Author Topic: SEO fun: Does the multi-domain tactic work? (Read 13935 times)

Stoic Joker · « **on:** October 12, 2011, 02:41 PM »

So the brass wants to grab some more domain names to try to increase the chances of our site coming up in various searches. I'm on the fence... I know this was a popular tactic once ... But does it still work?

I'm thinking going for 5-6 content relevant names might be worth it. But saturation bombing with a laundry list would just be bad/foolish/backfire, or just waste money.

Thoughts?

rgdot · « **Reply #1 on:** October 12, 2011, 05:41 PM »

My experience tells me:

Keyword rich titles and content (but not to the point of being abused rich)
Something (blog or otherwise) updated regularly
Relevant incoming and out going links.
More to your point(?)...Avoid duplicate content, actually I would say this is only important if it's happening across multiple domains and not within the same url as some would claim.

Nothing else, despite what some 'pros' may say

EDIT:

If you are refering to buying (bad example) house.com, myhouse.com, thehouse.com to boost your ranking. In my opinion you can buy as many as you want but if the above points are not met it won't matter.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #2 on:** October 12, 2011, 05:49 PM »

Hm... Okay, that jives with what I was thinking for the other stuff, and it's being taken care of. This was more regarding having multiple domain names pointing at the same site. The assumption being if the key word queried is part of the domain name (and validated by content) it will rank (that site) higher is the search results.

Does that tactic still work in practice? ...Or am I completely off my nut??

rgdot · « **Reply #3 on:** October 12, 2011, 06:02 PM »

I don't think it works.

In terms of the domain names themselves, not content:
I have rgdot.com, someone searching rgdot might get the person who has rgdot.net before me yes but me buying all of them (rgdot.org, rgdot.net, rg-dot.com, rg-dot.net) for myself will have no effect if someone is searching for rg, unless rg is some obvious trademark and not a regular word (like let's say if cnn-dot.com existed and someone searched cnn)

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #4 on:** October 12, 2011, 06:28 PM »

if someone is searching for rg, unless rg is some obvious trademark and not a regular word (like let's say if cnn-dot.com existed and someone searched cnn)
-rgdot (October 12, 2011, 06:02 PM)

That's more where I'm coming from. Say somebody was searching for Duck Paper Blue, a domain named BlueDuckPaper.com should (and seems to from tests I've run) rank highly in the search results as long as it doesn't have any other detractors (like no related content).

rgdot · « **Reply #5 on:** October 12, 2011, 07:03 PM »

If you have a case where people would be typing/searching all the words of the url (I don't think the order matters much if the words are 'whole' words) then google will almost certainly show it early if not first.
1 out of 3 words, 1 out of 2, 2 out of 3, etc. will revert back to the content side of things and registering the variations will not have much effect. Again unless 1 or more words are recognized organizations and the like.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #6 on:** October 12, 2011, 07:18 PM »

If you have a case where people would be typing/searching all the words of the url (I don't think the order matters much if the words are 'whole' words) then google will almost certainly show it early if not first.
1 out of 3 words, 1 out of 2, 2 out of 3, etc. will revert back to the content side of things and registering the variations will not have much effect. Again unless 1 or more words are recognized organizations and the like.
-rgdot (October 12, 2011, 07:03 PM)

Perfect! That tracks with what I was thinking initially. The company is refocusing a bit to change with the times and putting up a new site (because our old one sucks) ... And there are a few key areas that we want to focus on that are becoming (trendy) popular searches.

I may need to take a crash course in SEO here shortly... (Zoiks!)

db90h · « **Reply #7 on:** October 12, 2011, 07:23 PM »

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #8 on:** October 13, 2011, 06:33 AM »

...
-db90h (October 12, 2011, 07:23 PM)

Any chance you could elaborate on that a bit?

db90h · « **Reply #9 on:** October 13, 2011, 06:46 AM »

...
-db90h (October 12, 2011, 07:23 PM)

Any chance you could elaborate on that a bit?
-Stoic Joker (October 13, 2011, 06:33 AM)

I deleted my opinion because I believe SEO, as you plan to do it, is 'cheating'. I believe you should not try such tactics. If you want your site to be found, then build a site that attracts people. Search engine manipulation is a big problem for everyone.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #10 on:** October 13, 2011, 07:18 AM »

...
-db90h (October 12, 2011, 07:23 PM)

Any chance you could elaborate on that a bit?
-Stoic Joker (October 13, 2011, 06:33 AM)

I deleted my opinion because I believe SEO, as you plan to do it, is 'cheating'. I believe you should not try such tactics. If you want your site to be found, then build a site that attracts people. Search engine manipulation is a big problem for everyone.
-db90h (October 13, 2011, 06:46 AM)

Understood, and also part of why I said in the OP that (This was the Brass's idea) I was on-the-fence.

