I have two dedicated servers in different datacenters, plus another server in my office waiting to be sent to another data center. The idea struck me tonight (yes, it took this long), of setting up some smaller websites focused in roughly the same topics as my main sites, and using them to promote my main sites. I have a few extra domain names that I registered when deciding on a domain, and a bunch of useless templates I bought a while back, so maybe I should put them to work. I could join a few of the "topsites" networks and things that I just refuse to do on my main sites (mainly just on the principal of the thing), and target a few keywords that are less attractive to me right now, but where rankings might be a little easier to obtain. So along this line of thought, I thought - maybe I should build/purchase some larger websites - dmoz clones, public domain books, rss feeds, etc., but my concern is that some of these sites may be considered spammy - either because of duplicate content or whatever. So thinking in these respects, I'd rather not offend the search engines in any way, what is the best way to plan out a network? I have three main sites that I want to have each on one of the servers for performance reasons. Each server obviously is capable of virtual hosting, and will have 8-16 IP addresses available to me. (I think I currently am using about a dozen IPs for various sites). As far as the power of linking goes, I'm concerned that the effort of building/buying/administering all of these sites is going to be offset because the cross linking among the IP ranges will discount them. So, I'm asking you guys (I know there are at least a few of you who have large networks of sites) for the best strategy. Do I a) build 48 sites, each on it's own IP b) build a gazillion sites, no limit to IP addresses other than my sites that require SSL. c) limit virtual hosting to < 10 per IP address (or maybe less, like 5) As far as cross linking goes a) cross link accross IPs at will. Don't worry about the SE's discounting the links b) cross link from server a to server b and server c, but not within server a c) cross link within each server heavily, and not outside (server a sites only link to server a sites) d) something else. I'd like to be able to get to the point where basically I have more linking power - either for the coop, for my own uses, or just to bring new sites online and get them spidered and ranked with reasonable speed. There isn't a lot of how to info out there for network building strategies. Maybe if one of you could volunteer a little time to speak with me on the phone about your strategies and give me a little guidance I could pay you for it. If you have a large network of sites, and are up for it, how does say $100 for a one hour conference call sound? I have a bunch of general questions along these lines, and it would help if I could just talk with someone who's already doing this kind of thing. I don't want to just create a bunch of spam sites, but it's relatively obvious that I need more horses in my stable.
This is a good idea, for example your wedding site you can build small 5-10 page sites focusing on one topic, i.e wedding dresses, wedding invitations, wedding cake, wedding ring, wedding gift, wedding flowers and link back to your main site from them. Do not be worried about having them on the same IP address because all the content will be unique, however if you are then each one can be put on a different IP.
You're basically talking about microsites, which is a pretty old practice. In fact, pre-Florida (Nov 2003), it was not an incommon strategy to simply buy a dedicated server and then stuff it full of cross-linkg sites. Google's main response to it appears to have been to attempt to devalue cross-linking within the same IP range. Florida appears to have specifically addressed this issue. Really, with 3 servers, I don't see you geting many different IPs from different /24 (C class) ranges for them - if you're lucky you're talking about 3-4 IPs on each from different ranges, which is effectively the extent of your safest valued cross-linking. If you really want to extend your network then I'd have to recommend you host each site on its own /24 (C class) for linking purposes, but this is obviously more of a pain to develop, and goes beyond your 3 servers.
The correct term (if i remember corretly) would be "micro websites" if im not mistaking. Had a look at WMW forum couldnt find much info there either same as here. I did find lots of info when i search for the word "interlinking" for both of the forums. Just a idea. Someone told me that it you use micro websites it would be best to have them all on different ips. And that it would be even better to have hosts at different locations and using different names when you sign up. I cant really give you a direct asnwer to what your asking. I was planning to setup one myself but i never got that far. I would be really interested to hear from others.
I'm pretty sure Google will not penalize two similar themed sites on the same server with the same IP which have crosslinked. If this was true then what people are saying is that every site should have a unique IP which is not going to happen.
Maybe not penalize, but I have seen reference a lot to "devaluing" the links. I really don't know how valid that is myself. I've never actually tried to measure, nor would I really know how. The servers themselves are all going to be in different data centers. My main server is where it is and it's not moving I have one dedicated through ev1, and my other server I'd like to colo here in socal somewhere. So I should be on three unique c/class ranges, but you never know. I hadn't considered trying to get different c classes on one server - I don't even know if that's possible. The whole microsites thing may be a thing of the past, but I can't see where it would really hurt - your mentioning of pre-florida makes me think this might not be a fruitful venture. I do see a lot of people developing large sites for "linking weight" be it the ad network, to sell ads, or to help boost their own sites. It seems to me to (at least for now) be a useful strategy, although I really haven't done it myself yet. I have one site that's 80,000 pages - all unique because I freaking wrote it all, and I can't put it on the web. It's a giant technical document that I built for a client. How much does that stink. LOL.
Penalise is the wrong word - devalue is indeed much better. Google doesn't say that it's wrong for two such sites to interlink - just that if no one else is going to for the same sites, the links are probably not worth so much as a recommendation.
Is there any concrete evidence of this? Plus , surely if a sites link is devalued then it is indeed being penalised?
G is getting sharper all the time. some good sites i knew of went down after the recent updates and i knew them to be part of crosslinked networks. food for thought ? well , maybe. I would prefer keeping distance from any kind of cross linking to promote my site. Evidence is there that G is devaluating links which are from some kind of co-op network.