Linking to a new site

[Admiral_Burrows]

Hi

I'm in the process of building a new site which will provide more specific and indepth information about a topic which I breifly cover on my main site.

I want to link from the existing site to the new site in order to give visitors the greatest value and information.

Do people think I should link to the new site immediately or wait until its been indexed or until gained some PR?

I'd eventually like the new site to rank higher than my main site because it will be more specific.

Thanks :)

[Tubby]

I think you should link to the new information right away. (SAP)
The new site will get indexed with links pointing to it.

[innominds]

If the new site gives quality information and value to your site, then you can link it immediately.

[shakir]

Hi

I'm in the process of building a new site which will provide more specific and indepth information about a topic which I breifly cover on my main site.

I want to link from the existing site to the new site in order to give visitors the greatest value and information.

Do people think I should link to the new site immediately or wait until its been indexed or until gained some PR?

I'd eventually like the new site to rank higher than my main site because it will be more specific.

Thanks :)

Link to your site and its relavent to the parent is no problem.. Google will not consider it as link sale... As soon as update the content make link

[aleksandarr]

Yeah, I would link to it as soon as it is finished and online. It would be no harm if one of the first links pointing to it is from your old site.

[avera]

My vast experience of creating micro-sites is that you need to ensure that there is absolutely no duplicate content from the main site whatsoever.

If Google detects any, it can penalise the site (not the page, the site) from day one.

Also, any site that is discovered from a link pointing to it get's more credit than a site that Google is told about by the submit url or webmaster tools.

Real life example: If your friend recommends a plumber, you're more likely to use them than someone you don't know from the Yellow pages.

Google works in the same way - it used to be called backrub.

[bine]

If this is a genuine initiative, then it is long term. In 2 years or even 1 year from now the information about whether you linked first or got PR first will be a non-issue. Do it now, get started the sooner the better, bring that 1 year down to 6 months.

[deepsand]

1) Unless & until you've uploaded a site map for the new site via a Google Webmaster account, an IBL from your existing site may just be the 1st that Google learns of that site.

2) There is nothing to be gained with respect to PR by waiting for the new site to be indexed & ranked.

[InfoHQ.us]

avera,

"...absolutely no duplicate content from the main site whatsoever."

Very, very sure?

You want to revise your view?

If Google is to ignore/penalize websites with duplicate contents, the Internet will
be significantly reduced in size.

[deepsand]

Also, any site that is discovered from a link pointing to it get's more credit than a site that Google is told about by the submit url or webmaster tools.
Are you saying that if an IBL is discovered after Google learns of the existence of page via other methods that its PR will be less than if it is discovered via an IBL?

If so, 1) where is such set forth in the PR algorithm, and 2) how is such logically justified?

[HHI_Golf_Guy]

My vast experience of creating micro-sites is that you need to ensure that there is absolutely no duplicate content from the main site whatsoever.

If Google detects any, it can penalise the site (not the page, the site) from day one.

Also, any site that is discovered from a link pointing to it get's more credit than a site that Google is told about by the submit url or webmaster tools.

Real life example: If your friend recommends a plumber, you're more likely to use them than someone you don't know from the Yellow pages.

.

There's not one bit of information in the post that is true. Except for maybe the part about taking your friend's plumber recommendation.

[weegillis]

If your main site doesn't point to it, then who will? Are you going to do extensive link building ahead of time? Best, imho to link it ASAP, like Tubby and others have suggested. It's relevance, and the vote from you will give it a nice starting push.

[Pico_Train]

Link it. And link back too. I've done it with a few sites and it's hasn't caused any adverse effects as far as I can tell. Don't overdo it, link to relevant pages and you're off!

[Tarzan2]

Why would you want to wait?
For sure... link to it right away!
Your link is just as good as anyone else's link. (yea... I know... someone is going to say, "but authoritative links are worth more." It was just an expression to say that a link is a link and any link is good.) ;)

[astro]

My vast experience of creating micro-sites is that you need to ensure that there is absolutely no duplicate content from the main site whatsoever.

If Google detects any, it can penalise the site (not the page, the site) from day one.

Also, any site that is discovered from a link pointing to it get's more credit than a site that Google is told about by the submit url or webmaster tools.

Real life example: If your friend recommends a plumber, you're more likely to use them than someone you don't know from the Yellow pages.

Google works in the same way - it used to be called backrub.

Based on this principle/example you would only have one plumber listed, now that would be a listing to tax the optimiser!

