Forum Moderators: open
However, I have a project that isn't about transitioning domains, one that has implications for any site with multiple lines of business.
I have a site, example.com, that is very very broad, covering all types of widgets that have no commonality in terms of keyphrases. Right now, they are in subdirectories:
www.example.com/english/thingies
www.example.com/english/doohickeys
www.example.com/english/gadgets
Each of these has subcategories too:
www.example.com/english/thingies/blue
www.example.com/english/thingies/red
etc.
In building a link strategy for the site, of course the first step is getting links to the home page. But I'd also like to get keyword-relevant text links to each category. I want backlinks that say "example Guide to Thingies".
So, since I have some input on site design (bless this client), I suggested that they enhance the design of each directory, give it more of a free-standing identity, and marketing them as vertical sites in their own right:
thingies.example.com
doohickeys.example.com
gadgets.example.com
This helps market the sites offline, of course, but my primary concern is improving SEO. Specifically, I feel like these subdomains are now different enough in both design and content that I can submit them to directories and industry-specific sites, and build keyword-relevant backlinks.
Now, it gets complicated: I don't want to disrupt the hierarchy of example.com, or lose their existing rankings, by moving all my "thingies" content to its new subdomain. Instead, I want to build backlinks to thingies.example.com, and 301-redirect it to the actual page, at www.example.com/english/thingies.
Technically, it should work: the link scoring should transfer. But in all the forums I read, people advise using 301's "until you can get the incoming links updated." But I actually want to use these so-called permanent redirects *permanently*.
Can I build my house on this?
[edited by: msgraph at 10:20 pm (utc) on June 1, 2005]
[edit reason] example'd urls [/edit]
Your error is at the base:
It's well-established that 301 redirects indicate a permanent URL change, and that search engines will take the link scoring/PR from the "old" page and transfer it to the new one.
Unfortunately that's completely wrong:
301 doesn't "transfer" any link scoring/PR among domains.On the contrary,it is probable that is considered as a spam issue by the SEs and this is the reason for wich is adviced to use it only until you get the inbound links updated.
Can I build my house on this?
The answer is NO.
Sincerely
I'm SURE some people misapply them, and use them as a spam tactic, but 301's are used everywhere (my past clients included) to great effect.
I never said that 301 are automatically flagged as spam:I said that it is probable;it's different.
However you're not completely wrong:
In fact the difference between a "sane" 301 and a spam one stays in the way you use it:
If you make a 301 command on a domain with its own current web content,you build the best way to get caught (and banned/penalized).
If you make a 301 command on an "empty" domain,where you find a 404 "page not found" error code,to be clear,than it works fine and can channel your traffic whenever you want without any problem.
My issue with 301's is that I wonder how reliable they are - can I use this for dozens of subdomain names? And, would it be wise to invest the time to build links to those subdomains, and rely on the 301's to always be taken into account?
Has anyone seen a case of a 301 that, after a while, stopped behaving as expected?
(I should clarify: each subdomain will redirect to only *one* corresponding page on the site. I'm not trying to make multiple gateways here.)
Keep only in mind that there isn't any PR "transfer" or other benefits except to keep your current traffic.
I used 301 redirect for a PR6 website that moved to a new domain. The new domain name, of course, had no incoming links of its own.
And yet, once the 301 from was indexed, the new domain instantly received the PR6. None of the backlinks were updated to the new domain, and none (apparently) needed to be.
