14 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
14 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Old Domains Vs Expired Vs New - Blog Networks

by nathanpayne
12 replies
  • SEO
    • |
I always try to go for older domain names (3 years old is my min, not sure why just a good number I guess), but from time to time it can get expensive depending on the niche, the domain, links etc. I also try to pick up a recently expired domains if it has links to it and get them back on track with new content.

But new domains, is that any use? I mean can I register a few new domains in my network and run them through some small link building techniques (forums, wikis, social networks, blog comments etc). Would that make any difference or am I just better investing in the older and expired domains and building on the content?
#blog #domains #expired #networks
  • Profile picture of the author danparks
    Originally Posted by nathanpayne View Post

    But new domains, is that any use? I mean can I register a few new domains in my network and run them through some small link building techniques (forums, wikis, social networks, blog comments etc). Would that make any difference or am I just better investing in the older and expired domains and building on the content?
    I have a large network of sites for SEO purposes. The vast majority of those sites I bought because they were existing domains with PR. But I've included several that are new domains that I bought. I have my network divided up into niches so I can create backlinks that are relevant to the money site I'm targeting. What I've done occasionally is register a new domain, with a name specific to one niche. I then populate it with content related to that niche, and add some backlinks to money sites in that niche. I then hit the new network site with some PR backlinks. I've got a bunch of PR2-PR3 sites that have weird/foreign names, and somewhat questionable backlink profiles, so I'm not entirely confident that they're great sites to use in a first tier network (I picked them up for the cost of registration). Those I use to send backlinks to the newly registered, PR n/a domains. Google only rarely updates their toolbar, but they do update their internal domain PR constantly. So my thought is that even though I create a new website that is, and may appear in the toolbar, as PR n/a or PR0 for months or forever, to Google's way of thinking that site may very quickly become a PR1, PR2 or PR3 site based on those backlinks I tossed at it (for simplicity I'm saying "site" for PR but of course every page has a PR).

    I offer no proof that this is a good strategy, but it makes sense to me. Pay $10 for a domain, make it relevant to one niche, toss some PR1 - PR3 backlinks at it, and why wouldn't Google very quickly rank it (internally) as a PR1 to PR3 site? I'm not going to get into any big debates on this, because to me the cost of doing this is so low, it's worth the "risk" even if I'm wrong.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8623047].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      The two most popular questions I get when I am building people networks or training them on how to build their own are

      A) will I be getting niche specific domains

      and

      B) how aged are the domains?

      None of those questions matter a fig leaf because they are both based on a myth

      A - The relevancy of a site has little to do with the domain name. No? Amazon.com have anything to do with the river in south america? . Apple.com have anything to do with fruit? Whats electronic specific about BestBuy.com

      I don't know where in the world the myth started but CONTENT determines relevance NOT the domain name,

      B) domain registration age has ZERO, ZIP, NADA to do with an aged domain in Google's eyes. Google goes off of the time the domain was indexed whihc is not available as data from any data source.. You can have a domain you registered 3 years ago and it be one month old to Google because just last month you finally got around to putting a site on it.

      This myth is easy to figure out its origin. People just assume that the age at the registrar is what matters but some companies register the names months and even years before putting up the site and FAR more have the sites registered for much longer than they were in business.

      Second part to this myth is that because Google may give a slight benefit to a domain 6+ months old to RANK that somehow relates to the sites ability to pass on juice. There is ZERO evidence that the ability of a domain to pass on juice is dependent on age. Ranking is entirely different and any algo tht tried to calculate how long a link was up before calculating the amount of PR to pass on would be server intensive toward no great benefit for Google.

      This confusing ranking with passing on PR is along the same lines of the third most popular question I get based on a myth

      How often should I post per week to my network domains? Everyday or is three times a week enough?

      How fresh your content is may have function in ranking but it does not matter diddly squat to passing on juice. Plenty static sites pass on juice just fine. The strange and funny thing with that myth is that people who have networks rarely think it through.

