Forum Moderators: open
1. Submit his 50+ page site to Google.
2. Create a ring/farm of 25-50 single page urls and link each to the main site.
This seems a bit shifty to me and I told him that I wouldn't advise it because --- a) A single page url will have little to no bearing on your ranking (and it might even hurt it), and b) I've heard of sites like this getting PR:0ed.
I'd like to see what you guys have to write about this. He's new to this site, but will be reading your feedback.
If anyone can get him on the right track - it's the forum-addicts of Webmasterworld.com. :)
Thanks!
If you mean unique content on each domain with each domain being worthy of being stand alone, then go for it. It is a legitimate method that hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of sites use.
As long as there isn't any problem content, then there shouldn't be any long term problems.
I'd link them from a menu. Put it right out there and don't try to hide the fact that the sites are related or owned by the same person.
I'd also try to get the sites listed in directories before ever submitting. Let the the crawlers come to you.
On the other hand what you might be describing is getting 50 discreet domain names and interlinking - this is called link farming and this strategy will likely be discovered by Google who will then grant PR0 as you have already noted.
This board is filled with people who have several true stand alone sites where they have interlinked the sites and recieved penalties. Doing so as a strategy seems like a really bad idea.
Here's a little different strategy for your friend. Start a new domain name, make 50 pages of great content, interlink the pages in an easy to navigate manner, then submit to DMOZ and anywhere else he can find to get inbound links.
I guess the central theme is that you get inbound links and, thereby PR, from without. So build a quality site and get tons of people to like it and link to it.
In Hypergeeks example would the best way to ensure pagerank is maintainted within the network be to link from every site to every other site (if this was possible)? Also would Google have a problem with you having a list of say 50 sites that all link to each other at the bottom of every page?
Any advice greatly appreciated.
To me, dupe content is, simply, content (articles, glossarys, ect.) copied from one site to another.
"So what if I took content from another site and inserted it into another site's template. This changes the page at least 30% - right?"
Most of me says, "Wrong, dupe content is dupe content." - but a small part says, "Well...".
Any takers?
The issue is really what does the robot see? If the robot sees the same content, you got a prob.
>25-50 single page urls
I read that as 25-50 page domains.
What do you mean by #2?
>So what if I took content from another site and inserted
>it into another site's template. This changes the page
>at least 30% - right?"
Not really. Google's gotten pretty good at sussing out a template and only comparing the core of the page.
>If the robot sees the same content, you got a prob.
Exactly. It's not before indexing (template/html), it's after indexing (page text - paragraphs).
I read that as 25-50 page domains.
No. He wants to toss up 25-50 domains with a single page on each. Pretty much just doorways "but with quality content on that one page". Each with a link back to his main site.
I tried to explain that this will fail since those incoming links are from a site with little to no content - whether it's quality or not.
Would a one page domain site linking to your main web site penalise your main site then? Presumably it would be okay if had more content (20 + pages).
That's the reason for this thread. I'm trying to convince him that his site, which has a modest PR5 at the moment, might get penalized position-wise or even grey-barred.
Sure it takes bit more work, but it really doesn't take more than a couple of days to put up a site that wouldn't be penalty fodder.
Give em quality and quantity and they will come, link, and recommend. Beats trying a technique that may get you into trouble with a change of stance from the SE's.
Also couldn't shady characters create a load of one page sites and link them to competitors site to get them banned?
I think it is likely that Google would have a problem with that.
As for just linking them all to one, I don't see the problem. To have any real effect people need a reason to link to them from other sites and directories. Any 'rank source' PageRank created by the pages themselves will be indescribably small.
That creates a visual link map that sticks out like a sore thumb. If the 50 pages are unique enough, then put htem on the same site. More content means more people will link to it, and those links will be real, natural links.
Also, regarding dupe content, as Brett mentioned, it isn't a good idea to rely on different templates to try and convince Google there is no duplication. Any dupe detection system is more than likely going to be based on what's left over after the page is parsed. It also probably relies more on link/file name analysis more than it does on actually comparing the content. (Similar to the process that AV received a patent for).
would Google have a problem with you having a list of say 50 sites that all link to each other at the bottom of every page
*shudder*
do...NOT...do...that!!!
*gasp*
...people are more likely to link to 1 good resource than 50 single pages... Give em quality and quantity and they will come, link, and recommend...
I *completely* agree with you gimp, but there are other factors that you have to consider. Some sites are downright unpopular to link to.
If you went to buy rectal cream online (so you didn't have to stare someone in the face while you were buying it) - would you ever want to link to it from your homepage? I wouldn't.
Extremely competitive industries - we'll use the medical industry as an example - have little to no cross-linking resources for a site that sells, let's say, an over the counter non-prescription medication.
Most web sites that compete for rankings in such industries practice extremely shifty SEO. A great (or horrible) example of this is a company putting up a page for "The Foundation for Arthritis Research", getting tons of people to link to them - directories to list them for free - other associations to list them as a valuable resource; and THEN changing gears and throwing their business up onto the domain after six months to a year of gaining heavy linkage. I've seen this work for several hucksters.
When it comes down to it. These businesses will have to create a good portion of their own inbounds to even have the chance to see a PR6.
If Google does penalise me would it only be the sites that have all the links on or also the ones that they point to (some of which do not have any links on). Hope that makes sense
Any advice much appreciated to stop the sweating.
It seems like a very valid and effective way to boost rankings.
A few things you have to understand though:
1. High rankings are not gained overnight.
2. Lots and lots of work is put into sucessfully positioning a web site. Sometimes, more work than one person may be able to handle by themselves.
3. Unless you have a business, or work for one that gives you a budget, creating your own sites and populating them with content and links can be an expensive project. (Figure 20 to 30 sites @ the bar minimum of $5-$10 a month in hosting costs - times the monthly upkeep for the life-term of your site.)
These are a lot of obligations just to boost a single web site.
Some business find this a must, like the friend I mentioned. He is really up against a wall with a fair site but no reciprocal outlets, or helpful alliances.
I would cross-link two sites in that way, but I wouldn't risk it for 10-15. If you want to do this, then as WebGuerrilla suggests, it would seem better to put them on the same site.
However it's done, you need to get PageRank into the system before you can decide how to channel it. As Chris_R writes, PageRank perpetual motion machines do not work.
