Crosslinking and Google Options

Hello all,

I have read that crosslinking between several sites can be penalized by Google.
My question is: When you exchange links between similar sites, as a means to increase your PR, aren't you cross linking too?
My situation is as follows. I own manage 5 sites owned by the same company. They're absolutely not mirror sites. They sell the same kind of products, however each site is geared towards a different segment of the market, and each sites is totally different as far as content and look.
Is it so bad if each of the sites link to the other sites?

The problem comes in when you end up creating a "pocket". If the bots come in and the sites only link amongst themselves then they are, in effect, caught in the "pocket" which is self defeating to the way the web is supposed to work. Also, all sites linking to all sites, while not linking to many outside sites creates a pocket with a small hole in it, but that still might get penalized because the hole is too small.

You're best off deciding which of the sites is the "hub" site, link from it to all the others and the others link back to the "hub". Then the others have their own linking strategy with outgoing links and their own incoming links. This creates the "wheel" effect which is more along what they are looking for. There's the one hub site, with spokes going out, and in turn the sites at the end of the spokes have their own spokes going out. Eventually, when you get enough "wheels" overlapping, you've got a "web". And, if I'm not mistaken, that's where it got its name.

G.

Is it so bad if each of the sites link to the other sites?

Linking? No, not bad. Heavily linking? Very bad.

The true strength of having multiple sites is rather like one of the huge companies that own several retail chains. The strength is in being your own competition. That if people don't like one store's way of doing things they move on to another store with another way of doing things, often oblivious to the fact that at the very top, both companies are owned by the same people.

When you go to a showroom for General Motors, they don't recommend you visit Vauxhall do they? In the UK, when you visit Dixons, the electrical retailer, they don't carry ads for Curry's, (another electrical retail chain owned by the Dixons group).

Keep them separate, because that's what does the business.

The true strength of having multiple sites is rather like one of the huge companies that own several retail chains.

Okay, I'll bite.

I've seen that too, and there is a benefit in promoting different ways to different markets -- a computer manufacturer may want to promote "fast, reliable, cutting edge HiTech brand computers" to one market and "easy-to-use no-stumble EZPuters" to another. The two markets may be so divergent (attitude counts) that it would be a benefit not to look like these were being sold by the same company.

However, in promoting online, does this not create problems with directories that only want to list one website per company?

However, in promoting online, does this not create problems with directories that only want to list one website per company?

Hi Diane - welcome to thr forum.

I'm not aware of any directory that will only list one website per company. Which are they?

Phil.

Thanks for the welcome!

Okay, maybe I've misstated or gotten an incorrect impression somewhere, but I could swear that DMOZ, for one, would prefer to list one company selling its products on one website.

The above scenario (two types of computers sold by subdivisions of the same mother company) may not be what they had in mind. Perhaps what I (mis)assumed was one company selling the same product on two or more websites.

Or am I way off base here?

DMOZ won't list mirror sites if they can help it, but individual sites that are unique, and not just different layouts of the same basic site, are fine regardless of the company behind them.

In some cases websites have many individual pages listed but only when they belong in different categories to category that the main site is in. I have about 6 individual pages listed from one of my sites but I can't get the site itself in

Phil.

Okay. That's a little more relaxed than my understanding was. Thanks.

If the sites are truly set up to market to different market segments then they will be almost completely different in almost every respect - not least in the models they stock and promote. This means that the two sites are often far more different than an actual competitor site would be.

However, ideally even sub-companies should try to compete where possible. It helps promote new thinking and marketing initiatives.

As Phil already said, the ODP is against listing sites that are unoriginal, whether or not those belong to the same company that has the other similar sites already listed. Boiler-plate sites are unwelcome. The ODP tries to list all relevant content, but they try not to list multiple sites offering identical content, whether that is a true mirror site, or just an unoriginal opportunist. Originality and uniqueness count big-time.

5 sites owned by the same company. They're absolutely not mirror sites. They sell the same kind of products, however each site is geared towards a different segment of the market, and each sites is totally different as far as content and look.

The same kind of products but (hopefully) not exactly the same products on each. Different products appeal to different people. The kind of person who buys top of the range Hi-Fi equipment may not be at all like the kind of person who buys top of the range computer equipment, and neither may be the kind of person who spends much money on home appliances.

What I'm saying is that a computer geek and a party animal may both spend the same amount each year on electrical equipment, but they sure aren't likely to buy the same products, and they probably won't have the same taste in where to buy from either.

I understand the implications of running several sites. By the way all my sites do not get listed on DMOZ, because they estimate that they are not 'different' enough.
My question still is how do I link them, from a PR point of view? I like the idea of one hub, linking to each site and each site linking back to the hub. Does anybody agree with that approach?

The same kind of products but (hopefully) not exactly the same products on each.

Aha. That was what I was trying to say. Thanks.

all my sites do not get listed on DMOZ, because they estimate that they are not 'different' enough.

Hearing this, I advise you not to cross-link them. When DMOZ editors feel the sites are too similar they simply don't list some of them. If a search engine staff member or robot were to detect and feel the same thing, that's more likely to be an IP level ban.

The risk may not be large, but it is there.