Expired Domain vs Starter Site: Better Future Prospect or Instant Growth?

[sadman_rahi]

Hello everyone. This question has been bugging me for quite some time now.

A friend of mine bought a premium domain for $800 and published some content there. Even with the expired domain, the site faced some indexing issues and a sandbox period of around 5 months. Fast forward a year his site was catching kws that we thought were totally out of reach (e.g. ranking at 1-3 for some 5 digit search volume relevant kws). But right now it's facing some decline in terms of kw position and traffic.

I've always worked with fresh domains and the growth here was pretty unprecedented. Now comes the second part of the story.

Going with starter sites always intrigued me as these come with zero sandbox period. But as these are starter sites, most of the times these come with fewer and weaker backlinks compared to the premium domain site. So, there's a chance that it won't be ranking for high sv kws anytime soon (my personal best was ranking for a 4 digit sv kw within 10 months with a fresh domain).

Long story short, my question is, for different budget bracket what should be my choice?

1. Like should I go for a $1000 premium domain or should I go for a $1000 starter site?
2. What should be the choice for budgets like, $1500, $2000, $2500, and $3000?

Thanks.

 

[bernard]

I'm not entirely sure what a starter site is?

Is it a site that is pre-made with some content and then left to sit for 6-12 months?

Personally, my experience has been that on a timescale of 2 years, it doesn't matter if you start with a fresh domain or with an expired domain. Provided you know a little about linkbuilding and actively work at it.

The thing that sets expired domains apart, if they're good, is that you can rank closely related content very quickly. We're talking a few months.

I bought a domain in December and put content on it that was 1 to 1 similar, like if the site was about soccer stats, then I put up content on soccer boots.

It ranked first page within 1 month and is earning within month 2 and it's really quite impressive. That would never happen with a fresh domain.

However, I also have had 2 sites built on expired domains that were not that great. One was a big failure, Google penalized the site with something like an oldschool -20 penalty, simply impossible to rank.

So there is a risk with expired domains.

As for starter sites, my main concern would be content quality. I can imagine it's not always that great.

If I read the content and it seems pretty good, and by that I mean, if it is a "less is more" approach and it has some content based on data and research, then I'd be very interested in that. If it's just some cheap content with no real value, then no.

 

[Ryuzaki]

Like should I go for a $1000 premium domain or should I go for a $1000 starter site?
What should be the choice for budgets like, $1500, $2000, $2500, and $3000?

I'd rather have the premium domain and have to regain trust with time than to have a site without backlinks on a theme I didn't design with content I didn't have written or do the keyword research for and still not have much trust.

But this isn't really a tactical question so much as a personal preference. If you can't delay gratification long enough to break out of the sandbox / regain trust, then buy a starter site. But at the same time realize that site might be aged, but it doesn't have much in the way of links (which bring trust) and your new content will need to age some still too. Every post goes through an aging process.

In my opinion, buying the premium domain for the value of the links alone is worth way more ROI than having someone's VA's build a starter site.

Fast forward a year his site was catching kws that we thought were totally out of reach (e.g. ranking at 1-3 for some 5 digit search volume relevant kws). But right now it's facing some decline in terms of kw position and traffic.

This is something I've mentioned a ton on the forum. New sites (even newly designed and rebuilt sites on aged domains with backlinks in place) will outperform themselves, meaning they can rank for keywords out of their reach. This especially common when you come out of the gates swinging with a lot of content.

Then after a certain window in time closes, sometimes as long as 6 months and even a year, Google seemingly uploads some data they've been crunching offline and you get adjusted down to where you should have been all along.

It always feels demoralizing like a curse but that traffic "was never really yours". You were on borrowed time and blessed to see what it's like to win some. This happens all the time. It's the rule and not the exception for people working hard on sites in their early stages.

Is it a site that is pre-made with some content and then left to sit for 6-12 months?