I have about 5 sites all linking to each other all about similar accommodation and all are listed! In some cases or keyword search I should say, I can return 2 or 3 of my sites in the top ten. (not one site is in CSS either! Oh dear - IE8!!!!!!!) However each site is different in look, comes at it from a slightly different perspective, keywords are slightly different, and no text is exactly the same. However the accommodation is the same with the same names! I would call that duplicate content.

example: I know this search term is very specific and I am operating in a vertical market place here, but to demonstrate this point if your search term is .....++ apartments villas agia efimia kefalonia, my main web site is nos. 2 and 3 another of my sites is in position 4 and all three are linked to each other. At the bottom in position 10 is one of my landlords' own website, at least as I speak right now it is! (star villas, just for the record astro = star in greek!) all his accommodation is listed on all three of my listed sites under the same names. We talk about the same locations and offer the same facilities. I call that duplicate content!

The oompah loompas at Google are very smart chappies and chappesses, highly motivated to provide relevant results and web site content to search terms, this must result in duplicate content being listed. Logical?

Simples!

Link now!
/astro

[KKaia]

A new site is need a related guru site give her some affirmative praise, so linking to a new and valuable site is necessary and helpful...

[avera]

Are you saying that if an IBL is discovered after Google learns of the existence of page via other methods that its PR will be less than if it is discovered via an IBL?

If so, 1) where is such set forth in the PR algorithm, and 2) how is such logically justified?

No - maybe my post was slightly misleading about what I meant or just misunderstood.

I our experience, over 12 years, if a new website is discovered from an already "trusted" source, say a very established website that is a good few years old then Google will apply a certain amount of trust to the new site from day one.

(Why wouldn't you use the plumber that your best friend has recommended?)

If you introduce a site to Google yourself, either by Submit Url or Webmaster Tools then that initial trust is simply not there.

Of course it will gain trust as Google finds more and more links to it over time, however, it is always better for Google to "find" a new website that being told about it.

[avera]

...absolutely no duplicate content from the main site whatsoever.

Very, very sure?

You want to revise your view?

If Google is to ignore/penalize websites with duplicate contents, the Internet will
be significantly reduced in size.

Yes absolutely.

I'll give you an example:

We are responsible for the website CMS, design, and SEO consultation of the UK division of a large electronics manufacturer starting withg the letter "P".

Two years ago, when we took over from another company, we are asked to create a micro-site for the launch of a product. They insisted that it was a carbon copy of the page on their main site.

We advised that it could be a bad idea to do so as both the new website or the product specific page on the existing site (or both) could be penalised for duplicate content.

They said that they didn't care - the site was for a TV advertisement campaign and that "it doesn't need to rank in Google or any other search engine for that matter" (to use their exact words).

So we went ahead - and did exactly as they asked. It wasn't for over three months after the TV advertising campaign had started that we had a call from their marketing manager asking why when they do a search on Google that neither their dedicated page on their main site nor their micro-site was in the SERPs.

We explained why (duplicate content) and our fix was to re-write the 4 pages of content on the micro-site. The micro-site would not rank very well (never past the top of page 2), no matter how many incoming links it gained. It was on a TV advert, so it was naturally being talked about on forums, blogs etc.

The next micro-site we did for them, we made sure that the head of marketing was there in the meeting, we explained about last time and he made sure we had unique content on the next site and it worked perfectly and ranked very well (number 1).

------

On another note - this is when we are talking about a brand new website. If Google spiders a brand new site and finds it's full of dup-content - it just throws it into the supplimental index.

Sites like eBay and Amazon, which both have masses of dup-content are a different story. They are established websites with a great deal of trust.

Also - many online shops have much duplicate content as in they have duplicate product descriptions from the manufacturer's website. In this instance - you will almost always frind that a blog post about a Pioneer ABC-123 CD Player will rank higher than most online shop listings as it's unique content.

... This is why we always advise our e-commerce customers to write unique product descriptions for their online catalogue. Although, hardly any of them actually take any notice, and then wonder why they're on page 2 for a specific product.

[avera]

I have about 5 sites all linking to each other all about similar accommodation and all are listed! In some cases or keyword search I should say, I can return 2 or 3 of my sites in the top ten. (not one site is in CSS either! Oh dear - IE8!!!!!!!) However each site is different in look, comes at it from a slightly different perspective, keywords are slightly different, and no text is exactly the same. However the accommodation is the same with the same names! I would call that duplicate content.

example: I know this search term is very specific and I am operating in a vertical market place here, but to demonstrate this point if your search term is .....++ apartments villas agia efimia kefalonia, my main web site is nos. 2 and 3 another of my sites is in position 4 and all three are linked to each other. At the bottom in position 10 is one of my landlords' own website, at least as I speak right now it is! (star villas, just for the record astro = star in greek!) all his accommodation is listed on all three of my listed sites under the same names. We talk about the same locations and offer the same facilities. I call that duplicate content!


Yeah - the thing is that Google would probably find that quite difficult to detect as duplicate-content.

Many people use the same CMS system, say Drupal or somthing, and that means that many sites have similar HTML structure.

Duplicate content is more easily detected when we are talking about paragraphs of text and indeed text placement.