It's really more of a case of trying to fix what our current domain name is doing to itself in the search ranking. We can't drop it because we've been using it for almost 20 years ... but it isn't helping in that it doesn't even vaguely imply what we're doing now. So I'm looking at (trying to keep it reasonable) adding 3 or 4 additional names that clarify/support our current direction. So we're attracting the right people, instead of confused people that wanted something entirely different.

Is it dancing on the edge of being the right way to do something wrong ... Yeah I'll give you that. But there is only so many times you can so say no to one of managements pet ideas before things start to get "complicated"...

barney · « **Reply #11 on:** October 13, 2011, 10:08 AM »

FWIW,

A friend of mine with a commercial site bought all the names - .org, .net, .list, etc. - and put in permanent 301 redirects to his primary .com domain. That addressed the domain issue, and he did see an increase in traffic. Then he bought several other domains - mostly typo names - put up pages and linked to his primary, one-way links. He lost ranking

when he did that. (He didn't get the JC Penney lesson

.) He dropped those linkages and got most of his ranking back, but dropped to 2nd page in the SERPs.

SEO of a legitimate nature - content, good keywords, and the like - is fine. But trying to game the system, artificially inflate position, can get awfully dicey. Don't mean to imply that is your intent, but it's worth thinkin' 'bout how an honest effort might be misconstrued. Prolly half the IM lists I'm on try to sell something that they swear will get you on 1st page - but none of 'em have much to say 'bout how long you'll stay there

. - and a lot of the SEO sellers/resellers do much the same. My biggest giggle is to get a proposal from some SEO outfit that isn't even on the first three (3) pages of the SERPs

. Kinda puts their offer(s) in perspective, donchano $:-\$ .

YMMV, but the JC Penney example might be something to mention for management consideration.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #12 on:** October 13, 2011, 01:58 PM »

FWIW,

A friend of mine with a commercial site bought all the names - .org, .net, .list, etc. - and put in permanent 301 redirects to his primary .com domain. That addressed the domain issue, and he did see an increase in traffic. Then he bought several other domains - mostly typo names - put up pages and linked to his primary, one-way links. He lost ranking when he did that. (He didn't get the JC Penney lesson .) He dropped those linkages and got most of his ranking back, but dropped to 2nd page in the SERPs.
-barney (October 13, 2011, 10:08 AM)

That's not actually too far from what I'm after. Not exact but similar.

SEO of a legitimate nature - content, good keywords, and the like - is fine. But trying to game the system, artificially inflate position, can get awfully dicey. Don't mean to imply that is your intent, but it's worth thinkin' 'bout how an honest effort might be misconstrued.
-barney (October 13, 2011, 10:08 AM)

This is the part that drives my Ape Shit. The "game" has gotten so convoluted you damn near need an attorney to explain it. Apparently some of this with Pointer Sites was the idea of a SEO guy the brass was talking to ... And then I run across this:
http://www.realwebre...r-sites-problems/22/

Prolly half the IM lists I'm on try to sell something that they swear will get you on 1st page - but none of 'em have much to say 'bout how long you'll stay there . - and a lot of the SEO sellers/resellers do much the same. My biggest giggle is to get a proposal from some SEO outfit that isn't even on the first three (3) pages of the SERPs . Kinda puts their offer(s) in perspective, donchano $:-\$ .

YMMV, but the JC Penney example might be something to mention for management consideration.
-barney (October 13, 2011, 10:08 AM)

The prices the SEO types kick around is what I find staggering; $750 a month? ...WTF am I buying...a Yacht?!?

barney · « **Reply #13 on:** October 13, 2011, 04:49 PM »

The prices the SEO types kick around is what I find staggering; $750 a month? ...WTF am I buying...a Yacht?!?
-Stoic Joker (October 13, 2011, 01:58 PM)

Hey, if they're willing to offer a written guarantee, preferably with penalties, they might be worth it. But the bottom line on most SEO orgs is a temporary surge, one which soon falters.

Right now, barring specialty search sites, Google is the 800 lb. gorilla. And that gorilla has a whole gang of monkeys working on how to prevent artificial inflation of a site's position. And those monkeys are pretty damned good. The penalties for getting caught in such inflation can get severe

.

I keep using the JC Penney example because it was recent and it was high profile amongst some knowledgeable folk - Wall Street, for instance

? - but there are a plethora of such examples. The thing is, you seldom hear about them, they just don't show up in searches any more

. That makes it difficult to garner proof that such activities can be harmful to the point of fatality

.

Edit: [If you missed the Penney thing, they were caught buying other sites, then using them to link to the primary site. They were #1 on SERPs. After getting caught, the went (I think) to #76 - dropped from page one (1) to page eight ( 8 ), where no one but a researcher would ever find 'em

.]

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #14 on:** October 13, 2011, 05:32 PM »

The prices the SEO types kick around is what I find staggering; $750 a month? ...WTF am I buying...a Yacht?!?
-Stoic Joker (October 13, 2011, 01:58 PM)

Hey, if they're willing to offer a written guarantee, preferably with penalties, they might be worth it. But the bottom line on most SEO orgs is a temporary surge, one which soon falters.

