Forum Moderators: open
this discussion has got me wondering...
I keep wondering if Google (or any other major SE) frowns upon or penalizes a site that uses multiple domains in an interlinking structure. To be more specific, a "hub" site that has outbounds to say 5-10 other domains (all hosted on the same server, contain same whois etc...) which in turn link back to the hub and link to eachother but have no mirror content. If this is frowned upon, do inbound links to each domain help to rectify the situation? To summarize, the model illustrated above is simply the use of individual domains to separate and exploit highly themed sections of a web site for the added benefits that they could bring (benefits beyond those of sub directories) on directories, links etc...anyone?
Mr. Google Guy sir? :)
Here are a couple found with a search for hub + spokes:
[webmasterworld.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]
I think the main concern is getting hit with PR0 for interlinking, and I believe it's been touched on some in that regard, but not to the extreme as in the thread you referred to.
I keep wondering if Google (or any other major SE) frowns upon or penalizes a site that uses multiple domains in an interlinking structure.
Would an answer like, “It depends”, help? Seriously, I see many different hub situations. What you describe actually happens a lot with the university sites, with government info structures, with large corporations, particularly those with a variety of products or branding. Sometimes the linking can be as simple as a site map to link them all together and that becomes the hub.
The ones I’ve found that I like the most break up from the hub to sub-hubs before branching out into the spoke. Those I see as mini universes with satellites. I don’t know if that make sense to you. It’s really pretty exciting what comes up in research.
I also am seeing themed canonicals coming on strong. <aside> Let’s keep that to ourselves. ;) </aside>
I think you can have problems with any strategy for hub development, although it appears to me that how you connect them can make a positive impact. There are some really good hubs out there. I confess I’m looking for the best and don’t focus much on the spammers that get through. <aside> I’m still not comfortable with the term ‘spammers’ but I think you get my meaning </aside>
I need to see more evidence that Whois info really matters that much. I continue to see sites linking as you suggest, on the same server with no obvious negative affects. I’m forming my own opinions and developing my strategies based on the evidence I’m finding. It’s interesting to say the least.
do inbound links to each domain help to rectify the situation?
Perhaps not just for the reason you suggest but inbound links to each domain is a great idea especially the directory biggies.
To summarize, the model illustrated above is simply the use of individual domains to separate and exploit highly themed sections of a web site for the added benefits that they could bring (benefits beyond those of sub directories) on directories
Doesn’t that just make sense though? Either separate domains or themed canonicals, I still see this strategy working quite well for developing a themed hub. Let that not be taken though as acceptance for obviously loose efforts at hub development.
the three domains are pr5,pr6,pr6 and this makes me think, it it aint broke dont fix it, but t may be just simply a case of waiting for the bubble to burst.
on heavily interlinked sites, also check this thread:
[webmasterworld.com...]
There are many ways in which Google could look into these matters, I mentioned a few in msg17. For the moment I think Google treats interlinking seperate sites as OK if they indiviually get enough independent external inbound links. I am positive that in the future, Google will discount instead of penalise benificial Pageranking and general ranking effects that could be achieved by such heavy interlinking set-ups. But for the moment, I am still seeing too many spam set-ups going free. (e.g. webmasters that put in redirecting pages loaded with links to all their clients, whilst the clients themeselves probably have no idea their site is being used for this.)
Hunter, I think that 'a "hub" site that has outbounds to say 5-10 other domains (all hosted on the same server, contain same whois etc...) which in turn link back to the hub' wouldn't be a big worry for most people here, but the 'and link to each other' part would be scare quite a few of us. Having written that, this thread [webmasterworld.com] on heavily interlinked domains is making me think again about this.
The ones I’ve found that I like the most break up from the hub to sub-hubs before branching out into the spoke. Those I see as mini universes with satellites.
Paynt, this is exactly what I had in mind, using 5-10 themed domain names as su-hubs to the main hub, all with unique/themed content and incoming links.
ciml, I definitely agree that I should keep the interlinking to a minimum. It seems just keeping it "natural" would take care of most potential problems.
If you have diversity in domain themes within a broad primary theme then the advantages of a "hub" of sites out-weigh any disadvanatges.
So if you are attempting to corner the online market for "software" of all types - multiple domains, linking the commonality between each subtheme e.g. - middleware, courseware, shareware, freeware, e-ware and all the second tier topics "industry specific" is probably the best bet.
Extensive pre-planning is required.