I have no dea if Google would consider the same list of say "Apartments in Wherever" duplicate content as it is reasobable that two sites will list the same properties, the same as it is reasonable that many sites will list the same product or at least a similar product list.

[avera]

Why would you want to wait?
For sure... link to it right away!
Your link is just as good as anyone else's link. (yea... I know... someone is going to say, "but authoritative links are worth more." It was just an expression to say that a link is a link and any link is good.) ;)

Yeah - and link back from your micro-site to your main site.

Another thought:

If you're creating a micro-site, as a sub site of your main site, who could possibly be more authorative to link to it than your main site anyway?

[X-Cart]

Sure, there is no problem if you place links from your initial site to the new one. Actually, that is normal practice: one company can have one primary site and some additional sites that cover some service/questions/themes in more details.

[astro]

Oh dear! losing the will here.

Message to Flag, repeat the fleet

Just link it now!

/astro (nee Kriegsmarine GrossAdmiral Donitz)

[bobchrist]

You should also try to get backlinks from other relevant source.

[JBullet]

Yes absolutely.

I'll give you an example:

We are responsible for the website CMS, design, and SEO consultation of the UK division of a large electronics manufacturer starting withg the letter "P".

Two years ago, when we took over from another company, we are asked to create a micro-site for the launch of a product. They insisted that it was a carbon copy of the page on their main site.

We advised that it could be a bad idea to do so as both the new website or the product specific page on the existing site (or both) could be penalised for duplicate content.

They said that they didn't care - the site was for a TV advertisement campaign and that "it doesn't need to rank in Google or any other search engine for that matter" (to use their exact words).

So we went ahead - and did exactly as they asked. It wasn't for over three months after the TV advertising campaign had started that we had a call from their marketing manager asking why when they do a search on Google that neither their dedicated page on their main site nor their micro-site was in the SERPs.

We explained why (duplicate content) and our fix was to re-write the 4 pages of content on the micro-site. The micro-site would not rank very well (never past the top of page 2), no matter how many incoming links it gained. It was on a TV advert, so it was naturally being talked about on forums, blogs etc.

The next micro-site we did for them, we made sure that the head of marketing was there in the meeting, we explained about last time and he made sure we had unique content on the next site and it worked perfectly and ranked very well (number 1).

------



So, based on that example, you're saying it's possible to bring down the ranking of a website by duplicating it's content on a new website you could create. So, if I have a competitor who's ranking I want to reduce, I create a mini website, copy some of their content (if not all) and in a few months my competitor's website's ranking will be reduced? Or, are you saying this happened because there was a link from the main site to the mini site?

[astro]

actually you can just create a total mirror with back links on a freebie webspace provider, this can have detrimental effects on the competition for a while............but then the MIB visit and it all gets very messy, then you bleed cash alot and you find it difficult to breath in a 8 x 3 room, plus your suntan has that stripey effect...............

[deepsand]

No - maybe my post was slightly misleading about what I meant or just misunderstood.

I our experience, over 12 years, if a new website is discovered from an already "trusted" source, say a very established website that is a good few years old then Google will apply a certain amount of trust to the new site from day one.

(Why wouldn't you use the plumber that your best friend has recommended?)

If you introduce a site to Google yourself, either by Submit Url or Webmaster Tools then that initial trust is simply not there.

Of course it will gain trust as Google finds more and more links to it over time, however, it is always better for Google to "find" a new website that being told about it.
Whether an endorsement comes with or after an introduction is irrelevant with respect to its value.

Likewise, the amount of PR passed by an IBL is independent of how a page was discovered.

[kronikmedia]

There is no harm in setting up a new website starlight away. It will take time however to build link popularity. But once you have the sites you can at least start the process.

[freeleads2]

The question you should ask yourself is "Do I dig this site?" If you do. Link to it.

[angilina]

Hi

I'm in the process of building a new site which will provide more specific and indepth information about a topic which I breifly cover on my main site.

I want to link from the existing site to the new site in order to give visitors the greatest value and information.

Do people think I should link to the new site immediately or wait until its been indexed or until gained some PR?

I'd eventually like the new site to rank higher than my main site because it will be more specific.

Thanks :)

I personally think that you should link to the new site as soon as its online and is complete. Also, you should only link to it if this linking is in the benefit of the users.

[deepsand]

The question you should ask yourself is "Do I dig this site?" If you do. Link to it.
:confused: They are both his own sites.

[56casino]

You can link to it right now, it's OK man this is no big deal.

[jasonvthomas]

Yes linking to a fresh site is perfectly fine.

[deepsand]

dont submit your site in website directorys. it isnt good for seo
Why not submit to directories?

Are you aware that SE's considers certain directories, such as DMOZ & Yahoo, to be "authoritative" sources? "Authoritative" directories are those which review submissions, and include only those which pass muster.

It is those which accept any any and all listings which are discounted by SEs. However, even these can be good for driving traffic to your site.