So, I hear very often "Google see's a subdomain as a new domain" is this really true and if so, isn't that a good thing? Does this mean that links from: Cocain.Coca-Cola.com ----to----> Weed.Coca-Cola.com would boost your PR more then links from Coca-Cola.com/Cocain ----to----> Coca-Cola.com/Weed So what is that downside of this, what so bad about using a subdomain, you don't need to buy a new domain. Also, why not put you sitemap at sitemap.Coca-Cola.com instead of Coca-Cola.com/sitemap is there something I am missing here, or is using subdomains always a win-win situation, also if anything I stated above was wrong correct me because that's my current knowledge on the matter. Thanks, John
I love subdomains, it has saved me a lot of money. Instead of buying domains and breaking your head thinking about a name that isn't already registered, just buy a generic name and put up as many subdomains as you want.
And it truely does act as it's own domain? Nothing is different? 100% like a new fresh out of box domain?
Not quite, Google reportedly use WHOIS data, the WHOIS data will be the same for all sub-domains, so any filters applied based on that data would be equal. In my opinion.
But what about if you have a messy site (guilty!) and want to organise it better by taking a big chunk out and channelling it into a subdomain. I don´t know what to do here, because if I go with the subdomain and Google treats it as a whole new domain then I´m cannabalising my own site and cutting page saturation in half, right? The other reason I want to create the subdomain is because I want to give access to that part of the site only to a supplier. So, to SD or not to SD, that is the question?
I would stay away from using a SD if you can. You are right it will cut down on page saturation and some search engines give some extra credit to larger sites.