14 replies to this topic

[kilerb]

Hi guys, I was wondering if you could tell me the most efficient way to handle this situation? I own a domain name which has a blog on it. It has members and comes up organically very well on Google. Here's an example of my issue. Let's say I own used-car-sales.com... and it is working great... Ranks high, and people are familiar with it. However, I purchased that domain because I couldn't get usedcarsales.com when I put it up initially. So, I finally got the guy that owns usedcarsales.com without the dashes, to sell me the domain. Now what do I do? Should I just forward usedcarsales.com to the existing used-car-sales.com? Or should I move everything to usedcarsales.com and use used-car-sales.com to forward to the new one? Or is there a better way? I really want to be known as "usedcarsales.com" since it's easier to say and it's just more universal/simple to remember. But forwarding FROM that domain won't ever get that actual good domain (usedcarsales.com) high up on the organic listing like the existing "used-car-sales.com" domain is already. What should I do? I wish I just had the newer domain from the start, but it didn't work out that way. Any help/suggestions is appreciated!

[Jill]

301-redirect (make sure it's 301) the old domain to the new. All should be fine.,

[kilerb]

301-redirect (make sure it's 301) the old domain to the new. All should be fine.,

Thanks... I see tutorials on this... But am I supposed to upload my site to the new domain first? Or do I leave it on the old one? I'm assuming I need to move everything to the new one, and then put that htaccess file at the old domain? Do I delete everything off the old site? I'm confused.

Edited by kilerb, 17 March 2011 - 09:44 PM.

[chrishirst]

Are both names not on the same server?

[CalistaV]

Let's say I own used-car-sales.com... and it is working great... Ranks high, and people are familiar with it. However, I purchased that domain because I couldn't get usedcarsales.com when I put it up initially. So, I finally got the guy that owns usedcarsales.com without the dashes, to sell me the domain. Now what do I do? Should I just forward usedcarsales.com to the existing used-car-sales.com? Or should I move everything to usedcarsales.com and use used-car-sales.com to forward to the new one?

OK... logistically you would be going backwards if you move things from a successful site to another domain in that in the future you would want to spread to more domains. What you have proposed here is condensing your domains and content.

I would say Don't do this to a domain that has successful SE Ranking and users.

- your going to have an indexing delay
- all the links to the original successful site will be lost
- you will have to Re-Establish the new domain in the SERPs
- If the domain with the hyphens

If the new site you just acquired has SE traffic... you don't want to lose that either.

In your position I would upgrade the new domain and keep both. Use Non-hard-Linked advertising to push visitors from the established site to the new site. Then you have the spread of 2 sites instead of 1.

[Jill]

- your going to have an indexing delay
- all the links to the original successful site will be lost
- you will have to Re-Establish the new domain in the SERPs

None of those are true these days. You can usually seamlessly redirect an old domain to a new without any problems if you know what you're doing.

[CalistaV]

None of those are true these days. You can usually seamlessly redirect an old domain to a new without any problems if you know what you're doing.

Perhaps not on 1 and 3... its been a long time since I even considered a move like that. At the time it was a big no no... so 1 and 3 are currently on my list of No

What about the links?

[Jill]

What about the links?

301-Redirects will preserve the link popularity.

its been a long time since I even considered a move like that.

Please consider only providing advice on what you know for sure is true today.

[OldWelshGuy]

This is something I do regularly, and as Jill says, providing you do the legwork and ensure you have the 301 redirects in place from the off, the move can be pretty seamless. The trick (for want of a better word) is to be completely thorough in your planning for the move.

[CalistaV]

301-Redirects will preserve the link popularity.
Please consider only providing advice on what you know for sure is true today.

I understand. I operate on a mentality of... when in doubt... don't do it.

Preserving existing link structures are an absolute certainty. Do you know with Absolute certainty that 301s preserve ALL factors for extended durations?

( just asking because I have not see that to be the case )

To me that would not make sense: if someone bought up 10 well established domains and then 301 redirected all of them to a single domain I don't see why Google would allow a compression factor like that. Even though we are only talking about a single site move in this case... it's the same 301 factor.

We can not know with absolute certainty that it will hold over time.
We can not know with absolute certainty that Google will not change policy on cross-domain redirects.

I was also leaning more towards - this person can have the power of 2 websites...

Why destabilize things with a move... Why get smaller when you can get larger?

[Jill]

To me that would not make sense: if someone bought up 10 well established domains and then 301 redirected all of them to a single domain I don't see why Google would allow a compression factor like that. Even though we are only talking about a single site move in this case... it's the same 301 factor.

That's a completely different matter. In one case you're simply changing the domain of a site. In another your attempting to deceive the search engine to gain advantage.

