Launching now vrs. launching later with optimized content

[dopeideas]

I'm working on an informational affiliate website with the goal of making it a major authority in it's niche. I'm behind schedule on it's launch. I have a lot of content almost ready, but it needs significant editing and optimization (sales funnel organizations, readability improvements, on-site SEO)

My question is: how better off I am launching now to get indexed and start getting out of the sandbox versus waiting and optimizing the site prior to launching? If I wait, will I make a significantly better impression on Google.

I have enough content to launch, but it will be revised with significant changes. I also need to narrow down my site structure, so changes to page hierarchy and URLs may be implemented.

I know that standard advice is generally to launch early to get indexed and improve your content as you go. I guess I'm just wondering how true this traditional wisdom is, and wondering if Google might give preferential treatment to a website that is more wholesome and solidly optimized from the get-go rather than improved over 1+ month.

I also realize the holiday season is quickly coming. Since this is a new site, should that even factor into this decision? Are long-tail keyword holiday sales still reasonable?

 

[Augustus]

In my experience, the first three months (or there about), nobody reads your content, unless you're spending money on social channels. If your main strategy is SEO, then very few people would see the content, lest to talk of poor quality.

Bots can not complain about readability and grammar. If the site is empty, they won't come visiting. If you have some contents on it however, they would crawl your site and get it ready for index.

I know guys that buy domain, post one or two article on it and let it sit for a year or six months (I don't know if that helps with sandbox). Anyway, you have nothing to loose if you post now and edit later.

 

[bbbyet]

I have few site all new, and nobody reads anything...
but they are moving from page 7 to 2 took about 2 months

So, I guess it would hurt to add two articles and get some index

 

[Ryuzaki]

As @bbbyet mentions, you could go ahead and edit and optimize a couple articles to get the domain indexed and have the benefit of having those pages indexed and aging too. It's not just the age of the domain that you want to worry about, but the age of the individual pages too. But getting past the 'domain age' hurdle would help.

I'd go that route of slapping up a couple articles to age the domain and at least those articles. But I'd make sure you figure out your URL hierarchy first. I wouldn't index 50 articles, re-optimize them, then restructure the whole site with a ton of 301's. Some of that stuff needs to be figured out first. I'd try to get the pages indexed at the URL they will live at permanently.

Can you get away with doing it the step-by-step way? Probably. Would I want to? No. There are a lot more on-page and on-site signals than the content alone. I would want the more subtle things in place and ready, not to changed about in bulk.

 

[bernard]

Ryuzaki, wouldn't you worry about having Brand and UE in place already?

Seems to me Google tests your site with traffic at intervals and rank according to how it behaves. Am I right or wrong there?

Launching only when brand identity is in place?

 

[Ryuzaki]

Ryuzaki, wouldn't you worry about having Brand and UE in place already?

Yeah, I would. I don't launch a site until I have the categories fleshed out enough to look full. That can mean waiting while writing or having content written, or restricting the number of categories at first (can still look bad).

I don't care that much about the branding at launch beyond having a logo and color scheme up (not worried about off-site branding), but I would want the user experience in place. I'd want to reduce bounce rates and increase time on site, for sure. I'd want it optimized and fast. Like you're saying, when Google sends you that trickle of traffic to get the user experience metrics started, I want to take advantage and hopefully land some decent long-tail rankings right off the bat.

The OP doesn't seem to be talking about drastic time periods though. If it was "push out a couple articles and try to drip one in when I can, and this gives me a 3 month head start" then yeah I'd do that. The age factor is no joke these days. It's very strict. Getting over that hump ASAP is a big deal for SEO. If he's talking about 2 weeks or whatever I'd wait. But a 1/4th of a year, I'd get going.

 

[dopeideas]

@Augustus With search optimization as a primary strategy, I agree that no one really reads your content at launch and that by publishing a few articles you can get your domain to start aging, build up page age, and start ranking on page two to seven in the SERPS.

My concern with launching in this state is not perception by visitors, but my first impression I make with Google. Will google treat a complete, quality, optimized site better than a site that launches earlier and is gradually improved to the same level of quality and optimization?

