Forum Moderators: phranque
I remember I read this post on bluehat or somewhere else. The idea was that if you got a decent size site, it is better to split it up and create several smaller sites to interlink them into a network.
Well, it makes a lot of sense in many ways. I have seen networks doing a great job.
So, a technical question. Let's assume I split my site into a forum, article directory and a sales site. Then the forum and directory would link to the sales site boosting it up.
But, is there a catch? Obviously Google keeps the record of Whois. Normally my three new sites would all be registered under my name. Although it is not a crime to interlink your own websites (It's not, I've done that before), it might be better to keep them all on different names.
What do you think about that?
And if Google sees you trying to hide your identity, Google will most likely be suspicious of why you feel the need to try to hide your identity.
Kaled.
you would be better served to consolidate your inbound links and relevant internal linking in one domain.
Google also keeps records of IP addresses. So unless you host the sites with different hosting companies, Google will still most likely know.
Don't do it.
your resulting network will probably be visible from space.
In fact it won't be obvious only to G or other SE, but to Webmasters too. Very often we receive link exchanges or "business" offers from sites with tons of links but... are just cousins. It shows.
Seriously, don't game the search engines. You'll lose more than you can possibly gain in the long term.
when you still need to use a t-ball bat
aka "if you have to ask..."
=8)
I consider myself warned but still temptation is too big and I will give it a try. Of course, I'm not following the Bluehat how-to. I have my system and I'm gonna try it. If I fail, well, I just lose a site... big deal!
Talking about gaming the engines. I don't feel I'm doing something bad. I can honestly say that when it concerns my niche, I've got the best data package out there. I've got a relevant database of useful stuff my visitors will love to read. I've checked it with CopyScape and my stuff is unique.
Top 10 spots are held by yadda-yadda MFA but they are there because they are mostly more than 5 years old and got massive backlinks. Do I feel bad about competing with them using a shady method? No :)
If I fail, well, I just lose a site... big deal!
I think the stakes are higher than that, you may find anything you do on whichever site you do it on being sandboxed eventually. Google is a leading authority on finding, tracking and managing data and that includes more than websites, it includes us too.
I think it's debatable as to whether it's "better" to split up a large site. There are countless examples of large sites that are successful. If splitting up the sites works for you, then great. Personally I wouldn't. I've noticed that my larger sites continue to grow and get more traffic, possibly as a result of being so large and popular. If you split one site into three you may have a harder time growing all of them.
Good luck and be sure to post back here and let us know how it goes. I for one am interested to see what sort of impact this has.
If I fail, well, I just lose a site... big deal!
Don't listen to anyone who has replied.
Each big player creates a mega-site. Each big player buys hundreds to thousands of mini-sites to link back to the mega-site with good keyword rich text. Big players all dominate top 10 SERPs for all the good one and two word phrases. Big players make hundreds of millions a year without a product (this is lead gen and a few are public companies that report their numbers).
Their mega-sites are legit. The rest of their network runs the spectrum from utter crap to semi-useful. Bottom line is that it works. OP doesn't need to be scared to have a little 3 site network lol.
Each big player creates a mega-site. Each big player buys hundreds to thousands of mini-sites to link back to the mega-site with good keyword rich text.
Thank you for this comment. If I understand you correctly, they operate the mini-sites independently - as different persons (if you look at whois). If that's the case, I can imagine how difficult and costly is to set it up. Think of all the fake identities and addresses they have to create. Or maybe they just use private registrations (although I have never believed private registrations are really private LOL)
OP doesn't need to be scared to have a little 3 site network lol.
OP says he's brave! :)
Thank you for this comment. If I understand you correctly, they operate the mini-sites independently - as different persons (if you look at whois). If that's the case, I can imagine how difficult and costly is to set it up. Think of all the fake identities and addresses they have to create. Or maybe they just use private registrations (although I have never believed private registrations are really private LOL)
I don't even think they bother using private registration data - never checked. A couple of the top companies make it easy to figure out they own the site because they use the same footprint everywhere. There are some legal requirements that have to be posted on these sites and each company will repeatedly use the same link text and copy text for this requirement.
So when you see a footer link that says "widgetville disclaimer notice" you know it's a company A site and when it says "widgetville privacy notice" you know it's a company B site. Plus the backlinks to their main site is a pretty big giveaway.
