Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Parking Domains Again
Posted 01 October 2004 - 11:26 AM
I have 1 site. It has 3 domains, all pointing to the same folder. Every domain returns a HTTP/1.1 200 OK message.
The preferred domain has 2 incoming links. The others have none.
Is it OK to leave the other 2 domains parked as they are and use absolute internal links to ensure that they always end up utilizing the preferred domain?
I don't see any reason to go to the trouble to set up 301's on the other domains as they don't have any incoming links or other issues.
Posted 01 October 2004 - 01:51 PM
Posted 01 October 2004 - 02:29 PM
One of the other domains could be registered with a trade magazine somewhere, on a business card, etc. Trade magazine website adds a link to the domain and the problems begin.
May not be an applicable example, but always consider the offline with the online, I always say.
My $0.02 (not accounting for inflation).
Posted 01 October 2004 - 08:43 PM
The IP address for Highrankings is 18.104.22.168. If you were to enter this number into a browser, the website would load as normal. All of the files that make up Highrankings lives on a server that has 22.214.171.124 as an address.
The domain name, Highrankings.com points to 126.96.36.199
Lowrankings.com could also point to the same IP address.
One set of content - two different domain names pointing to the same IP address (and content).
There is NO danger of duplicate content in the case of parking domains.
Posted 01 October 2004 - 10:18 PM
Posted 01 October 2004 - 10:54 PM
Posted 02 October 2004 - 05:18 PM
So there I was, safe in the knowledge that a 301 was ALWAYS the way to go.
Then along comes this thread, with Jill's comment above, followed by a technical tour de force by Craig, which seems to give irrefutable proof to the opposite. So now...
... this WebWally is TOTALLY confused!
So, one last time: Does parking a domain leave a backdoor to duplicate content or not??
Posted 02 October 2004 - 06:55 PM
I personally find that if you park things, it takes much longer for the engines to sort out than if you 301 them, so there is a time issue - during which your PR can often be split.
The DNS example isn't perfect because, for example, I have almost 40 domains on a server with the same IP address. Only one is actually parked. The rest are separate sites using host headers to figure things out and send visitors to different directories.
The actual address on the modern web isn't (simplified for example):
192.168.0.1 + host header=www.mydomain.com
Which allows multiple sites to use a single IP.
I had a client earlier this year who had several sites on his server (using host headers) and on one of them forgot to set the "domain.com" redirect (he only had "www.domain.com" set). That meant that his default site was being served instead, which DID create a big issue we are still trying to fix, even though the setup has long been changed.
Craig's DNS statments are only true if you have a site that does NOT use host headers, and instead has a separate IP for each site. which is often, but not always, the case.
I recommend using a simple park when you are using a geolocation scheme and you want Google to be aware of both domain names, but otherwise try to use 301 as much as practical.
Just my opinion,
Posted 02 October 2004 - 08:46 PM
Parking does not create duplicate content, nor does it confuse the search engines into thinking so. I promise! :halo:
Posted 02 October 2004 - 11:49 PM
BUT...sometimes you do find different engines will index different URLs. Sometimes a link to one of the alternate domains does get out there. It's not a big deal at all, but if you only want one domain for sure to be indexed, then do the 301. If you have lots of domains, not just 2 or 3, it might be worth doing the 301 thing too.
If it doesn't cost you anything to host an extra domain name on your server, then do the 301.
If you have to pay hosting for each domain, and you don't have a lot of money, then just park them and don't worry about it. (You only need to host 2 domains, but that's one more than with parking.)
And I disagree, Ian, you don't need to have separate IPs and stuff.
Posted 03 October 2004 - 11:18 AM
I tend to think if its' not likely anyone's ever going to link to the other domains (and you really don't care) then parking is fine.
I agree it doesn't create duplicate content but it can create multiple domains and confusion in the search listings and well as split PR if both end up getting indexed.
Posted 03 October 2004 - 12:53 PM
So far, Google has dealt with it using it's duplicate content filter - only one domain shows up, and it only counts the links for that one. Later, it figures it out and only one still shows up, but the backlinks for BOTH show up. That's when you know it's figured it out.
Yahoo seems to be dealing with it by showing both, and then magically choosing whichever one my clients DON'T want and making sure that's the one that shows up (well, not really, but it seems like that sometimes). ::
The point is that with parked domains I see a lot of duplicate and old listings on Yahoo for quite a while, but not with 301's. Of course 301's on Yahoo have been known to disappear completely on occasion, so I can't recommend it completely, either
Frankly, at this point I'm just recommending using whatever method seems to be working well accross all the engines for any particular site. For my own sites, I'm currently having NO issues with parking and using the same IP's. But I have several clients who appear to be, and saw better results after making the change to a 301.
Basically, do what works in your case. I know that's a completely unsatisfactory and totally unscientific answer, but there you go. I don't know why I'm seeing the issue - either there is something else going on, different webservers are handling parking/301's differently, or whatever - but I know what I'm seeing is NOT consistent.
Posted 03 October 2004 - 12:54 PM
Posted 03 October 2004 - 06:10 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users