ARTICLE AD BOX
Google’s John Mueller answered whether having 2 sites could negatively impact hunt rankings. His reply is amazingly applicable to antithetic ways of interpreting the question.
Can Having Two Sites Affect Rankings?
A idiosyncratic submitted a question to Google wherever they wanted to cognize if having 2 sites could negatively impact their rankings. The question arsenic reproduced successful Google is concise and besides a small vague which leads to the result that the question tin beryllium answered successful mode that’s antithetic from the mode that Mueller answered it.
This is the question:
“My rankings person dropped owed to Google uncovering retired I person 2 websites. Is this correct?”
Google’s John Mueller answered:
“No. That’s not likely. Many radical person respective websites. Separate websites are not a problem.
The contented is often much indirect: if you enactment connected a batch of websites, you’re not going to person a batch of clip to marque genuinely awesome websites everywhere. And, if you’re making websites that aren’t awesome, past that tin beryllium thing which our algorithms prime up connected erstwhile it comes to recommending your tract to others.”
A Different Way To Answer The Question
John Mueller answered the question nether the presumption that the 2 sites successful the question are connected antithetic topics. He prefaced his reply by saying that galore “people person respective websites” which is true.
But galore radical don’t person aggregate websites connected the aforesaid topic. The idiosyncratic asking the question was vague astir whether the sites were astir antithetic topics, too.
It’s precise imaginable that the sites are connected the aforesaid topic, successful which lawsuit it makes consciousness wherefore they whitethorn beryllium acrophobic that Google recovered retired astir the 2 sites due to the fact that it could beryllium seen arsenic trying to crippled Google. After all, who worries astir having aggregate sites connected antithetic topics?
If the sites were connected the aforesaid taxable past the reply to the question is somewhat different.
One of the important considerations erstwhile 1 idiosyncratic controls aggregate sites connected the aforesaid taxable is that they’re doing it for ranking purposes which is not a bully starting constituent for immoderate website.
I’m not saying there’s thing corrupt astir the signifier but I americium saying that it’s not truly the champion starting point for creating signals of quality. It’s not a substance of idiosyncratic reasoning that they’re going to make aggregate precocious prime sites for users, right?
Another crushed wherefore radical make aggregate sites for ranking (and not quality) is due to the fact that radical consciousness if they divided up a taxable into subsidiary subtopics they tin make stronger sites astir those related subtopics arsenic opposed to 1 tract with aggregate related subtopics.
But what astir inevitably happens is that they upwind up moving aggregate related sites that could beryllium stronger unneurotic arsenic 1 authoritative website.
I asked Bill Hartzer of Hartzer Consulting (Facebook profile) if helium thought aggregate sites connected the aforesaid taxable could impact rankings.
Bill agreed with maine and shared:
“A batch of people, aft gathering a website that ranks well, volition deliberation that they tin simply make different website connected the aforesaid taxable and “make treble the money” oregon get “double the traffic” and it’s simply not true.
Companies volition besides person 1 main website, but they’ll make a abstracted website connected a abstracted domain sanction for each of their products oregon services. Over the past 10 years oregon so, that hasn’t been a bully strategy. While it’s bully to registry the domain names of your products oregon services, it’s amended to harvester each those websites into 1 main, much authoritative website.
Typically if they’re connected the aforesaid topic, 1 website, the archetypal site, volition proceed to fertile well. But the 2nd website doesn’t fertile arsenic well. In astir cases, it’s ever amended to harvester the websites into 1 website.”
Multiple Sites And Rankings
John Mueller is close that publishing aggregate sites (on antithetic topics) could compromise a person’s quality to absorption connected 1 tract to marque it outstanding, remarking that there’s an indirect antagonistic effect connected rankings. He is besides close successful saying that it’s improbable to person a nonstop antagonistic effect connected rankings.
Changing the question to whether there’s an effect connected ranking if the aggregate sites are connected the aforesaid topic, past the reply becomes much nuanced but travel a akin trajectory arsenic Mueller’s archetypal reply that it detracts from being capable to make 1 outstanding tract and tin pb to a idiosyncratic creating aggregate middling sites.
But that’s not needfully a foregone decision erstwhile a idiosyncratic is creating aggregate sites connected antithetic topics. It’s perfectly imaginable to make aggregate sites connected antithetic topics and to beryllium palmy astatine it. It mightiness beryllium hard for 1 idiosyncratic unsocial to propulsion it disconnected but it’s not hard to bash erstwhile aggregate radical are moving connected the websites creating contented and focusing connected promotion.
Watch/listen to the Google SEO Office hours astatine the 33 2nd mark:
Featured Image by Shutterstock/Asier Romero
English (US)