Educated Guess

[rickanderson]

Hi everyone....new here. My site has been #1 on Google for 2-3 searches over the last 3 yrs...in an increasingly competitive industry. There are a number of things I am doing to maintain that position but I was wondering just how much weight is given by Google in it's algorithem (sp) to a site that has been 'live' on the net. My site first went live in 2000 and was one of the first in the entire industry (painting). Can anyone actually take an educated guess as to the weight given, in percentage form?

Thanks ahead of time
rick

[mjtaylor]

Well, if there are 100-200 factors and this one is a fairly important one it should be worth a couple of percentage points. I would say this would be more important for a newer site than an older one ... in other words it's a negative factor to get over .... sometimes called the Sandbox ... but once your domain is a year old, the relative value decreases.

Similarly, the age of incoming links is a factor.

Hope that helps.

Cheers, MJ

[rickanderson]

hi mj

thanks for the response...
instead of starting another thread how bout another question...
i just bought 95 domains...all are the actual search phrases for neighboring cities of where i live.
my mothership domain if you will, is Painters Vancouver so i bought...deltasbestpainters.com surreysbestpainters.com etc as well as surreypainter.com surreypainters.com surreypainting.com paintingsurrey.com painterspaintingsurrey etc...etc for 8 cities close by but specific to that region

now to my question....how best to utilize these 95 domains to benefit mainly...the mothership, Vancouver...without spending an arm and leg actually developing 95 sites?

tx
rick

edit: wondering why "www vancouver's best painters dot com" comes up "Painters Vancouver" when I type it?

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by rickanderson

now to my question....how best to utilize these 95 domains to benefit mainly...the mothership, Vancouver...without spending an arm and leg actually developing 95 sites?

Do you plan on building unique content on each? If not then 301 redirecting them to the main website will probably be you next step.

[rickanderson]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Do you plan on building unique content on each? If not then 301 redirecting them to the main website will probably be you next step.

Hi incredible: I am prepared to and have the means to build unique content on each site. Im just trying to figure out whether the gains achieved by adding 3-5 little ol pages of unique content to the 95 sites is worth the effort vs not adding any content on any yet still utilizing them to my benefit....strengthening the mother ship.

I will do whatever I'm told.,,provided there are a least a few people here telling me the same thing to do.

Rick

[incrediblehelp]

Well I would not follow advice at a forum only as it is just advice and you shouldnt be making your business decisions based on it only. I would rather see one website than 5-6.

[rickanderson]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Well I would not follow advice at a forum only as it is just advice and you shouldnt be making your business decisions based on it only. I would rather see one website than 5-6.

Thanks incredible. I already have one fully developed site ranked number one. Im just trying to figure out how these other domain purchases can help the most.

Rick

[imsickofwebpro]

Are you kidding me... 95 keyword rich domains!

Microsite Localization my friend. Start loading those sites with content and let them grow! Put the domains under different web hosts; Netfirms, godaddy, all the big cheap guys.

Linking those sites back to your flagship will ensure a competitive advantage as long as your competitors don't copy your strategy.

I recently worked for a large medical company that used this strategy. We had 1st page rankings for several highly-competitve keywords. Oddly enough, the two top ranking spots were occupied by industry forums???


Helpful Links:
Inexpensive web hosting companies. http://web-hosting-review.toptenreviews.com/globat-review.html

Microsite Localization explained Internet marketing - Microsite Localization

Hope this helps.

[imsickofwebpro]

"I already have one fully developed site ranked number one. Im just trying to figure out how these"


A clever marketing manager I worked with once asked our well paid IT team why our website could only occupy (2) first page spots on Google.

IT Manager: "Well, Google only displays the top two pages of our main website, there's nothing we can do!"

Clever marketing mgr: "So build five more competing websites and use the same strategy as our current website."

This was the first time I heard of Microsite Localization.

I also highlighted something important...

[imsickofwebpro]

"Well I would not follow advice at a forum only as it is just advice and you shouldnt be making your business decisions based on it only. I would rather see one website than 5-6."

What ever man!

[inertia]

Originally Posted by imsickofwebpro

"Well I would not follow advice at a forum only as it is just advice and you shouldn't be making your business decisions based on it only. I would rather see one website than 5-6."

What ever man!

This is excellent advice! After all I (and probably incredible) know nothing about the painting industry.

I would never have bought the 95 domain names. 1. Its will occur unnecessary costs for renewal/hosting. 2. Each will get sandboxed.

I would focus all your attention on the mothership. 301 each regional domain to this. Add relevant content for each region you are focusing on and build plenty of links. The fact that this domain has been around for ages will work in your favour.

