Forum Moderators: open
Seems to me the largest use of expired domains is by UltimateSearch and other companies that use them to present ppc listings. Since these ppc are usually sourced from FindWhat, I wouldn't be surprised if this single move by Google makes a noticeable dent in FindWhat's revenue.
Another use of expired domains is that brokers buy up generic ones and then sell them to companies in the same field with branded domains. These companies then use domain pointers to from the generic expired domain to the branded one. Clearly, Google has devalued the expired domains, so brokers will suffer and companies with branded domains will lose a source of traffic.
None of this would really bother me except for the fact that Google is increasingly in the business of selling traffic themselves. By filtering out expired domains, they have reduced the market of lower-cost traffic providers.
I wonder if Google factors expected impact on their ad sales into their prioritization of search changes. Certainly, there are far bigger problems than expired domains that deteriorate SERPs
THAT is a very good question. I am an ODP editor. Let's say the hypothetical blowing-soap-bubbles.com is in the ODP category for that. The domain name expires, and then some other webmaster who wants to put up a site about blowing soap bubbles, unaware of the former site, spots the domain name available and buys it. Let's say that the new site is good quality. As an ODP editor, as it is obviously appropriate for the cat, if I am checking reds, when I see a soap bubble site at that domain I'll just clear the red and move on. However, if Google has this domain coded as having expired, they'll *never* count the ODP listing. Even though it is perfectly legitimate, and intended by the editor. This policy of Google will cause some innocent, collateral damage.
Seems to me that is intentional.
Google may well have realized they'd create innocent victims, and feel the net good outweighs this.
ONE: it's a really good domain name with the keywords in that you want. In theory, you'll just lose your backlinks (if any). However, in practice the new algo is having difficulty detecting new and old backlinks, so it seems to be vitally important to let the domain "rest" for a whole Google cycle before redeveloping it.
TWO: expired traffic - i.e. those going to blowing-soap-bubbles.com from an ODP link, Yahoo or some other link getting redirected to a similar site. This won't be affected at all, because it never used the old PageRank (except maybe in the Google Directory). In any case, the expired traffic industry is a useful one, both for webmasters and surfers.
THREE: getting a boost in tems of PageRank without having to do the hard work. This is a wipeout basically and Google IS penalising the domains, even if it's just because of a buggy algorithm. What appears to have happened is that domains which were redeveloped quickly after dropping have been penalised with a PR0, despite having new inbounds.
On the third point there does (to me) seem to be a definite bug. Now, you could say that in future it's not a good idea to redevelop a domain quickly because it makes it difficult for Google to differentiate between new links and old ones, but at the moment there are sites in the PR0 penalty box which shouldn't be there. Some guidance from Google on how to get these sites out of the PR0 box would be useful, especially because this does seem to be partly the result of a bug.
I'll give an example. I bought an expired domain with a really, really good domain name for a product I wanted to sell. It was originally PR2, but I set about promoting the site and got it to PR4, and was hoping for a PR5 this time around. Instead, Google gives me a big fat PR0. Now, I don't want to throw the domain away unless I have to, but unless I know there *is* some way to fix this I'm running the risk of wasting my time.
GG - is there any guidance you can give? Please?
However if you are buying an expired domain you should only get the name and no added value. If the new site merits links from other sites (DMOZ and Yahoo included) then asking for the old link to be removed and after an update getting new links should do the trick.
Seems reasonable in the overall scheme of things.
As for the previous site having already scooped up links from all the other sites that might be willing to link to you - please.
IMO, the amount of pagerank to be gained from a single DMOZ or Yahoo link is usually pretty low. Those are two sites where the traffic you receive far outweighs the PR gain. I'm talking about in the long run; a lot of webmasters go there first for a quick PR hit, but there are millions of other sites that would work just as well. Besides, it's not that easy to get a free Yahoo link any more anyways
As for the previous site having already scooped up links from all the other sites that might be willing to link to you - please.
Methinks that you over exaggerate Google Directory traffic. Both my sites are in dmoz.org and the Google directory because they have been listed since that 5 month old RDF dump. I get tons of traffic from the search engines, Google and partners in particular. However, both dmoz.org and Google directory traffic is so minimal that I'd barely notice if it vanished. It *is* possible this has something to do with the demographics of my site users. They tend to be teenagers and young adults. It is possible these are the sort that don't use directories much at all. However, I don't see many webmasters that have said that Google Directory traffic is anything significant.
I just checked my log and the Google directory traffic for the year on the only site I've been able to get in to Google directory.
The Google directory has provided 300% as many referrals as dmoz. 6 vs 2. I guess it is all about pr ;).
I guess I'm just kicking your butt on DMOZ traffic! I got 3 in February! ;)
I really do expect that google will work out something equitable as far as old links that still point to you after a while. If they make it so that it is a one year investment before you can get value out of the old incoming links, I think it will greatly reduce the abuse of the system.
If the DMOZ links become a major issue, then it is possible tha DMOZ might be able to work something out so that webmasters can request that their sites be removed for a month and go back into the queue for rereview after that. All the editors that I know realize that DMOZ is relevant *because* of the search engines.
I think that Google should put up an expired domain faq to answer some of the basic questions.
I guess I'm just kicking your butt on DMOZ traffic! I got 3 in February!
Oh yeah,
Well I got two referrals from GoGuides. nana nana nana! ;)
I just checked the logs of my main site for March. 3 hits from the dmoz.org directory, and 4 from the Google directory. This is unusual for the Google directory to get more hits. To compare these stats to search engine traffic, 100 unique visitors from google.com is a slow day for this site. I get more hits from Altavista than dmoz.org and the downstream partners. Perhaps the demographics of my site means my stats aren't representative. However, for me ODP and partner traffic just isn't a priority.
I'm waiting for Joe Ant to start delivering hits. ;) When it comes to directories, for me the one that *really* delivers is Looksmart. Both my sites are non-commercial and in Looksmart through Zeal. It is fairly obvious to me that the huge amount of MSN traffic I get is by virtue of the fact this Looksmart listing puts me #1 for all key search terms there. Google and partners is my main source of traffic. However, after that MSN is not something to sneeze at.
My msn results are also result of a looksmart listing although referrals not related to the Ls listing are now showing up via inktomi.
