Forum Moderators: open
However I want to expand the web site into new areas but keeping the same site without changing my index page etc.
I want to target new keywords for new ares in the travel industry in a particular country. The way to do so I have been told is through sub domains which will cost me $10 per month instead of creating a brand new web site.
My question is how does Google react with sub-domains? and are they treated like new websites? does the main web site help support it in Pr?
I have never used Sub-domains but I feel its the next step I never spam Google nor do I want to cheat.
Any thoughts
For the most part, they are treated no better or no worse than a separate domain. Spam is spam regardless of whether you choose slashes or dots.
I want to market specific cities in a country so I can target it locally for instance
instead of www.mysite.com/captial_city.htm
I prefer www.capital.mysite.com
This should let my main site continue in the same way and use the sub domain to target that city.
To target the cities I have to use the index page for SEO as the competition is strife! so sub-domains having their very own index.htm would be a good solution.
My web site is promoting property in a specific area but I want to promote hotels and property in other areas but I carn't build it into my exsisting web site because It was originally built for a specific region now I want to expand to other areas with out cheating or hurting my current google positions.
If I knew it would be that successful I would have started differently but we all have to learn to walk before we can run.
Whether or not what you build is considered spam has nothing to to with whether or not you choose to use subdomains.
If you engage in tactics that would be considered spam on a TLD, it will be spam on a subdomain.
If you don't, it won't be a problem.
thats a lot of subdomains, probably thousands [alltheweb.com]
Yet if the Google Serps show your main site and subs dominating the first page for generic search queries, it most probably becomes spam, as WG says.
this thread might also help: [webmasterworld.com...]
If done properly they can really perform very well. Allthough canonicals (subdomains) are treated like seperate sites (like different tld's), they can improve your overall themeing strategy.
However, there are big risks - the line between spam and not spam is very thin. You should definetely read all you can about that subject before you expand your site by subdomains.
Also, take a look at the WebmasterWorld forum related to Link Developement [webmasterworld.com]. Especially the moderator paynet has a lot of knowlege about canonicals and link strategies.
>I prefer www.capital.mysite.com
First fault - never use a subdomain AND another www subdomain in front of it. Just plain capital.mysite.com.
>So my best bet is to create one sub-domain and structure it better for promoting the new areas.
You've got it - that'd be a good strategy. For me, canonicals work like a charm. However i don't use more than four per tld / site and keep them well themed and independantly promoted! As with all webmastering: if it's good for the user it'll be good for google ...
Although this formula is demonstrably false in general, in this example scenario it seems particularly misapplied.
What would be best for the user in this case is to have a separate subdomain devoted to their individual city, not a subdomain devoted to cities in general from which the user selects the city they want.
This really has become quite a nonsense where people develop sites according to how they will be treated by google and within this framework try to implement the most user-friendly system possible and they then turn around and say that user-friendly websites are also good for google.
Or maybe 'user-friendly' has lost its original meaning and now means something like 'most user-friendly possible within a google optimisation strategy'. In which case 'good for the user is good for google' becomes axiomatic because what is 'good for google' is now determining what is defined as 'good for the user'.
<edit> No offence meant yidaki. I come from a time when 'user-friendly websites' were developed without regard to search-engline optimisation and that is definitely not what is going on now </edit>
[edited by: apollo at 11:35 pm (utc) on April 22, 2003]
You make some claims that I don't think really stand up to close examination:
>> As with all webmastering: if it's good for the user it'll be good for google ...Although this formula is demonstrably false in general
You could potentially give examples of where user unfriendly content does well in Google, but 'in general'? I don't think so.
What would be best for the user in this case is to have a separate subdomain devoted to their individual city, not a subdomain devoted to cities in general from which the user selects the city they want.
Maybe I don't understand you correctly, but why should lasko use www.mysite.com/captial_city.htm rather than capital.mysite.com? Surely the second approach is not only acceptable, but also encourages the creation of more content? And why would this be user-unfriendly?
From what I have read of Lasko's intentions, it could be a spam scenario he is hoping to create, but that doesn't mean that in general the method is wrong.
Finally, either Google provides user-friendly content, or it will sink like the other medicore search engines. Webmasters who just spam Google can only ever get a short term advantage. I see the internet as being around for a long time, so what is right for the user is right for Google in the long term. Being hidden from view in search engines due to lack of optimisation is not the most user-friendly idea I have come across.
Yes you are correct. You do not understand me correctly.
Also, spam is defined by google. What google defines as 'spam' can still produce the best results for the user, as in the example solution I have outlined that you seem to agree with. There is no connection between 'spam' and 'good for the user', although this connection is often assumed because of the way that people make a lot of noise when spam spoils their internet experience.
No problem, apollo - i expected reactions on the last sentence of my post. Do you have some more to the major part - about canonicals? If you think, canonicals are good for se's rather than for the user, you should definitely learn more about it ... no offense ... ;)
People often go crazy if someone writes about user friendlyness and seo in one sentence - or about seo and spam - IMHO these are phylosophical discussions that never end ...
However, i wouldn't say that is definitely not what is going on now - that's to general ... you wouldn't say every top position is spam, or? Yah times have changed ...