Originally Posted by imsickofwebpro

Microsite Localization explained Internet marketing - Microsite Localization

What the hell is this!???

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by imsickofwebpro

Clever marketing mgr: "So build five more competing websites and use the same strategy as our current website.

Wow this is wrong on so many levels.

1. The SE dont want or like you doig this. SO already you going down the road that can eventually lead to getting your website banned.

2. End visitors dont like to have to "jump" from one website to another. Your main website should be the source of your promotion efforts, not 95 different websites.

3. What a logistical nightmare it is to management unique content on 95 websites comparable to one.

4. Your doing things for the SE's and not the end visitors. Not a good idea.

[imsickofwebpro]

This is terrible... My writing at 4am isn't great, I know, but guys, to actually go against this concept after it has proven itself so many times, c'mon.

Rick Anderson is using 'Geographical Optimization'. Smart Move! This method works on so many levels:

1. Creates controllable competition
2. Provides higher rankings for localized searches.
3. Creates relevant link backs
4. Allows you to further target a niche audience.
5. Allows you to test market a new theme without affecting your corporate brand
6. Owning domains is like owning real estate.

He's not going to give up on his flagship website, but how much higher can he go! The website is already number one.

He can secure his positioning on localized searches, which the search engines are moving towards anyways.

With microsite localization, he can appear more times per keyword, thus increasing his exposure and chances of receiving a visit.

"What a logistical nightmare it is to management unique content on 95 websites comparable to one"
Honeslty, it is not that difficult to manage multiple websites.

"Your doing things for the SE's and not the end visitors. Not a good idea."
You are providing visitors with more channels to contact you. You could call this convenience. =-)

"1. Its will occur unnecessary costs for renewal/hosting. 2. Each will get sandboxed."
1. It's like buying real estate, if there is demand for the domain, the value will go up.
2. Every new website gets sandboxed… Wait it out and let your site grow.

[mjtaylor]

Rick,

If you need more than one voice, here's mine: listen to Inc'help. He is rarely (if ever) wrong. Just look at the rep points next to the man's 6,000 plus posts ... that means a lot of people before me have deemed his advice to be golden.

The microsite localization technique can be very effective. Until the search engines figure it out, and then you risk all your sites being banned. Reread Inc'help's last post on this ... he is so right on why it's so wrong.

Cheers, MJ

[thindenim]

Unless each site is providing a unique user experience I would concentrate on one site. If you get spotted (or reported) then you are likely to be seen as spamming and get your sites blacklisted.

How about 301 redirect of each of the domains to a specific page on your main site?

[rickanderson]

Originally Posted by inertia

This is excellent advice! After all I (and probably incredible) know nothing about the painting industry.

I would never have bought the 95 domain names. 1. Its will occur unnecessary costs for renewal/hosting. 2. Each will get sandboxed.

I would focus all your attention on the mothership. 301 each regional domain to this. Add relevant content for each region you are focusing on and build plenty of links. The fact that this domain has been around for ages will work in your favour.

hi denim

thanks for the input and I did carefully consider the cost associated with the new domains. The thing is, I live in Vancouver, a highly competitive market in painting but the neighbouring cities, all very close by, don't have any painters whatsoever, (save one or two) in the generics. It just seems like easy pickens to me...to build another 7-8 humble sites, all with unique content and to do something with the remaining undeveloped sites. (301?)

whats a 301?

Rick

[rickanderson]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Rick,

If you need more than one voice, here's mine: listen to Inc'help. He is rarely (if ever) wrong. Just look at the rep points next to the man's 6,000 plus posts ... that means a lot of people before me have deemed his advice to be golden.

The microsite localization technique can be very effective. Until the search engines figure it out, and then you risk all your sites being banned.

hi mj

I would think that Google would appreciate and reward someone like myself who builds a humble little site with unique content that caters to the needs of a region whos needs are not being met.

Maybe Im over simplyfying things.

Rick

[wige]

301 is a permanent redirect, that tells the browser that the page has been moved permanently to a new location.

I have used microsites with varying levels of success. Long before I started at my current company, management bought almost a hundred domain names with various keywords for future use, and to prevent competitors from registering the similar domains. After getting our primary web site redesigned and climbing in the rankings, I started working on some of the other domains we own. The main intent of these sites was for me to experiment with different layouts and different database structures, while also giving users a quick way to find out about specific products without going to the more general main site. Originally I planned to delete the sites, until I realized that the sites were generating traffic, and getting good rankings.

