anyway that is how we moved some pages about on our old site using 301's.
As far as the new site, I believe it behaves properly for non-dup indexing with ReWriteRule... [R=301,L], as when you type in:
www.GreenWidgets.com
the address line on the browser changes to:
www.GreatestAmericanWidgetManufacturer.com
so there really never is a www.GreenWidgets.com which displays or gets retrieved (oops, thanks for reminding me as I just noticed this was not working properly... Someone forgot the RewriteConds... NOW it is working right.)
Am I wrong, should this not be handled OK by G? I would like to hear if there IS a problem with this.
Unfortunately load balancing was not available back then. It wasn't that we were exceeding the server capabilities, but rather the hosting restrictions of 100Mb bandwidth (or was it 10Mb?) per 24 hrs. Crazy huh by today's standards? We thought about using subdomains back then, but none of our providers would allow it (we would have had to get one to be the primary DNS and link to OTHER ISPs which they wouldn't do (we're talking 1996!)) They were greedy and wanted you to pay the $200 vs $20/month to increase to only twice as much bandwidth. At that time we would have needed 5+X! It's no longer an issue though as we now manage our own DNS on our own dedicated server with sane incremental bandwidth levels. But we're still stuck with the SE's liking some domains and penalizing the others for some unknown reason.
Branding: I absolutely agree, it works great... for big corporations who are already well known or if you have a few $millions to throw at offline and online marketing in people's faces (remember all those Yaaaahoooo! commercials some years back, and the travel gnome? or la-la-FreeeeeCreditRep...) For the average new-comer, in a high competition niche, relying on organic linking and search engine traffic I feel all the SE advantages you can get, can't hurt.
In summary we ARE leaning toward a single domain at this point, simply because it is simpler all around.
Thanks again.
Use the "Live HTTP Headers" add-on for Firefox and Mozilla-based browsers to thoroughly test your redirects, and make sure that any non-canonical URL is redirected in one step to the correct and canonical URL. If you see that it requires two or more redirects to canonicalize your URL, then that indicates that your redirection directives are not in the correct order (order them most-specific-pattern first to least-specific last).
On branding: The keyword-in-URL advantage is usually tiny compared to inbound link text and on-page factors. I suggest you forgo that tiny advantage, work on the other factors, and --lacking a million-dollar off-line advertising budget-- build your brand on the Web. Again, are you reading "best-webmaster-forum.com" or "webmasterworld.com" right now?
There's also the "CEO factor." I recall seeing a thread here about a company where after years of promoting a non-branded "keyword" URL, the CEO demanded a switch to a "brand" domain name. This had a deep and prolonged ranking and revenue cost (while the entire site was re-indexed and re-ranked at the new domain) that could have been avoided if the brand had been targeted initially.
YMMV,
Jim
For me the important question is will all four sites have unique content?
If so then I foresee no problem since I have been doing this for years as follows:
example1.com - main company domain information
example2.com - unique information
example3.com - unique information
example4.com - unique information
I actually have on one set of sites example.com plus 10 different unique domains all using example.ccTLD plus example.mobi all linked to each other in the LHS navigation so that any visitor can visit any other country site immediately.
On the example.ccTLDs if we have a nominated exclusive supplier/stockist for that country then they are listed there with a direct link.
This suits my company's working methods and seems to work extremely well since customers know they are in direct contact with our country supply of their preference, just how well-suited this may be to other companies I do not know.
Owing to my widget products some are produced in more than one country however Google seemingly does not penalise this and, realistically it is only a few, i.e. less than ten out of thousands.
I hope that helps.
All sites are hosted on the same server and registered under the same name and address, maybe that is a display of trust by Google that they do not see them as a link farm or possible duplicates?
While it is easier to manage one domain , there are many reasons why some sites would find this ordinarily inappropriate. Sites like IBM have all their regional sites operating from the same domain - but this is a mega enterprise site with a high degree of "trust".
Here are some quotes that I've researched which is as much as i could find on the subject :
Matt Cutts April 2008: Regarding interlinking between sites, he said it’s fine to interlink if the sites are related, but he said not to overdo it. When pressed, he said over 10 sites interlinking might be asking for trouble. He said it would also be ok to break out your network of sites and interlink sites within a certain category. The specific example was a network of local sites, and Matt said you could either have a single portal with links to all the geo-portals, or maybe interlink between all the various plumbing sites.Matt mentioned that sites don’t automatically get pagerank just for existing. They need backlinks to get pagerank. Also, he said if you have a network of sites and add a bunch more sites, it’s like
spreading the same amount of peanut butter across a bigger piece of bread. In that case, each site in the network gets a smaller share of the pagerank distribution. [seo.com...] taken from live interview by John Andrews in April 2008 @ [johnon.com...]John Mu July 29 , 2008 at Google Groups said :PS I personally don't see anything wrong with linking to other, related sites that the same person owns, as long as it is done within reason. Cross-linking a few related and relevant sites in the footer is generally not a problem, but if you have too many sites, I would recommend linking to one main "about us" page where you list them. Be reasonable :-)
Adam Lasnik - Google - " Internal / cross-domain linking... don't go hog wild. There's no magic threshold. However, penalties for country-domain cross-linking isn't something I have seen." [webmasterworld.com...]However, there are many good SEO's who do not agree with these generalised responses , using terms like "domain farms" , sometimes "link farms" [ a potential consequence ], penalty transfers [ where one site is effected ], etc etc.
Considering the number of threads out there on multiple domains , interlinking issues etc it would be good to get some more in depth / definitive responses from Google or direction in their webmaster guidelines so that folks could confidently administer this aspect. Currently i think it's too uncertain to be absolutely sure about what to do.
[edited by: Whitey at 10:46 pm (utc) on Oct. 16, 2008]
I get to have 6 home pages, instead of one.
In our case ALL the content on each domain is entirely unique and different.
For instance:
3.keyword1-keyword2-Widgets.com - has pages with information about widgets and keyword1, widgets and keyword2, etc. which mostly link back to Domain 1 as their home page.
4.keyword3-keyword4-widgets.com - has pages with information about widgets and keyword3, widgets and keyword4, etc. which mostly link back to Domain 1 as their home page.
Domain 1.GreatestAmericanWidgetManufacturer.com - has some general content about widgets, linked from the home page, as well as additional links on the home page to the appropriate topics on the other 2 domains as if they were all equal and on the same domain.
The main reason for doing this (nowadays, as opposed to our original intent previously mentioned) is to take advantage of the frequently mentioned preference from G for keywords IN the domain name. The second reason, from past experience, is to have a safety net. If for some reason a major search engine, for some unknown reason decides it does not like one of your domains for a while (as has often happened to us in the past - and we have never intentionally done anything other than whitehat!) the others can carry on unaffected and act as alternate portals for the home page. The main pages on the secondary domains point back to the home page of the main domain. All pages on all domains have the same logo and brand name as those on the main domain. With only ONE domain, if a SE decides they don't like you today, it could be months before you get traffic again... might as well take an extended sabatical.
Mike
We went in and cleaned up all of the links between the sites, so that only the main site linked out to all of the others, and the positions were re-gained fairly quickly.
The moral of the story is if you want to do it, do it, but be careful and don't be surprised if there are bumps along the way.
To be honnest though, I'm still not sure what the benifit of this is for you (or what you anticipate the benifit will be?)Think of it this way, Google want to list the most comprehensive information on each subject, are they more likely to offer 1 website that tells a user everything they could ever want to know, or a 1 page website that links to other pieces of that information, causing the user to have to visit 5 websites if they want to access all of the information...WWYD?
