Single or Multiple Redirects...Which is Better

[KevinOH]

Builders, I'm looking to buy an expired domain to redirect to my site. I'm wondering whether I should buy one domain with many links or multiple domains with smaller number of links.

Here's the situation:
i) Option 1: One domain name with 200 links, mostly to the homepage. So, this domain would just be redirected to the homepage
ii) Option 2: 4 domain names each with 50 links. With these, I can redirect one domain name to the homepage, and the other three to different categories/verticals on my site.

Which, between the two options above, will power my site better, assuming that the domain names have links with similar power.

 

[Ryuzaki]

Which, between the two options above, will power my site better, assuming that the domain names have links with similar power.

The only difference is that option 2 is going to distribute the page rank around the site with one less leap. Rather than having to go from the homepage to the categories down to the pages, you can go from the categories straight to the pages.

I think both options have problems. I realize your explanations are simplified, but I want to point out some things to anyone reading (and I don't mean to put words in your mouth below). Some of it I described recently in this thread: How does buying an expired domain to use for a website work?

Option 1:
It's going to be extremely rare that you find a domain that only has links to the homepage. If they're cheap enough there might only be good links to the homepage and the ones to inner pages suck and can be ignored.

Google also spots out manipulation by these simplified redirect schemes, like sending everything to the homepage. So you want to go the extra mile to redirect other pages to the appropriate spots, like About to About, Contact to Contact, etc. Let Google see all of that happening so trust occurs and the links aren't ignored causing you to waste your money and time.

Option 2:
What are the chances that your business acquires four separate businesses and merges them in at the same time? If I did this I'd stagger them out and I'd make sure they're completely relevant.

Sending them to separate categories sounds good in theory, but a better idea might be to create landing pages for each redirect, announcing the acquisition, explaining what the old company was about, linking out to some of the posts that existed on the old site, and then linking to prominent posts on the main site. You can spread page rank around this way all the same, but in a more controlled fashion.

Something I used to do when I was doing this type of thing was to have an Acquisitions page that listed them all by logo, linked to the old domain (which then helps Google see the redirect that leads to the landing page), described each business, linked out to some of the old posts now on the main domain, etc.

Basically the move is to make it seem as natural and realistic as possible: A real merger.

Both:
Having done this extensively in the past, my opinion is that it works, but not as good as it once did. If you want to dominate one niche, then yeah, I'd buy up sites in the niche. Not domains though. I'd look at this as an opportunity to buy both domains with links and content. Then the merger is actually real. You can set it all up on a staging server, port the content over, get the redirects together, then set it all live. Rinse and repeat. You'll get links and content for dirt cheap, especially if you can buy low earning sites or no-earning sites (ones with good content that didn't do enough promotion to get enough links).

Alternatively, I think the best move is to start new projects on powerful domains. That works in two scenarios: 1) you don't mind owning a network of sites in the same niche or 2) you're ready to expand out to new niches or verticals.

A core issue these days is how nebulous the effects of merging sites in (that don't have traffic) is. With all of the delays that blend into your own natural growth, you won't be sure if it worked or not, especially not at 200 links total. If we're talking about 5k referring domains you'll probably notice it, especially if the links are pointing at articles that you port over. If it's largely homepage to homepage, you're left in a vague state of uncertainty about just how good it worked.

For instance, I have a project that had 5 or 6 huge domains pointing in. I ultimately removed them and only lost about 10% traffic. Those domains on their own can rival the site they merged into, but as mergers they barely contributed at all. My assumption is Google spots these out and dampens their effect to a degree. Otherwise it's completely and cheaply exploitable.

 

[KevinOH]

Alternatively, I think the best move is to start new projects on powerful domains. That works in two scenarios: 1) you don't mind owning a network of sites in the same niche or 2) you're ready to expand out to new niches or verticals.

A core issue these days is how nebulous the effects of merging sites in (that don't have traffic) is. With all of the delays that blend into your own natural growth, you won't be sure if it worked or not, especially not at 200 links total. If we're talking about 5k referring domains you'll probably notice it, especially if the links are pointing at articles that you port over. If it's largely homepage to homepage, you're left in a vague state of uncertainty about just how good it worked.

That's some good food for thought.

Rather than doing redirects automatically, I think I'll just restore the sites and see what kind of traffic they get before 301'ing them to my project site. Alternatively, I'll just buy existing sites with traffic to merge with my project site.