Generally speaking, I agree with everyone who has said that the best strategy is to focus on the main site. If you want to localize, I would generally make the localized content part of your main site. That way you can spread the link juice the localized pages receive to the rest of your site more effectively, and it should make management easier. However...

The use of satellite sites really is a common strategy. For instance, Microsoft has a main web site that covers all of their products. They then have a family of satellite sites that each focus on a specific product or group of products. (windows.com, windowsupdate.com, xbox.com, microsoftoffice.com, etc.) But notice that every single one of these sites is independent and self-sustaining.

I think that is a key point. Each site has to be distinct and valuable to the user on its own. If the microsite is just going to say "mycompany.com has information and portfolios about artists in <area>. Visit the site and see what we have for you" don't bother. If the site can stand on it's own, attracting and keeping its visitors for almost everything (with a possible exception for ordering which may still be done through the main site) then a microsite may be worthwhile.

[rickanderson]

wige

thanks for taking the time to respond....great info.

is a 301 a parked domain?

Rick

[rickanderson]

Originally Posted by imsickofwebpro

"I already have one fully developed site ranked number one. Im just trying to figure out how these"


A clever marketing manager I worked with once asked our well paid IT team why our website could only occupy (2) first page spots on Google.

I'm guessing that the number of spots **available** to any given company/interest is in direct proportion to the competitiveness of the querie. I'm only thinking that because I once occupied 6 spots on page one of the generics for the search "worlds best athlete". That lasted for over a year until I pulled the plug on the site www.worlds-best-athlete.com so that it could be housed elsewhere.

Rick

[wige]

Originally Posted by rickanderson

wige

thanks for taking the time to respond....great info.

is a 301 a parked domain?

Rick

How this is implemented will really depend on your hosting and your registrar. You may have the registrar do the forwarding for you, or you may have all the domains pointed to your server, with a rewrite rule that does the 301 locally to the main site. It is all a matter of how much control you have over your server.

[Feydakin]

I've also worked with micro sites / localized sites / etc with various levels of success.. The biggest issue I ran in to was time.. Now you are developing and maintaining 95 websites each with unique content instead of making one killer website.. Unlimited budget?? Unlimited labor resources?? Go for the 95 websites, just don't interlink them in to a network.. That will cause you serious problems.. Otherwise focus on building that one great website..

[rickanderson]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

I've also worked with micro sites / localized sites / etc with various levels of success.. The biggest issue I ran in to was time.. Now you are developing and maintaining 95 websites each with unique content instead of making one killer website.. Unlimited budget?? Unlimited labor resources?? Go for the 95 websites, just don't interlink them in to a network.. That will cause you serious problems.. Otherwise focus on building that one great website..

Feydakin

I already have one killer website. I want to build another 7-8 to cover some neighboring areas not yet optimized by my competition to scoop the leads from those areas. That leaves about 82 or so domains which I will not build at all but want to still do something with them to make them of some value to me......other than just ensuring my comp doesnt get them.

Regards
Rick

[rickanderson]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

just don't interlink them in to a network.. That will cause you serious problems..

Feydakin

Can you elaborate on this.....what kind of "serious problems"? I had hoped that all these domains linked to the mothership in one fashion or another would be beneficial to the main site....not create "serious problems"

?

Rick

[wige]

If Google or another search engine determines the sites are too similar or are merely in existence to raise your position in the SERPs and drive traffic to your main site, they (and your main site) could get penalized. That goes back to my comments about the site being able to stand on it's own. If you design the microsite as it's own web site, with only a few links back to your main site for administrative tasks, and that microsite has a real value or benefit on it's own, you shouldn't have problems. But if the search bots see nothing but a few pages of self-serving content and repeated links to your main site, you could get a penalty.

[rickanderson]

Originally Posted by wige

If Google or another search engine determines the sites are too similar or are merely in existence to raise your position in the SERPs and drive traffic to your main site, they (and your main site) could get penalized. That goes back to my comments about the site being able to stand on it's own. If you design the microsite as it's own web site, with only a few links back to your main site for administrative tasks, and that microsite has a real value or benefit on it's own, you shouldn't have problems. But if the search bots see nothing but a few pages of self-serving content and repeated links to your main site, you could get a penalty.

Wige

Fair enough. I *do* plan on legitimately building another 7-8 sites to cover our service areas. Each site will have totally unique content....and of course be linked to one-another.

And for the other remaining 80+ domains.....

just do that 301 thingy?

Thanks again.

Rick

[Kate Lennon]

"I already have one fully developed site ranked number one. Im just trying to figure out how these other domain purchases can help the most."

