Should I add new domain to Google Webmasters?

[Tonearm]

I've been using the same domain for a long time and I have it set up by itself in a Google Webmasters account. I'm launching a new and similar site under a different domain and I'm wondering if I should add it to the same Google Webmasters account. I won't be engaging in anything "black hat" and if the domains have a page that is too similar between them, there will be a noindex tag on one of the two pages. The two domains will be on different IPs in the same block and they will not link to each other whatsoever. What do you think?

[encyclo]

Do you use AdSense? Google Analytics? Are the domains' whois records the same? Are you proposing to create a different Google Webmaster account for the new domain, and if so will you only access that account from a separate IP address to your primary account?

There are so many ways that Google can link the two sites. Perhaps you should ask what the risks would be of letting that association be known to Google.

[Reno]

I have over a dozen sites listed in GWT, and as to whether that hurts me? Well, I don't know what I don't know, so I cannot say. I came to the conclusion that having them all together only confirmed what Google already knew (or would surely discover), so I didn't try to hide anything. I find GWT to be generally helpful, but since I do not use Analytics I'm unable to verify via that tool whether the data is consistent. Still, it's a good feature that they offer for free, so unless you feel you can stay under the radar with separate accounts, it is somewhat more convenient to have all the info under one roof.

.............................

[Tonearm]

I don't use AdSense or Analytics but I do use AdWords. The whois record is the same right now.

What are the downsides/risks of putting two domains in the same account or otherwise alerting Google that I own both?

[Reno]

If the whois has you as the registrant for both, then Google already knows that you own the two sites. I think people worry -- correctly or incorrectly -- that interlinking between sites owned by the same person could be seen as an attempt to manipulate Page Rank. Or, if the sites have essentially the same kind of products or services, it's an attempt to get additional listings with mostly duplicate content. If your sites are obviously different and you're careful to not interlink unnecessarily, then I don't see a significant downside.

.................

[Tonearm]

I won't be interlinking whatsoever, but the two online stores will share many of the same products. If the same category, sub-category, or product appears in both stores, there will be a noindex tag on one of the two pages. Does that sound OK or could I still get into hot water?

[netmeg]

I have hundreds of sites in several different accounts (for me and for clients) Never had a problem with it.

[Tonearm]

OK, the duplicate issue shouldn't be a problem as long as I use noindex?

[Robert Charlton]

The problem as I see it with using the meta robots noindex is the problem with having dupe content in general... and that is that you're throwing away a chance for one of your pages to show up in the serps.

noindexed pages can accumulate PageRank, though, because they are spidered, and if you use this syntax...

<meta name="robots" content="noindex,follow">

...and if you have good nav links linking back to other pages on your site, the page will also transmit that accumulated PageRank, so with noindex you're not throwing your link juice away completely.

I myself have run into problems with clients having very similar sites (in one case, a chain of some 30-40 brick and mortar locations, each of which was a separate business and required a separate listing), and my tendency is to keep them completely separate and make them as different as possible... avoiding templated content, common inbound linking sources, and other such junctures whenever possible. It's not always easy. In this case, I needed several spreadsheets to manage the differences.

I think, if you're going this route, it makes more sense to create separate sets of content, and to be extra careful to avoid similarities, than it does to noindex your pages. Make the sites genuinely useful, and if you can, have your value-added content serve different purposes.

[Tonearm]

"The problem as I see it with using the meta robots noindex is the problem with having dupe content in general... and that is that you're throwing away a chance for one of your pages to show up in the serps."

Agreed, but this is a temporary solution until I can muster the courage to 301 each page on the old domain to the new domain. The old domain is my only source of income so courage is required. How long should I expect it to take for my rankings to transfer to the new domain after I implement 301s?

"noindexed pages can accumulate PageRank, though, because they are spidered, and if you use this syntax... "

Aren't pages "follow" by default? Does something like this exclude "follow":

<meta name="robots" content="noindex" />

"I myself have run into problems with clients having very similar sites"

What kind of problems? Ranking drops?

[Robert Charlton]

Aren't pages "follow" by default? Does something like this exclude "follow":

<meta name="robots" content="noindex" />

Yes, I was just making it absolutely explicit.

I myself have run into problems with clients having very similar sites

What kind of problems? Ranking drops?

Like one of the sites dropped in the serps quite a bit for major search terms, including its own name. These were sites where one site had a page about another "partner" site, the page from one linked to the other, inbound linking was basically similar as these were sibling sites offering different services but naturally promoted in tandem, and both sites were on the same server.

Agreed, but this is a temporary solution until I can muster the courage to 301 each page on the old domain to the new domain. The old domain is my only source of income so courage is required.

Just to double-check then before I advise further... is the ultimate goal here not to end up with two sites on two domains, but ultimately to end up with one site on a new domain? If that is the case, there are IMO better ways to do this.

[Tonearm]

These were sites where one site had a page about another "partner" site, the page from one linked to the other, inbound linking was basically similar as these were sibling sites offering different services but naturally promoted in tandem, and both sites were on the same server.

It sounds like I should be OK since my sites don't link to each other whatsoever.

Just to double-check then before I advise further... is the ultimate goal here not to end up with two sites on two domains, but ultimately to end up with one site on a new domain? If that is the case, there are IMO better ways to do this.

Yes that is the ultimate goal, but I would like to be able to set things up properly for two different domains that will remain that way permanently as well.

[Robert Charlton]

It sounds like I should be OK since my sites don't link to each other whatsoever.

I've seen two sites in that situation too. No shared content at all, no linking between them, but same market area. Only one or two link sources in common that I knew of. Common link sources are more or less inevitable if the sites are in the same market. The second site didn't rank on Google at all until it got moved to separate hosting.

Yes that is the ultimate goal, but I would like to be able to set things up properly for two different domains that will remain that way permanently as well.

In my mind, the two goals are contradictory. One approach suggests that you want identical content to be able to coexist until you move to just one domain and ultimately fold all the links together. The other suggests two different domains with two different sets of content, where ultimately you won't fold all the links together.

What I had in mind, in any event, is to use a 302 temporary redirect from the old domain to the new one. You'd have dupe content on two different domains, which would split your link vote and is normally why you wouldn't want to do this, but it wouldn't matter here since ultimately you'd be 301-ing the old domain (and its backlinks) to the new domain. When you do a 301, you wipe out the old content, and I feel you need to keep the redirect in place more or less forever, which therefore ties up the old domain more or less forever.

I've mentioned this 302 approach several times here. For more details, see discussions at...

Changing domain, think I have it sussed, but just want to check
http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4188181.htm [webmasterworld.com]

Moving to a New Domain - Official Advice from Google
http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3629305.htm [webmasterworld.com]

I would not go the 302 route if ultimately you want to end up with two separate usable domains. I'd go with the noindex approach, with highly separate hosting... or, better yet, two sites with distinctly different purpose even though they're possibly targeting some of the same keywords. The way Google is going, it's not likely to rank two similar sites at the top anyway, regardless of ownership.

[Tonearm]

What I had in mind, in any event, is to use a 302 temporary redirect from the old domain to the new one. You'd have dupe content on two different domains, which would split your link vote and is normally why you wouldn't want to do this, but it wouldn't matter here since ultimately you'd be 301-ing the old domain (and its backlinks) to the new domain. When you do a 301, you wipe out the old content, and I feel you need to keep the redirect in place more or less forever, which therefore ties up the old domain more or less forever.

Why not just 301 right away instead of 302ing and then 301ing later? Is it so you can go back to separate domains more easily if necessary?