Forum Moderators: open
They are all linked to each other and I feel that this has actually had a positive effect on the main site that I am trying to promote (including referral traffic directly from those sites, as well).
The question, though, is "How MUCH of a positive effect has this technique made - and is it worth the effort of building up 10 web sites?"
I feel that, since we approached this technique with a content-oriented attitude (building and maintaining content for all of the sites and not just creating a "doorway") - that it's worked well - and will in the future.
I'm curious to view your opinions on this.
Caution is advised.
I have had plans to combine all of the sites into one since they all have pretty original, individualized content. This just might be the time to do so.
I figure that if you are going to spend that much energy building and managing content, it might as well be for the web site you're trying to promote. ;)
It was an interesting experiment, but I think I'll stick to my mantra...
PageRank is earned, not designed.
I’m all for a site developed to be about one topic and then linking it to other sites with related content. I think this is the very best way to theme. I’m a believer because I’ve seen it work. I also love canonicals (sub-domains) for this if you want to keep the costs down. [We can debate it but I also haven’t seen any PR0 related problems or heard of any for sites using canonicals.] I’d much rather see this then 10 sites all nearly clones of each other, put together just so you get the linking.
I’m going to point to this [ Crosslinking, Interlinking and Reciprocal Linking [webmasterworld.com] ] discussion again. I’ve put this together to pull discussions related to this issue in one place. I’m going to keep trying to pull related discussions into this reference, particularly for folks just starting out or those who are trying to pull the ideas together in their head.
I continue to see a need to talk about this. People are approaching it from so many different directions but I see it all boiling down to much of the same thing.
It was done as an experiment, yes, BUT not to fool Google or any other engine. I also worked on creating AND UPDATING the content on a regular basis.
I saw this as an opportunity to experiment with something I see larger networks do - a great example being the GameSpy Network of sites (PlanetHalfLife, FilePlanet, PlanetFortress, ClassicGames, & about 25 other domains). This is what has allowed them to keep up with IGN (who happens to use the very different cononical approach that you just mentioned) and even beat the larger network in some competitive game searches.
Usage not as a link farm, per se, but a series of informational tie-in sites that ultimately benefit a single site.
When I step back and look at what *I* have, compared to them, however, I feel that my content - since it was not copycat material - would better suit my web site as being content located ON the lead domain, other than content that boost other linked domains.
If I was to decide to keep the sites like they are, then I feel that it's still a valid string of sites with a tightly focused goal. But it still doesn't benefit me as much as adding the content to my main site.
Basing an SEO firm upon a string of these sites that are NOT EXCLUSIVE to a single URL entity is obvious fockery to the nth degree - and should absolutely be punished by the gods of PageRank.
I just don't understand their approach and how it could have worked to begin with?