Help you do what? If your site is appearing at #1 position on Google for relevant search terms, what do you think you're going to achieve by pointing 95 other websites at it? All you're doing is adding to the congestion of rubbish (pointer) sites clogging up the web. And if you really want more links to your site, why not do what other website owners (including me) do: ie, produce a site that other website owners will *want* to link to?

[rickanderson]

Originally Posted by Kate Lennon

"I already have one fully developed site ranked number one. Im just trying to figure out how these other domain purchases can help the most."

Help you do what? If your site is appearing at #1 position on Google for relevant search terms, what do you think you're going to achieve by pointing 95 other websites at it? All you're doing is adding to the congestion of rubbish (pointer) sites clogging up the web. And if you really want more links to your site, why not do what other website owners (including me) do: ie, produce a site that other website owners will *want* to link to?

Hi Kate

The fact that I have had a stranglehold on a few of the most popular searches for my industry (locally speaking) doesn't mean that I feel comfortable sitting on my laurels. Just trying to stay ahead of the curve. As to "just what do I think I'm going to achieve by pointing another 95 sites" The answer is I don't know.....thats why I came here asking questions.

As for "clogging up the web", well, thats beyond the realm of possibility although I salivate at the thought.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Regards
Rick

[imsickofwebpro]

lol... good answer!

[DrTandem1]

Why would you think 95 domains about painting would be of any use? Firstly, domain names are for humans, not search engines. Why dilute the pool with duplicate content? If these are all related to the same content, then your efforts would be better spent on finding one good domain and building the site.

[rickanderson]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Why would you think 95 domains about painting would be of any use? Firstly, domain names are for humans, not search engines. Why dilute the pool with duplicate content? If these are all related to the same content, then your efforts would be better spent on finding one good domain and building the site.

Hi Doc

You start out with a negative presupposition. I put it to you; why would YOU think that 95 domains about painting wouldn't be of any use? Re: the names being for humans and not search engines I would only say that I purchased the names that humans use in their search. Regarding allegations of duplicate content....well, there won't be any duplicate content....went down that road before. Thanks for your suggestion on finding a good domain and building it. Done it, in spades.

Regards
Rick

[Feydakin]

I know of at least 2 other verticals where one company owns all 7 of the top searches for their primary product.. Each listing heads to a unique website, on a different server, yet every single sale goes to that one company.. Good or bad, it was a fairly brilliant business move on their part to lock up so much of the top end of natural search..

[rickanderson]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

I know of at least 2 other verticals where one company owns all 7 of the top searches for their primary product.. Each listing heads to a unique website, on a different server, yet every single sale goes to that one company.. Good or bad, it was a fairly brilliant business move on their part to lock up so much of the top end of natural search..

Hi Feydakin

I dig that kind of maneuvering. Is it **really** necessary to have different servers though? I know it's very smart....but entirely necessary?

Rick

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by rickanderson

Hi Doc

You start out with a negative presupposition. I put it to you; why would YOU think that 95 domains about painting wouldn't be of any use? Re: the names being for humans and not search engines I would only say that I purchased the names that humans use in their search. Regarding allegations of duplicate content....well, there won't be any duplicate content....went down that road before. Thanks for your suggestion on finding a good domain and building it. Done it, in spades.

Regards
Rick

As I implied in my previous post, it dilutes the SERPs for that search. As for purchasing names that humans use to search, that is silly. Using keywords in domains helps humans remember the domain name. Search engines place little, if any, weight on such URLs. If you are doing painting, wouldn't it be better to consolidate all of the content into one good site with its own search capability? The site would be richer in content and more likely to be the place to go for your content.

For instance, Amazon.com sells everything under the sun. They don't have a gazillion domains for different products or geographic areas. You could do the same thing for painting.

[rickanderson]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

As I implied in my previous post, it dilutes the SERPs for that search. As for purchasing names that humans use to search, that is silly. Using keywords in domains helps humans remember the domain name. Search engines place little, if any, weight on such URLs. If you are doing painting, wouldn't it be better to consolidate all of the content into one good site with its own search capability? The site would be richer in content and more likely to be the place to go for your content.

For instance, Amazon.com sells everything under the sun. They don't have a gazillion domains for different products or geographic areas. You could do the same thing for painting.

Maybe you don't quite understand the concept or maybe Im not making myself clear. I purchased different key word domains for different geographic regions....so I don't see anything being diluted.

Imagine yourself running a business in a city and you already have 3 key searches locked up for your industry in that city thereby making you number one in the generics. Part of the search is of course the city name. Now there are 7 cities (regions) all close by that you are willing to work in but no one has done any optimizing for those cities.