Yeah, the pre-built "done for you" sites is what this refers to. "We chose a domain, got a logo, put 10-25 posts on it, and now you can buy it at 6 months old or whatever."

 

[bernard]

What are you guys opinion on branded vs unbranded in the long run?

When we're talking expired domains, they're usually not good for branding.

I'm not sure it matters all that much for selling the site.

 

[sadman_rahi]

In my opinion, buying the premium domain for the value of the links alone is worth way more ROI than having someone's VA's build a starter site.

What do you think of a starter site service which builds on expired domain and standard low competitive kws? By expired domain I mean dropped domain of niche relevant site which has 2-3 niche relevant backlinks.

Do you think that this kind of service has a demand in the market? If so, then how niche is the market?

As for starter sites, my main concern would be content quality. I can imagine it's not always that great.

Content quality vs kw quality which one matters more do you believe? What about cheap human written content with standard kws? I've seen industry leaders in here just throw in contents with high competitive kws with a good UI.

Also, do you think UI is a great concern when it comes to getting starter site?

Then after a certain window in time closes, sometimes as long as 6 months and even a year, Google seemingly uploads some data they've been crunching offline and you get adjusted down to where you should have been all along.

If the scenario is like this that you have $1000 to invest at first and then you'd wait until getting the first ROI from the site, then how much should I allocate for the domain and contents? Considering I'll do my own kw research and content creation.

 

[bernard]

Content quality vs kw quality which one matters more do you believe?

Hmmm.. tough one.

I was tempted to say content quality, because I wanted to get good user metrics from Google even if it was for easy keywords. I'd like Google to see that visitors stay on the site, that's important to gain trust.

However, my experience is also that Google doesn't hold grudges. If you improve your content, then it will rank better pretty quickly, so that speaks for just getting some keywords ranking.

I would want to avoid being seen as low quality site wide though, because that can get you in trouble.

Also, do you think UI is a great concern when it comes to getting starter site?

Yes I would think so, in so far as you want people landing on your page to stay on your page for the metrics, because Google uses more and more these user data to train their AIs.

UI is subjective though and dependent on niche, so no easy answer here imo, but I would look for stuff like a nice logo, a good About Us page and a footer with contact info and some other stuff.

 

[Ryuzaki]

What do you think of a starter site service which builds on expired domain and standard low competitive kws? By expired domain I mean dropped domain of niche relevant site which has 2-3 niche relevant backlinks.

I think 2-3 niche relevant backlinks is completely inconsequential. There's pretty much zero difference between starting a site with a domain like that and a new domain.

Also, I wouldn't want a dropped domain regardless. I want one that did not drop out of the registry and the WhoIs date remains intact, and I prefer for it to still be indexed in Google to some degree, but especially the homepage.

But 2-3 links is splitting hairs. In the long run when you have 1000's of referring domains linking in, those 2-3 links will be making and have been making nearly zero contribution to the success of your site. If you're going for "expired domain" then don't pitter patter around. Get one with 100+ high quality referring domains (not counting whatever trash there is too) with a medium-to-high link metric that you understand (DR, DA, TF, CF, etc.)

 

[bpc]

What are you guys opinion on branded vs unbranded in the long run?

When we're talking expired domains, they're usually not good for branding.

I'm not sure it matters all that much for selling the site.

I'm a fan of branded. A branded domain sounds more legit, and I think is an easier sale down the road than trying to move something like BestCordlessVacuumCleaners.com.

Also, with a partial or exact match domain you have a higher chance of over optimizing certain keywords - they are on every page, in every url, etc. In my experience Google tends to be more forgiving with branded anchor text links then they are when the domain has the keyword in it.

And a branded name also gives you more room to expand a site into shoulder niches - anything that isn't a cordless vacuum cleaner is a little out of place on the domain above, but with something like TheTidyDwelling.com can create related silos that make sense.

 

[bernard]

Because if you're going with the expired domain, your brand is not going to be as good probably, but neither would a starter site unless the people creating a starting site are good at branding.