Re: Traffic Growth, Subsites and New Domains
- From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 05:43:10 +0100
David wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:31:46 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>
>>> You are unlikely to see significant traffic from Google for at least 6
>>> months from a new site going live. Around the 6 to 9 months mark if
>>> the site has enough links and the content is optimised (covers the
>>> topics you want SERPs for) it should start to gain traffic from semi
>>> competitive SERPs (all you get before that is really easy SERPs).
>>>
>>> Your site doesn't have much in the way of content (less than 100 pages
>>> indexed) so I don't see you getting masses of traffic anytime soon.
>>> Long term if you can build up your link popularity you might get some
>>> reasonable traffic SERPs, but my bet would be that's at least 18
>>> months away.
>>>
>>> BTW sub domains are like brand new sites, so you've got the same 6+
>>> month wait for those to start to do anything in Google. For this
>>> reason if I can put something on an old domain (sub folder) I will,
>>> they out rank new sites with the same content easily!
>>
>>
>>Regarding the first paragraph, it is possible to get decent traffic even
>>within a /few/ months provided that there is basic content once the site
>>is constructed (and links of course). This is based on my experience with
>>two separate domains. The traffic from search engines reached a stable
>>peak after 6 months or so, but rose quite rapidly since the very
>>beginning. Registering your domain for many years also yields good
>>treatment (ranking) from search engines.
>
> I suppose it depends on what you class as decent traffic and when you
> experienced this?
That's quite true. My first domain has been neglected in terms of
development for years. It only gets a few dozens of visits per day even
though it's been up since 2001. I am quite negligent when it comes to
modifying content and enriching the layout of pages which serve (or /used/
to serve) somebody else.
> Some people see a few hundred visitors a day as decent, I don't and in
> my experience it takes over 6 months to go above 1,000 visitors a day
> (decent traffic) with anything registered recently (about 18 months-2
> years, though I'm terrible with dates so could be a bit off on this).
You must account for factors apart from _time_. A topical site can
accumulate many incoming links rather quickly, even without requesting any.
You might also want to consider how many pages a site contains at the start
and how quickly it expands.
> I know a few years back you could create a reasonable sized well
> optimised site with a new domain name, add enough links to it to get a
> PR5 home page and within a few months if the content was right (some
> sectors have little traffic and so can't give lots of traffic in any
> situation) you could have thousands of visitors a day. Doesn't work
> that way with new domains now, if you can get above 300 visitors from
> Google a day within a few months you've done quite well.
>
> I can do the same thing though with an existing domain that is doing
> OK. Same as above, but added to a domain name that's been in Google
> for over 9 months with some OK rankings, add a lot of new content and
> watch the traffic shoot through the roof within a few weeks time. I've
> seen it too many times for it to be a coincidence. I'm seriously
> considering buying old domains that are 'neglected' for this reason.
Deleted domains are the hidden treasure. I have claimed that for some time
and they are easy to browse through on whois.net.
When talking about site traffic, there is also the notion of _momentum_.
More visits -> more links -> more subscriptions -> higher ranks -> more
crawling -> affordability for expansion -> more content -> more visits. So
it's circular if you see my point...
>>As for the last point, provided that you link to the subsite as if it were
>>a subdirectory, I believe it will be treated more or less equally. It is
>>only a strutural difference, but the domain is still the same domain with
>>the same, let us say, Alexa ranking associated with it.
>
> I see the exact opposite and this is from looking at well over 100
> domains/sub domains since they were registered/created over the last 2
> years.
>
> Basically if I add content to an old site it tends to rank much better
> than when I add content to a new domain/sub domain....
Do not mix the two... new domain and sub domain are as much alike as father
and step-father.
> ...Doesn't matter how
> many links are added. I ran a test where I added roughly the same
> content to two sites, one went on a brand new domain the other on an
> existing site. The first received less than 200 visitors a day over
> the first 6 weeks, the old domain increased it's daily traffic by over
> 2,000 visitors a day. Both domains have similar numbers of links and
> there is no evidence of a duplicate content filter (changed it enough
> to make them different).
>
>>Roy
>
> David
You know that your business is going well if you find time for
experimentation. *smile*
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
.
- References:
- Site Sandboxed?
- From: Jim
- Re: Site Sandboxed?
- From: David
- Re: Site Sandboxed?
- From: Roy Schestowitz
- Re: Site Sandboxed?
- From: David
- Site Sandboxed?
- Prev by Date: google adsense payment demo
- Next by Date: Re: Site Sandboxed?
- Previous by thread: Re: Site Sandboxed?
- Next by thread: Re: Site Sandboxed?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