[CalistaV]

To me that would not make sense: if someone bought up 10 well established domains and then 301 redirected all of them to a single domain I don't see why Google would allow a compression factor like that. Even though we are only talking about a single site move in this case... it's the same 301 factor.

That's a completely different matter. In one case you're simply changing the domain of a site. In another your attempting to deceive the search engine to gain advantage.

With respect... and an open mind... I don't see a difference.

As I mentioned.... its still an inter-domain 301 (opposed to internal)


Site A has been acquired by... and moved to... Site B.

Suppose Site A is deceiving search engines by moving to site B to avoid a penalty or some other negative factor associated with the original site A.

Intentions don't matter when it comes to how Google will judge it. It's an inter-domain redirect.


Suppose Apples.com 301s to Oranges.com. Even if they move the whole site word for word. People that linked to Apples.com:

- Never linked to Oranges.com
- may not know who Oranges.com is ( or care )
- and may subsequently judge that they will no longer link to either.
- users of Apples.com are now pushed over to Oranges.com

In the case of this thread I don't think it would be a big deal to the users... and actually an achievement for the owner.


Perhaps I'm being harder on Redirects than most people would. I never use redirects ever. To me it's a logistic representation that you don't have your stuff straightened out.

Sites may move all the time with 301s with no Perceived loss or change. So... let's take it to something larger.


Let's 301 Ebay.com to Amazon.com... how do you think that would work out?

I'm just asking the question

[chrishirst]

Perhaps I'm being harder on Redirects than most people would. I never use redirects ever. To me it's a logistic representation that you don't have your stuff straightened out.

Your choice of course, but I've never had a problem with redirects, either internal of domain to domain in over ten years of redirecting pages and sites. AND if you have never used redirects how can you be for or against them?

Let's 301 Ebay.com to Amazon.com... how do you think that would work out

Ebay would effectively
disappear.

Suppose Site A is deceiving search engines by moving to site B to avoid a penalty or some other negative factor associated with the original site A.

The "penalty" will follow with the redirect

[CalistaV]

Your choice of course, but I've never had a problem with redirects, either internal of domain to domain in over ten years of redirecting pages and sites. AND

* this does not mean you have not lost things along the way. having users or bots chase things around is bad policy

if you have never used redirects how can you be for or against them?

* don't be absurd and insinuate that I am prejudice. After seeing the outcome I determined that redirects are bad policy. They are meant for short term internal site movement. Not Large Scale moves.

Ebay would effectively disappear.

* And the inbound links along with it. I'll humor you by assuming that all factors pass with a redirect. Even if you only have a 100 page site... you are going to have to do 100 individual (url by url ) redirects to achieve your site move with all link factors intact.

The "penalty" will follow with the redirect.

* Not necessarily. What if the penalty was a link bomb directed at site A .... where as site B has no such penalty because the link bomb is still directed at site A. But I can no sooner disprove that than you can prove it. You might achieve a test result and call it proof.

Many people get comfortable with what they want to belieive.

Disagree with this and your all set Matt Cutts on 301

Edited by Jill, 10 April 2011 - 09:13 AM.

[chrishirst]

* this does not mean you have not lost things along the way. having users or bots chase things around is bad policy

So you would rather lose the bots and real visitors rather than redirect them?

don't be absurd and insinuate that I am prejudice. After seeing the outcome I determined that redirects are bad policy. They are meant for short term internal site movement. Not Large Scale moves.

Redirects are for ALL kinds of "moves" from a single page to millions of pages
At the beginning of the year Webmaster-talk.com (a forum) has moved ENTIRELY to a new location at tycoon-talk.freelancer.com because of a change of ownership. That was a move that involved a little over 600,000 pages which for a forum means 10s of millions of individual URLs (each post having at least one URL
Currently there are only some 600 pages of the original WMT domain remaining in Googles index and the other half million plus are indexed as the new name.

* And the inbound links along with it. I'll humor you by assuming that all factors pass with a redirect. Even if you only have a 100 page site... you are going to have to do 100 individual (url by url ) redirects to achieve your site move with all link factors intact.

You really don't much about redirects do you, a single line of code can redirect one URL or one MILLION pages to new individual URIs alternatively you could send those one million URLs to a single URL

* Not necessarily. What if the penalty was a link bomb directed at site A .... where as site B has no such penalty because the link bomb is still directed at site A. But I can no sooner disprove that than you can prove it. You might achieve a test result and call it proof.

What is a link bomb "penalty"?

Many people get comfortable with what they want to belieive.

Actually I'm comfortable with what I have TESTED

Disagree with this and your all set Matt Cutts on 301

Not sure how Matt Cutts explaining that a redirect is the right way to go demonstrates your point? Surely it shows that you are the one that is incorrect.