Wouldn't it behoove someone to develop at least one good site per city to scoop up the easy pickens knowing ahead of time that those people are searching for a service using *their* city name as a search and not yours? The search term for the service remains the same but the search term for the city changes depending on the location of the person doing the search.

Regards
Rick

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by rickanderson

Hi everyone....new here. My site has been #1 on Google for 2-3 searches over the last 3 yrs...in an increasingly competitive industry. There are a number of things I am doing to maintain that position but I was wondering just how much weight is given by Google in it's algorithem (sp) to a site that has been 'live' on the net. My site first went live in 2000 and was one of the first in the entire industry (painting). Can anyone actually take an educated guess as to the weight given, in percentage form?

Thanks ahead of time
rick

Here's my take on it, Rick,

First, you can not really look at it in a percentage form. Think of each factor as a link in a chain. How important is 1 link in a chain of 100 links. You could say 1%, but the reality is that each link has an importance of 100%. If just one link breaks, the chain has lost its strength. Therefore the strength of a chain is not the combined strength of all the links, but just the strength of its weakest link. Translating that to search algorithms, you´re at least as important as the weakest factor.

Then you talk about site age. Google keeps record of many more aging factors than just the age of your domain. Other factors are average page age, average (back)link age, average link text age, average content age. Then there are age related factors like seasonal factors (consider what happens on sites in november and december in the walk up to christmas). And I'm sure there are other aging factors as well.

So you could for example have a 10 year old site, but the pages could be brand new. (imagine the site was sold and the new owner uses it for something different.)

The way the aging factors practically work is that your site needs to be within certain limits. The ages should not be too young, if they are, you get in, what is commonly known as, the sandbox. But you should also not be too old. Though I never heard a name for this you could say you´re in the elderly home when your historical site factors get too old...

What's important to realize is that Google doesn't have a certain standard minimal age limit and maximum age limit. I'd say that this is decided per keyword by the algorithms. For certain keywords the minimum age is practically 0. Imagine for example news related keywords. So the algorithms have to decide what the best minimum age and maximum age should be. Deciding this per keyword based on the information available in the index, is the best way to make this decision.


The "elderly home" is as important to stay out of as the "sandbox" is. Getting out of the sandbox is easy. You just wait and it will happen. But staying out of the "elderly home" requires work. You need to keep your historical site factors young enough. Luckily, if you run your website normally, you will naturally be inside the limits.

It might seem that the older the internet and many of its sites becomes, the longer you would have to wait to get out of the sandbox. But this is not true. Nothing lasts for ever and the same applies online. Pages, backlinks, etc. are not eternal. So what happens is that after a certain time, your backlinks for example won't age anymore. As new links are added, some older links will disapear and a certain average age will be established naturally. For some markets this may already be the case, other markets may still be in the process of aging and haven't established yet a stable average age.


In my experience I have seen webmasters complain for years that Google is stupid because their website was stuck around position 40. No matter what they did, they just couldn't get the site higher. Then after so many years, all the sudden the site starts to climb and it reaches the top10. Often webmasters try to figure out what they "did" to make that happen. But they didn't do anything special. All that happened was that they finally got to age. This often happens in markets that have been around for many years already. Imagine for example the hosting market. You really need to have a site that is reasonably old because most of the top ranking sites are many years old and the average age factors in this market are pretty high.


To your other question:

now to my question....how best to utilize these 95 domains to benefit mainly...the mothership, Vancouver...without spending an arm and leg actually developing 95 sites?

You´re asking here how to cheat the Google algorithms,.

If I were you, I would try to sell those domains again and forget about them. In stead stick to your original site and use that one to promote your services in the other cities. I would not be surprised that a new page in your site, with the title: "Delta Painters" would rank high almost instantly. Especially if you create a section for cities near vancouver.

[nelsonez]

Does anyone still want to comment on the original question asked? Which was how much does the age of a website affect its ability to rank well. We have done some pretty extensive analysis and the age of a site seems to play a significant role. Enough so that I think we would consider it one of the top 20 factors in the Google Algorithm. Maybe even top 10.

I don't believe the weight of this goes down after the sandbox affect goes away. The sandbox affect is really a separate issue and definitely plays a role in allowing a brand new site the ability to achieve SERPs but once a site is out of the sandbox it still has to compete against sites that could be 5 or 10 years old.

We always recommend to a client that if they already have a registered domain name that they haven't completely developed that they are many times better off using the older domain than purchasing a brand new domain name instead.

