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?