How would you do this

[slipondajimmy]

First off sorry if this is in the wrong place.

I have a website (automotive related) that is getting around 15k unique visitors or so a month. I have a few new domains that I would like to redirect to the website, or at least add content on the new domains with links to the other website. The domains are directly related to the content on the website.

What would you recommend?

 

[novatheory]

While there is various solutions. I will select the most keyword reach one, place them on different servers build some mini sites and build internal links. The not so keyword reach redirect them to related good or deep pages.

 

[slipondajimmy]

I did think of doing a few mini sites. What would it matter if it was on a different server though?

 

[novatheory]

I will place only 2-5 related domains per IP. In terms of value of the link yes, it matters.

 

[webmango]

I did think of doing a few mini sites. What would it matter if it was on a different server though?

It is something to do with link farms. If there are many inbound links to one site on the same server, it is recognized as a link farm; where the owner artificially boosts backlinks on other sites they own.

If theyre on different servers/hosts, theyre coming from different sources, and such are not penalised by search engines, and the back links are seen as legitimate.

 

[mwzd]

Different class C IPs if that's what you're hoping to do.

But google isn't fooled that easily, the whois info will still be the same.

Build value for your visitos, don't try to overthink it for seo.

 

[novatheory]

Build value for your visitos, don't try to overthink it for seo.

This is actually true. Build the site for your visitors, for your traffic and do not build thinking on seo.

 

[MeanerDomainer]

Different class C IPs if that's what you're hoping to do.

But google isn't fooled that easily, the whois info will still be the same.

Build value for your visitos, don't try to overthink it for seo.

So it's a known that Google looks at the who is info?
If Google sees that you made your own backlinks, can there be a drop in SER, or the "home made" backlinks are just discounted or not counted at all?

 

[slipondajimmy]

And as always an interesting topic comes out of this. At the end of the day what I do not want is to be penalized for what I do

 

[novatheory]

And as always an interesting topic comes out of this. At the end of the day what I do not want is to be penalized for what I do

Again focus on the end goal, if a penalization is all you concern about why do it in the first place. No risk no gain. Build for your traffic, for your visitors, forget penalization. If it happens, it happens. But the more you trying to avoid it, the more google notices.

 

[MeanerDomainer]

And as always an interesting topic comes out of this. At the end of the day what I do not want is to be penalized for what I do

I was not saying that there is a penalty. I was asking if there is one/could be one. (Edit: Oops, "Webmango" mentioned penalty first, not I. Either way, I am very curious if it is known how severe and how likely such a possibly penalty would be.)

The reason I ask is that I have one site that has back links that I made myself on 4 diffrent C Class IPs and I would like to know if the main site could incur a google SER penalty if I get "caught", or if the only likely consequence would be a downgrade in the "link juice" from the backlinks?

---------- Post added at 07:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:34 AM ----------

Here's another twist to it: If a site was formerly a backlink to your main site, but you remove the backlink from it and add it to your Google webmaster account, would google then be likely to penalize you site(s)? Or would they (I assume they would have to?) consider the possibility that you may have purchased the other site (which was formerly a backlink to your main site)

In other words, this questino is about "promoting" a former minisite that functioned as a back link to a "real site" and letting Google know that I own it.

 

[slipondajimmy]

Great questions that I am afraid I do not have the answers to.

I guess I need to find someone to create a cheap mini site and give it a go, as well as find another host for this.

Thanks

 

[mwzd]

So it's a known that Google looks at the who is info?

Why do you think they became a registrar. Ask Epik/Whypark site owners how all domains using those nameservers were deindexed.

If Google sees that you made your own backlinks, can there be a drop in SER, or the "home made" backlinks are just discounted or not counted at all?

All links have value, even in built ones, how you do it is important.

Build minisites on the other names, and link them to your main name via ads, that will help direct new visitors to your main site.

Don't bother about hosting them on different servers / class c IPs, that won't add value.

A 'cheap' minisite from a cheap minisite provider is probably worth what you pay for it, don't expect too much from them, get someone who knows what they're doing and the traffic could increase exponentially.

 

[MeanerDomainer]

Why do you think they became a registrar.

Couldn't they have just looked at the public who is info like anyone else? Or does being a registrar give you premission to "look behind the curtain" in the case of a private registration? I would assume yes, at least in cases where a registrar is investigating some complaint or claim of tranfer fraud, but does it also give them right to circumvent private registration for their normal business use? Assuming that they are doing so, I don't know that they are, I am just asking.

Ask Epik/Whypark site owners how all domains using those nameservers were deindexed.

I'm not familiar with that. So basically they had a lot of "cross-linking" between the parked domain pages all on the same few serers and they got deindexed? Are they still deindexed?

All links have value, even in built ones, how you do it is important.

Build minisites on the other names, and link them to your main name via ads, that will help direct new visitors to your main site.

Yep, that is what I am doing.

Don't bother about hosting them on different servers / class c IPs, that won't add value.

I was under the impression that (with all other things being equal) the google algorithm would assign more value to a link from a site on a different server? (or C Class)

A 'cheap' minisite from a cheap minisite provider is probably worth what you pay for it, don't expect too much from them, get someone who knows what they're doing and the traffic could increase exponentially.

I am the minisite provider, so yes, they are truly "cheap" looking:red: but the content is solid, which should be the most important thing (at least for Google, not sure about how users feel about an older looking site with better content vs. a new, shiny site with content that is not quite as good) and on-page SEO should be good AFIK. I will have to work more on the look of those sites...

This reminds me of another question, does the google algorithm in any way evaluate the "visual look" of the site? In other words, if everything is exactly the same, but one site looks like 1998 wants it back and the other one looks really cool (but everything is the same: content, PR, backlinks, social media, traffic, etc. etc. etc.) does the visually more appealing site have any edge?

---------- Post added at 09:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 AM ----------

So it I have one site, for example, about "winter hats" and another on about "summer hats", I don't hurt either site by having links between the two, right?
And I may very well help both, even if both are on the same Google webmaster account?

 

[mwzd]

I'm not sure if being a registrar would allow them to circumvent privacy provided by another registrar, but it does give them access to the zone, so might be some benefit there.

Epik sites were deindexed (still are) because they're built using 'automated site builders' and hence qualified as an mfa 'farm'.

Content is king, always will be, presentation - crappy looking sites seem to perform better in terms of ctr (don't ask me why), but I'd rather a customer get a good looking site than a crappy one.

 

[novatheory]

crappy looking sites seem to perform better in terms of ctr (don't ask me why), but I'd rather a customer get a good looking site than a crappy one.

I actually was noticing this yesterday. Never put too much tough on it until yesterday, seen some ugly site with so much high CTR. I have seen ugly sites rank better, but you think with HTML5, CSS3, and still a FrontPage looking page gets high CTR.

 

[MeanerDomainer]

Content is king, always will be, presentation - crappy looking sites seem to perform better in terms of ctr (don't ask me why), but I'd rather a customer get a good looking site than a crappy one.

Maybe the banner ad is the only good looking thing on the whole page and for that reason visitors are attrated to it.:P
Do you have exprience if the same to be true for pages that only have text link ads? (which would not support my "Oooh, look, something shiny! Have to click it to get out of this lame site!" theory?)