With all factors the same a site that is 5 years old WILL in my opinion rank higher than one that is 2 years old.

[magnets]

Originally Posted by Kate Lennon

ie, produce a site that other website owners will *want* to link to?

Will you please share with us the thought process? I have no idea how to produce a website other website owners "would want to link to" other than those useless or harmful websites that accept virtually any website that serves the "aviation market", for example. (In two years Google only thought good of 3 to 5 of the 20 or 30 websites I had links. And, those 3 to 5 were on message boards.)

Continuing my example, I would love to have aircraft dealers link to my website. But, those folks are interested in selling airplanes. They just have a website because they need a website. They definitely do not have the time, nor the technical knowledge, to even consider adding a link. (Their technical gurus are long gone after they provided the ability to upload new aircraft for sale information.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concerning the main topic of this thread: The path of multiple websites (blogs in my case) pointing to my main websitehad mixed results. Google knocked my main website down from a PR4 (when I felt I was on the verge of a PR5) to a PR3 after I put up an increasing number, now up to 126, of unique blogs - updated daily with new market data. On the other hand, my AdSense revenue did not go down and my traffic is up 50% and climbing with those blogs in place. The hard data contained in the blogs was on my main website but the interpretation of that data is only contained in the blogs.

Plus, if Google was going to do what they did to my PR, their people at blogspot.com certainly should have told me NO. They definitively knew what I was doing because they initially flagged 3 of those blogs as potential spam. After an email conversation they took off the red flags and I haven't had trouble since.

[incrediblehelp]

Sounds like you are pretty gun-ho on doing this so I am not going to try and chnage your mind anymore. I know for a fact once Yahoo finds you they will penalize you. MSN spam fighting is pretty poor so they probably won’t catch on. As for Google, I am in-between on. I have seen mini-networks like this work, but the content and website always operated clearly independent from each other. You can just take a few minutes and research what your trying to do on Google and see what others think about mini-networks like this.

For these other sub-websites, will visitors be able to get everything they want without visiting the main website? Content, customer service, buying, etc. etc? If so then you might be ok in Google's eye, but it hard to guesstimate until you give it a try.

Like I said earlier this is simply a route I would not take as it doesn’t benefit my users at all.

Good luck.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by rickanderson

Maybe you don't quite understand the concept or maybe Im not making myself clear. I purchased different key word domains for different geographic regions....so I don't see anything being diluted.

Imagine yourself running a business in a city and you already have 3 key searches locked up for your industry in that city thereby making you number one in the generics. Part of the search is of course the city name. Now there are 7 cities (regions) all close by that you are willing to work in but no one has done any optimizing for those cities.

Wouldn't it behoove someone to develop at least one good site per city to scoop up the easy pickens knowing ahead of time that those people are searching for a service using *their* city name as a search and not yours? The search term for the service remains the same but the search term for the city changes depending on the location of the person doing the search.

Regards
Rick

I understand completely. City1Painting, City2Painting, City3Painting, etc. How about PaintingYourWorld.com (available as of now) and have different locations on one site? Are you one company or 95 companies?

[edhan]

Originally Posted by wige

I have used microsites with varying levels of success. Long before I started at my current company, management bought almost a hundred domain names with various keywords for future use, and to prevent competitors from registering the similar domains. After getting our primary web site redesigned and climbing in the rankings, I started working on some of the other domains we own. The main intent of these sites was for me to experiment with different layouts and different database structures, while also giving users a quick way to find out about specific products without going to the more general main site. Originally I planned to delete the sites, until I realized that the sites were generating traffic, and getting good rankings.

Generally speaking, I agree with everyone who has said that the best strategy is to focus on the main site. If you want to localize, I would generally make the localized content part of your main site. That way you can spread the link juice the localized pages receive to the rest of your site more effectively, and it should make management easier. However...

The use of satellite sites really is a common strategy. For instance, Microsoft has a main web site that covers all of their products. They then have a family of satellite sites that each focus on a specific product or group of products. (windows.com, windowsupdate.com, xbox.com, microsoftoffice.com, etc.) But notice that every single one of these sites is independent and self-sustaining.

I think that is a key point. Each site has to be distinct and valuable to the user on its own. If the microsite is just going to say "mycompany.com has information and portfolios about artists in <area>. Visit the site and see what we have for you" don't bother. If the site can stand on it's own, attracting and keeping its visitors for almost everything (with a possible exception for ordering which may still be done through the main site) then a microsite may be worthwhile.