Most people recommend to launch asap even if it's a few articles or incomplete content. What I'm getting at with this thread is whether or not that advice is right. My intuition says launching with complete, quality, optimized content is better than a limited launch that is improved to the same standard of completion.

You say bots cannot complain about readability and grammar. My concern is that in 2017, they can.

They can complain to Google and extend your sandbox, place an unofficial light penalty, or prevent an accelerated rise in SERPS you might have otherwise achieved.

I'd go that route of slapping up a couple articles to age the domain and at least those articles. But I'd make sure you figure out your URL hierarchy first. I wouldn't index 50 articles, re-optimize them, then restructure the whole site with a ton of 301's. Some of that stuff needs to be figured out first. I'd try to get the pages indexed at the URL they will live at permanently.

Can you get away with doing it the step-by-step way? Probably. Would I want to? No. There are a lot more on-page and on-site signals than the content alone. I would want the more subtle things in place and ready, not to changed about in bulk.

This is actually my current hold up and has put me significantly behind schedule. Selecting the correct site structure and URLs is a serious hold up at this point. I've read on the subject thoroughly but am still struggled to get it right. I'm not sure how much is analysis paralysis or if I'm right in trying to figure this out 100%.

Issues I've Encountered with Site Structure:

• Pages vrs. Posts (opted for pages about 80% of the time)
• Permalink Hierarchy
• Keyword Choice in URL (long keyword-dense vrs. simple/clean but lacking keywords)
• Organizing Overlapping Content (i.e. specific guide, product reviews, greater topic which encompasses the guide, determining how to best incorporate that into URL structure)
• Setting Up Silos for My Cornerstone Content (organizing/mapping content, determining if "virtual silos are acceptable" in my situation)
• Determining How to Integrate a Sales Funnel Into a Silo (great idea, problem is if my primary silo page is a comprehensive guide on the topic, how can it be the sales/money page?)

...and of course additional keyword research to make sure I select the best keywords in URLs and page titles.

At a certain point one needs to just pull the trigger, but I'm getting caught up in the importance of site structure.

Like you're saying, when Google sends you that trickle of traffic to get the user experience metrics started, I want to take advantage and hopefully land some decent long-tail rankings right off the bat.

The OP doesn't seem to be talking about drastic time periods though. If it was "push out a couple articles and try to drip one in when I can, and this gives me a 3 month head start" then yeah I'd do that. The age factor is no joke these days. It's very strict. Getting over that hump ASAP is a big deal for SEO. If he's talking about 2 weeks or whatever I'd wait. But a 1/4th of a year, I'd get going.

@Ryuzaki, your last post is what I'm really getting at here If you wait and launch full force, is there a significant advantage you can catch, one which outweighs a 1-3 month headstart with a weaker content base?

If an advantage does exists, can non-polished/optimized content reach parity once it reaches the same level of quality and optimization?

I know no one really has the answer unless they've done extensive testing, but this could be a significant ranking factor.

 

[Tenison]

Most people recommend to launch asap even if it's a few articles or incomplete content. What I'm getting at with this thread is whether or not that advice is right.

I'm not sure who is recommending putting up incomplete articles? You mean articles with just title and h1s? I don't think that that is promoted here.

Either way - Launch Already.

You will get your feedback from google as how they see your site. No one else can tell you that especially not knowing anything about company, kwds etc. Look at how the site is treated by Google and make your moves according to your observations.

To start, go look at how the sites in your niche are laid out. What are the top 10-20 sites on your main kwds look like? What is their structure. Do they have anything in common? Something that you can mimic?

IMO sitting in an unpublished state does it no good whatsoever and you learn nothing. You are getting no feedback at all.

+Google loves updated content

 

[dopeideas]

@Tenison that's for the post bro.

When I said unfinished content what I really mean is unfinalized/unoptimized. A second or third draft that can be improved, without on-page optimization, specific keyword targets, etc.

I've been researching the competitors within my first topics sub category to get a better ideas. It's a somewhat competitive topic with poor UI and lacks some comprehensive resources.

I agree with you, I'm already 2-3 weeks behind. It's not doing me any favors.