Forum Moderators: open
Do more specific sites (# of crossed-linked sites) actually rank higher, and is this because of the link-pop cross-link advantage they may have?
I think the answer here is both yes and no.
Take any business, in any industry, in any segment.
Now associated that with any market, looking for any information, any product or any service.
The variable, hence page topic you could have is millions.
Now place this in a hierarchical design that is meaningful to a unique individual only looking for what they want and not everything that you have.
In the short-term multiple domains help a great deal as far a organizing related information, and the initial benefits are quite substantial.
However, you will never develop an authority status such as Macromedia, Adobe, etc. using this form of strategy.
So the benefits are really short lived but from an initial design perspective it is an exceptional starting point.
Would the ODP folks or anyone see a value in listing each major folder/section/product/area (or whatever) of a larger site?
No... and the reason why the above strategy is short lived - "branding". "Human do it better" - DMOZ Open Directory Project is a brand, a single entity unto itself.
No matter how you look at it a domain diverified strategy will not ever receive a single brand as a whole.
Would a few high level DMOZ rankings help BALANCE against a splintered site, cross-linking strategy?
Yes... and as the single site grows in content and topical organization higher topical listings become readily available until you eventually achieve your own category.
Does theming seem to favor a smaller, more focused site? (this relates indirectly to link-pop)
Again Yes and no... I believe in the short-term theming favours unique topics under unique names but IMHO this is short lived if view long-term on a 5 - 10 year strategy.
The greatest problem is the simple fact that the web itself is short-sighted, it's very difficult to see long-term when changes occur every month.
My conclusions anyway.
[edited by: Marcia at 9:51 pm (utc) on Nov. 23, 2002]
However, you will never develop an authority status such as Macromedia, Adobe, etc. using this form of strategy.
For a major company with the financial means and exposure potential of Macromedia, Adobe or Microsoft, we have to admit that the bulk of their branding and name recognition did NOT happen simply through search engine and directory listings. The exposure and marketing has to go a lot further, as well as budget capability.
The average site owner does not have that capability, nor are their products and/or services of the same scope, and in a lot of cases not only don't they have the kind of capital to begin with to launch that type of campaign, but unless they have some income from their sites fairly early in the process, some will have to close their doors.
Now place this in a hierarchical design that is meaningful to a unique individual only looking for what they want and not everything that you have.
This is not necessarily something the average site owner knows how to do. More often than not, unless there's input regarding the how-to's, their web developers will as likely as not dump everything into the root directory, or have just a flat index page with everything else dynamic in a /store/ directory.
Looking at this from the viewpoint of how it is for the small site owner on a limited budget, they're often stuck with this type of site structure. No matter how authoritative their site is, it's unlikely that it will have the kind of exposure to successfully launch a long-term strategy. And few small entrepreneurs have the means.
SEOs and webmasters familiar with the value of theming, hierarchical site structure and internal PR distrubution, particularly relative to competitive factors, are sometimes beyond the means of some sites. In addition, unless they're educated they sometimes can resist. Some Mom 'n Pops have spent all their resources on just plain bad sites, and have exhausted their budget. They might not be able to have someone come in to fix the mess.
When the strategy of a Macromedia isn't possible, whether to combine all products on one site to establish branding or set up a few tightly themed, targeted sites can mean the difference between being able to survive or ending up having to let their domains expire - or possibly limping along with mediocre rankings and never reaching the potential that's warranted.
From an SEO point of view, sometimes what's in the interest of the client's survival and probability of getting financial returns relatively short term has to be a prime factor to consider.
It's a little like the perspective difference between a fish and the fisherman - they will never agree on "the catch".
For a major company with the financial means and exposure potential of Macromedia, Adobe or Microsoft, we have to admit that the bulk of their branding and name recognition did NOT happen simply through search engine and directory listings. The exposure and marketing has to go a lot further, as well as budget capability.
Agree. However, regardless of how the success was achieved I would tend to believe a single domain is the upper limit for any company, and once achieving a certain amount of success a company would need to progress back to this final structure.
Financial resources will alway be a major part of incorporating any web strategy, and many site owners can ill afford two domain, plus hosting, plus the expertise to properly implemented.
To go from a single domain to multiple domains is a progressive step, sub-domains can help and may be the middle ground for many companies, but no matter how you divide things up the expertise must be either in-house or outsourced.
From an SEO point of view, sometimes what's in the interest of the client's survival and probability of getting financial returns relatively short term has to be a prime factor to consider.
I have struggled with this myself. Generally speaking the SEO develops the visitation (targeted) and this is normally the ROI.
But this doesn't guarantee sales, thus financial resources to move towards to a more diverse strategy. If the motivators to buy are missing no SEO'er in the world is going to produce anything.
This being said... in-house expertise is almost a necessity since you really can't determine a markets desire solely on keywords.
Let's say if you have a one-domain site in your industry and now want to have a bigger share of the referrers from search engines and decide to setup multiple domains. The users might find the info/product they are looking for but you are competing with your own brand when you establish the multiple domains. If it had been a single domain, it is more likely to have a wider impact on the visitor making him/her remember the domain and come back back again.
e.g. in case of webmasterworld, if the forums are split of in multiple domains, do you think it would have the same impact it is having now? I don't think it would. I am not saying people won't come back for the wonderful info out here but they are less likely to remember the WebmasterWorld Brand. The fact that all these forums are on a single domain, a new visitor instantly recognizes the kind of resource this domain is.
Of course, multiple domains do have there advantages, but in the long run, single domain is more important.