I do agree with wige as that is what I would do if I have more than 1 website. It is vital that you do not copy or duplicate content from the main site otherwise you will be in deep trouble. As said by wige, other sites should be independent and self-sustaining without interfering with the main site. I would normally make those sites focussing on sub-targetting products from the main site. Maybe you can categories other sites focussing on individual artists or something. Using 301 re-directing will also help to boost your main site.

[Kate Lennon]

"As for 'clogging up the web', well, thats beyond the realm of possibility."

Virtual space may be infinite in scientific terms, but the number of websites a person can visit in any given time-frame isn't; therefore, in terms of usability and user experience, the web certainly can be "clogged up" with crap. If a person is searching for information on a particular subject, service or product, and ninety percent of the websites they visit are "front" sites which only exist to bump up the search engine position of some other site, then the web is effectively "clogged up" with annoying and unhelpful pages for that person. In fact most of the websites on the web probably fall into this category already. Why add to the crap heap?

"The fact that I have had a stranglehold on a few of the most popular searches for my industry (locally speaking) doesn't mean that I feel comfortable sitting on my laurels. Just trying to stay ahead of the curve."

What curve? There is no curve. If you're site is being found near the top of Google for relevant search terms, the smart thing to do is leave it alone ("If it ain't broke, don't fix it."). Pointing 95 other sites at it (especially if they are on the same server), will NOT help either to consolidate or improve its search results positioning. In fact the reverse is more likely to happen, since Google now penalizes sites linked from sites it identifies as pointer sites. Additionally, each of your 95 sites is going to have a PR of zero, which means that they are not going to add to the PR of your main site (and may in fact lead to a reduction in your main site's PR).

As far as the length of time a site has been in existence, in my experience this has no bearing whatsoever on either its PR or its search engine positioning. Most "new" sites use recycled domain names. Many domains have had multiple owners (good sites, bad sites) since they were first registered a decade or more ago. My oldest site is almost 12 years old, and it still doesn't show up in the first 5 pages of search results for relevant terms. And it still has a zero PR. My newest site has only been online since May of this year, and it is already at the top of Google (and MSN, Yahoo etc.) for relevant search terms.

[Kate Lennon]

And PS - my newest site (which is at the top of Google search results) has NO LINKS pointing to it from other websites.
So much for the importance of inbound links and link-exchange programs.

[rickanderson]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Here's my take on it, Rick,

First, you can not really look at it in a percentage form. Think of each factor as a link in a chain. How important is 1 link in a chain of 100 links. You could say 1%, but the reality is that each link has an importance of 100%. If just one link breaks, the chain has lost its strength. Therefore the strength of a chain is not the combined strength of all the links, but just the strength of its weakest link. Translating that to search algorithms, you´re at least as important as the weakest factor.

Then you talk about site age. Google keeps record of many more aging factors than just the age of your domain. Other factors are average page age, average (back)link age, average link text age, average content age. Then there are age related factors like seasonal factors (consider what happens on sites in november and december in the walk up to christmas). And I'm sure there are other aging factors as well.

So you could for example have a 10 year old site, but the pages could be brand new. (imagine the site was sold and the new owner uses it for something different.)

The way the aging factors practically work is that your site needs to be within certain limits. The ages should not be too young, if they are, you get in, what is commonly known as, the sandbox. But you should also not be too old. Though I never heard a name for this you could say you´re in the elderly home when your historical site factors get too old...

What's important to realize is that Google doesn't have a certain standard minimal age limit and maximum age limit. I'd say that this is decided per keyword by the algorithms. For certain keywords the minimum age is practically 0. Imagine for example news related keywords. So the algorithms have to decide what the best minimum age and maximum age should be. Deciding this per keyword based on the information available in the index, is the best way to make this decision.


The "elderly home" is as important to stay out of as the "sandbox" is. Getting out of the sandbox is easy. You just wait and it will happen. But staying out of the "elderly home" requires work. You need to keep your historical site factors young enough. Luckily, if you run your website normally, you will naturally be inside the limits.

It might seem that the older the internet and many of its sites becomes, the longer you would have to wait to get out of the sandbox. But this is not true. Nothing lasts for ever and the same applies online. Pages, backlinks, etc. are not eternal. So what happens is that after a certain time, your backlinks for example won't age anymore. As new links are added, some older links will disapear and a certain average age will be established naturally. For some markets this may already be the case, other markets may still be in the process of aging and haven't established yet a stable average age.