Right now, barring specialty search sites, Google is the 800 lb. gorilla. And that gorilla has a whole gang of monkeys working on how to prevent artificial inflation of a site's position. And those monkeys are pretty damned good. The penalties for getting caught in such inflation can get severe .
-barney (October 13, 2011, 04:49 PM)

Okay... So you're saying the best bet is to skip the SEO game entirely?? Or is there a better/simpler/safer/cheaper way to DIY that comes with something that vaguely resembles a bloody manual?

I'm not adverse to doing myself, I'd just like to know how many of my current assumptions regarding the topic are total crap ... Before I light a match...

barney · « **Reply #15 on:** October 13, 2011, 07:20 PM »

Okay... So you're saying the best bet is to skip the SEO game entirely?? Or is there a better/simpler/safer/cheaper way to DIY that comes with something that vaguely resembles a bloody manual?

I'm not adverse to doing myself, I'd just like to know how many of my current assumptions regarding the topic are total crap ... Before I light a match...
-Stoic Joker (October 13, 2011, 05:32 PM)

Well-l-l-l ... I wouldn't say skip it entirely. The idea of buying relevant domains, then 301 to your current domain is quite valid. I'd personally rather find a valid domain more relevant to your purpose, then 301 the current site to that one, make it the active site. However, I don't have any valid data on that scenario anent what it might do to current rankings. I've seen supposition that such a procedure is viable, but have no hard (?) evidence to that end.

Setting up Web sites for the sole function of adding one-way links to boost your current domain is definitely black-hat, and will come back to bite ya in da butt. However getting links - even reciprocal links - from sites that have some relevancy to your site is a definite plus. One-way links are better, but reciprocal works.

Look, I have collected, over the years, a number of docs - some executables, most PDFs - on SEO. Most of 'em are aimed at one (1) to three (3) page sales sites, but the principles involved, once you filter out the sell now crap, are fairly straightforward. Some drudgery involved - keyword maximizing, long-tail keywords, and the like - but the information in them is basically sound, if you disregard the rank now emphasis. If you like, message me - I'll upload them to a Web page and give you the address. Caveat: I can only put up the ones that I have the rights for, and I'm not gonna upload the black-hat stuff. (I know business ethics is an oxymoron, but business morals shouldn't be

.) There'll be a lot of junk there, and a lot not relevant to your aims, but you should be able to scan the info, find what seems relevant, then concentrate on that. Don't know that it'll be that much help, but you might get some ideas, maybe even some inspiration

.

Lemme know (My old English teacher would kill me for that

.)

Edit: On the other hand, you might have a look here.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #16 on:** October 13, 2011, 08:04 PM »

So I Googled website design with our town's name ... The SEO guy's site showed-up on the bottom of page three.

Hello! ...Welcome to the Land of Duh..!

(we really need a face-palm smiley)

Message sent.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #17 on:** October 13, 2011, 08:24 PM »

Edit: On the other hand, you might have a look here.
-barney (October 13, 2011, 07:20 PM)

So... have you used/can you vouch for the free server side SEO Control Panel that's available from that site?

(Edit) Never mind <covered in PM> I'll give it a spin and see what happens.

barney · « **Reply #18 on:** October 13, 2011, 10:00 PM »

Just an aside, but I never had much luck with it. Prolly 'cause I was trying a quickie w/o really checking instructions

. I have it installed on local server, and I'm not certain that's truly effective

.

I've had reports that it's worthwhile, but that was several years agone - 2008, methinks - and I just lost time to test it - other matters claimed my interests and attention

.

barney · « **Reply #19 on:** October 15, 2011, 03:02 PM »

Some links that might be of benefit.

http://lsikeywords.com/ has a fairly decent description of LSI (Latent Semantic Indexing keywords). If your site has a long presence upon the Web, this can make a difference.

http://www.brickmark...ng-tail-keywords.htm
https://secure.wikim...iki/Keyword_research
are links to long-tail keywords. Those sites will describe it better than moi. A Google search on long tail keywords will yield a plethora of such links, worthwhile on the assumption that many different - but [sometimes] similar - explanations help to round out the definition of a concept $:-\$ . Tends to work that way for me, anyway

.

You're gonna see a lotta stuff - and a bunch of junk - about content & duplicate content. You can pretty much ignore the bulk of the duplicate content warnings. The content stuff is a bit more important. One of the better ways to accomplish the content mission is to set up a related blog, appropriately linked. It's reasonably certain that you can find someone in the corporate structure who will be more than happy to keep the blog active

.

mahesh2k · « **Reply #20 on:** October 15, 2011, 03:18 PM »

Recent changes from Google are documented in this file.

https://s3.amazonaws..._Guidelines-2011.pdf