      If the content linking TO THEIR NETWORK Sites changed constantly that would mean they would lose the links and have no juice to pass on. the best most long lasting Network domains have old links on pages that are not being monitored at all..
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8623405].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author danparks
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        The relevancy of a site has little to do with the domain name.
        Yeah I'd go along with that. All the same, if I have a cheap domain that has just an okay backlink profile, then if it has a name like ChicagoTeachersAssociation.org or VancouverOlympicSkiJumping2010.com on top of that, then I'm using it for 2nd tier backlinks rather than try to make it a 1st tier network site with totally unrelated niche content.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8623484].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author jackkarter
        I don't know where in the world the myth started but CONTENT determines relevance NOT the domain name

        I agree with a lot of what you had to say, but all things being equal, a domain with the keywords in the root domain will outrank any site that doesn't.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8624072].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by jackkarter View Post

          I agree with a lot of what you had to say, but all things being equal, a domain with the keywords in the root domain will outrank any site that doesn't.

          Which proves you did not read what I said because ranking has nothing to do with it. We are talking abut domains in your network (which you are not attempting to rank) not your money site that you are trying to rank.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8624622].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Steve Waller
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        I don't know where in the world the myth started but CONTENT determines relevance NOT the domain name
        I agree for the most part but could relevancy also not be determined by the content on the page linking to the domain and even the sites linking to the domain?

        For instance, I picked up a domain which contained no particular keyword but that did have backlinks from the World Health Organisation and one or two other health related websites - sure you could turn this into a site about whatever you like but wouldn't it make more sense to turn it into a health site as this might be what Google determines is relevant for those backlinks?
        Signature


        Crawl Your Way To Cheaper Expired Domains - PM Me To Access My Personal Crawler/Scraper


        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8624348].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by Steve Waller View Post

          For instance, I picked up a domain which contained no particular keyword but that did have backlinks from the World Health Organisation and one or two other health related websites - sure you could turn this into a site about whatever you like but wouldn't it make more sense to turn it into a health site as this might be what Google determines is relevant for those backlinks?
          That makes sense but the reality is that sites get links from all kinds of sites not just specifically niche relevant. Furthermore its a well know fact that pagerank flows through a site regardless of anchor. One page may get one kind of external anchor text links and another page another set. Now even though this makes more sense do we have any evidence it is the case? Not really

          If it were a big factor then people buying links on blog networks should not see the benefit they do since its clear they do not have relevant links pointing at their network sites for all their customers niches.

          The problem with that as well is that its not terribly feasible to build a network that way. You would have to go out and look for domains only with your niche anchor text. I've known a few people who tried and they report back to me its slow going....very slow going. So much so they quit and just go build a network that already has been proven to work without niche specific domains.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8624658].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Steve Waller
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            If it were a big factor then people buying links on blog networks should not see the benefit they do since its clear they do not have relevant links pointing at their network sites for all their customers niches.
            True - current blog network tactics do give decent results regardless of niche - I'd be interested to see whether a truly niche-specific network of sites with relevant backlinks would perform even better.

            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            The problem with that as well is that its not terribly feasible to build a network that way. You would have to go out and look for domains only with your niche anchor text. I've known a few people who tried and they report back to me its slow going....very slow going. So much so they quit and just go build a network that already has been proven to work without niche specific domains.
            Anchor text is irrelevant as far as I am concerned - the niche of the linking site may be an influence. As for finding them, I have my ways.
            Signature


            Crawl Your Way To Cheaper Expired Domains - PM Me To Access My Personal Crawler/Scraper


            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8624987].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JohnnyG11k
    Guys

    Everything is worth and require testing, in fact, that's what marketing and link building is all about

    Aged and relevant domain names work the best IMO. Even new domain names are worth for long term. In short, test and buy for yourself, without getting scared of what Google or others thing.

    It's all a testing game, isn't it?
    Signature
    You won't believe it!
    This NICHE made me $300,000...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8624008].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author patco
    Of course old domains are much better for so many reasons... But sometimes for NEW products (especially if you do Affiliate marketing, you should start a new domain!), but if the niche is a common one (like SEO or Health for example), the old domain is recommended!
    Signature

    A blog that will show you How to Lose Weight with a cool Quick Weight Loss guide...
    Also enjoy some of my favorite Funny pictures and photos that will make you smile :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8624127].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author johnbrown12
    I'll say testing testing and testing...
    Signature
    How to make money from $3000 to $7000 per month:

    http://forms.aweber.com/form/85/530278285.htm

    *JOIN 900+ Warriors*
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8624437].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nik0
    Banned
    Relevancy has to do with the back links that are pointed at it as those use relevant anchors and probably come from relevant websites.

    If I had the choice I would always go for a domain with a history that's relevant to my niche. Any day any time.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8624668].message }}

Trending Topics