In my experience I have seen webmasters complain for years that Google is stupid because their website was stuck around position 40. No matter what they did, they just couldn't get the site higher. Then after so many years, all the sudden the site starts to climb and it reaches the top10. Often webmasters try to figure out what they "did" to make that happen. But they didn't do anything special. All that happened was that they finally got to age. This often happens in markets that have been around for many years already. Imagine for example the hosting market. You really need to have a site that is reasonably old because most of the top ranking sites are many years old and the average age factors in this market are pretty high.


To your other question:

You´re asking here how to cheat the Google algorithms,.

If I were you, I would try to sell those domains again and forget about them. In stead stick to your original site and use that one to promote your services in the other cities. I would not be surprised that a new page in your site, with the title: "Delta Painters" would rank high almost instantly. Especially if you create a section for cities near vancouver.

Hi Peter

Thanks for the info man. Nice crash course in seo.

Rick

[rickanderson]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

I understand completely. City1Painting, City2Painting, City3Painting, etc. How about PaintingYourWorld.com (available as of now) and have different locations on one site? Are you one company or 95
companies?

Neither, 9 companies covering 9 different regions.

Regards
Rick

[rickanderson]

Originally Posted by Kate Lennon

"As for 'clogging up the web', well, thats beyond the realm of possibility."

Virtual space may be infinite in scientific terms, but the number of websites a person can visit in any given time-frame isn't; therefore, in terms of usability and user experience, the web certainly can be "clogged up" with crap. If a person is searching for information on a particular subject, service or product, and ninety percent of the websites they visit are "front" sites which only exist to bump up the search engine position of some other site, then the web is effectively "clogged up" with annoying and unhelpful pages for that person. In fact most of the websites on the web probably fall into this category already. Why add to the crap heap?

"The fact that I have had a stranglehold on a few of the most popular searches for my industry (locally speaking) doesn't mean that I feel comfortable sitting on my laurels. Just trying to stay ahead of the curve."

What curve? There is no curve. If you're site is being found near the top of Google for relevant search terms, the smart thing to do is leave it alone ("If it ain't broke, don't fix it."). Pointing 95 other sites at it (especially if they are on the same server), will NOT help either to consolidate or improve its search results positioning. In fact the reverse is more likely to happen, since Google now penalizes sites linked from sites it identifies as pointer sites. Additionally, each of your 95 sites is going to have a PR of zero, which means that they are not going to add to the PR of your main site (and may in fact lead to a reduction in your main site's PR).

As far as the length of time a site has been in existence, in my experience this has no bearing whatsoever on either its PR or its search engine positioning. Most "new" sites use recycled domain names. Many domains have had multiple owners (good sites, bad sites) since they were first registered a decade or more ago. My oldest site is almost 12 years old, and it still doesn't show up in the first 5 pages of search results for relevant terms. And it still has a zero PR. My newest site has only been online since May of this year, and it is already at the top of Google (and MSN, Yahoo etc.) for relevant search terms.

Thanks for the speech Kate.

Rick

[brucet]

> how best to utilize these 95 domains to benefit mainly...the mothership

Do you mean you want these 95 domains to benefit your main website? The only way to do that is if they all link to it. 95 domains all with the same owner, with similar content and all linking to one other domain is open to being interpreted as spam ISTM, and eminently detectable.

We have used microsites to target specific customer needs. Used selectively they can be very effective and build up search rankings in their own right. But 95 seems OTT.

[crossland]

Rather than creating whole new websites, why don't you create pages for each city on your web site and then point to them from your site map e.g. 'Surrey painting' on your sitemap would point to domain.com/surrey-painting.html?

As long as each page has very unique content, you are unlikely to be penalised this way.

Provided each page has the keywords in the heading, title etc, I'd have thought you'd stand a good chance of getting a good position without having to maintain 95 websites.

Tim
Marshall amps

[rickanderson]

Originally Posted by crossland

Rather than creating whole new websites, why don't you create pages for each city on your web site and then point to them from your site map e.g. 'Surrey painting' on your sitemap would point to domain.com/surrey-painting.html?

As long as each page has very unique content, you are unlikely to be penalised this way.

Provided each page has the keywords in the heading, title etc, I'd have thought you'd stand a good chance of getting a good position without having to maintain 95 websites.

Tim
Marshall amps

hi tim

you mean a landing page? done that and its worked out well. maybe i spent some money i need not have?

lol

Rick

[Feydakin]

Originally Posted by Kate Lennon

And PS - my newest site (which is at the top of Google search results) has NO LINKS pointing to it from other websites.
So much for the importance of inbound links and link-exchange programs.

You'll forgive me if I call shenanigans on the fact that you have "no" as in "0" links pointing to your website and you rank #1 for anything other than a made up word..