What are the good strategies using satellite sites in SEO??
-
Hello to everybody,
We'are thinking about launching a massive amount of satellite websites in order to promote our website. Is it really efficient in terms of link building? Or is the ROI really small due to the amount of time and money needed to create and manage these websites?
Thanks a lot!!!
Update: Thanks to all of you for all these interesting answers!
-
Doing it this way is indeed pointless. But if you adjust the strategy a little, it can work very well.
What do I mean? Instead of satellite sites (new domains with no link history, no trust or authority), create satellite pages on established authority domains (Web 2.0 sites, blog platforms, etc, youi know the ones I mean). It's all about the domains (domain authority, links from domains are more important than page metrics).
And don't just stop at one page. Publish multiple pages/articles on those authority sites.
Of course, you must also build links to your satellite pages
-
Lots of people think... "I'll build fifty-five sites to kickass on my competitor because it will give me a shitload of backlinks."
Those backlinks are worth nothing. You can't manufacture links. Google is too smart for that.
They would be better off building a giant site that dominates the niche and THEN building satellite sites and powering them with links from the giant site.
-
Mine too!
-
Please call all of my competitors and sell them this service.
-
I think almost all of us have considered this strategy. I know when I first started out I had a main niche and then I bought up a bunch of keyword rich domains and created microsites. The thing is that these are rarely helpful at all.
A link from a site is only going to add significant value if that site itself is a good one in Google's eyes. So, a link from a brand new site with no backlinks itself is not going to be worth much. And, if this microsite is likely to accumulate natural backlinks, you'd get much more value if those backlinks were actually pointing to your main site.
The way I look at it is this - if you create links yourself, then they usually aren't worth much. One of the main points of Google's evolving algorithm is trying to determine which links are worthy and which are not. So, you'll find that self-made links are rarely helpful.
I'd put that time and effort into putting content on your main site and then alerting other webmasters of your awesome content.
-
Very common Tactic. I would say use your resources building great content on your main site, and you will see a better return. The question you are asking really comes down to a point of view, and then math.
A bunch of sites, with little or no juice, will help a little. A bunch of links back from Blogs. Sites, and social media will pay off big time if you can create the interesting content. Interesting is:
"something that concerns, involves, draws the attention of, or arouses the curiosity of a person"
So I would ask this question. What is it you can do with the current web site that will create Interest.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Does Coverage impact on SEO
Does the coverage issues on google search console ( Google Webmaster) has an impact on SEO ( CTR or impressions). How much of a difference or impact will fixing these have on Search results and average
Algorithm Updates | | Rishardg0 -
Canonical when using others sites
Hi all, I was wondering if this is a good way to safely have content on our website. We have a job search website, and we pull content from other sites. We literally copy the full content text from it's original source, and paste it on our own site on an individual job page. On every individual job page we put a canonical link to the original source (which is not my own website). On each job page, when someone wants to apply, they are redirected to the original job source. As far as I know this should be safe. But since it's not our website we are canonical linking to, will this be a problem? To compare it was indeed.com does, they take 1 or 2 senteces from the original source and put it as an excerpt on their job category page (ie "accountant in new york" category page). When you click the excerpt/title you are redirected to the original source. As you might know, indeed.com has very good rankings, with almost no original content whatsoever. The only thing that is unique is the URL of the indeed.com category where it's on (indeed.com/accountant-new-york), and sometimes the job title. Excerpt is always duplicate from other sites. Why does this work so well? Will this be a better strategy for us to rank well?
Algorithm Updates | | mrdjdevil0 -
Dofollow Links on Press Releases: Good or Bad?
Hello, I know that Google says that you are supposed to make anchored text links nofollow on press releases, but what about just putting the site url itself (example.com) and making it dofollow? Is that okay?
Algorithm Updates | | WebServiceConsulting.com0 -
Does Google use data from Gmail to penalize domains and vice versa?
Has anyone noticed issues with Gmail deliverability and spam inboxing happening around the same time as other large Google updates? For example, if Google blasted your site in Panda or Penguin, have anyone seen them use the same judgement across into Gmail deliverability to blacklist your domain?
Algorithm Updates | | Eric_edvisors0 -
Why some sites doesn't get ranked in Google but in Bing and Yahoo
Few of my sites e.g. Business-Training-Schools.com and Ultrasoundtechnicians.com doesnt get much visits from Google but these sites get top ranked in Bing and Yahoo. I have tried searching for answer to these question but i did not find anything convincing.
Algorithm Updates | | HQP2 -
Site name appended to page title in google search
Hi there, I have a strange problem concerning how the search results for my site appears in Google. The site is Texaspoker.dk and for some strange reason that name is appended at the end of the page title when I search for it in Google. The site name is not added to the page titles on the site. If I search in Google.dk (the relevant search engine for the country I am targeting) for "Unibet Fast Poker" I get the following page title displayed in the search results: Unibet Fast Poker starter i dag - få €10 og prøv ... - Texaspoker.dk If you visit the actual page you can see that there is no site name added to the page title: http://www.texaspoker.dk/unibet-fast-poker It looks like it is only being appended to the pages that contains rich snippets markup and not he forum threads where the rich snippets for some reason doesn't work. If I do a search for "Afstemning: Foretrukne TOPS Events" the title appears as it should without the site name being added: Afstemning: Foretrukne TOPS Events Anybody have any experience regarding this or an idea to why this is happening? Maybe the rich snippets are automatically pulling the publisher name from my Google+ account... edited: It doesn't seem to have anything to do with rich snippets, if I search for "Billeder og stuff v.2" the site name is also appended and if I search for "bedste poker bonus" the site name is not.
Algorithm Updates | | MPO0 -
How much posting product links to Social Media affect your ranking? Any use ?
Google has Google Plus. Facebook has partnership with Bing. How much social media affect your ranking ?
Algorithm Updates | | rahijain0 -
Is There Any Problem For Google When We Use Capital Letters in the Beginning of Each Word in TITLE?
I'm just wandering is there any difference when we use "Cheap Holidays to Egypt" or "Cheap holidays to Egypt". It is easier for users to read first option but would the second be more relevant for crawls?
Algorithm Updates | | fleetway0