Which domain?

Admin · Jul 12, 2014

Looking for some SEO advice...

I have a .org.uk domain registered since 2011 with a website on.

I just regged the .co.uk and .uk as both were available.

Do I move the site to the .uk and point the other 2 domains to it or do I leave the site as is and point the new domains to the orginal site?

Just wondering how much weight Google puts on the age of a domain.

Thanks!

Admin

Murray · Jul 12, 2014

admin said:
Just wondering how much weight Google puts on the age of a domain.

It looks at what's been on the domain & the links, not really the domain by itself

If you put the site on the co.uk or .uk and 301 the org.uk then the links and ranking and "authority" will be passed over to the co.uk, doesn't matter if the domains themselves have just been registered.

Adam H · Jul 12, 2014

If you feel the need for the rebrand and have good reason to do so then do it and 301 like Murray said, 301's pass the same kind of Juice as a normal link would ( confirmed by Matt back last year : http://www.seroundtable.com/redirects-links-pagerank-16419.html )

However if there is no reason for you to redirect the old to new domain then dont bother. The isnt any "need" to switch unless you have good reason for doing so, like you said you can simply point the co.uk and uk to the current site.

murph · Jul 12, 2014

Murray said:
It looks at what's been on the domain & the links, not really the domain by itself If you put the site on the co.uk or .uk and 301 the org.uk then the links and ranking and "authority" will be passed over to the co.uk, doesn't matter if the domains themselves have just been registered.

But there is surely a % of link juice lost? I read that it's around 85% passed on by 301

Http://www.moz.com/blog/save-your-website-with-redirects

Adam H · Jul 12, 2014

murph said:
But there is surely a % of link juice lost? I read that it's around 85% passed on by 301

Http://www.moz.com/blog/save-your-website-with-redirects

The link i posted above explains that, normal links also have dissipation of a small percentage , equally so do 301 redirects.

Providing you 301 properly it will be fine, that moz post is throwing something out there that just panic's people for no reason

murph · Jul 12, 2014

Rivmedia said:
The link i posted above explains that, normal links also have dissipation of a small percentage , equally so do 301 redirects. Providing you 301 properly it will be fine, that moz post is throwing something out there that just panic's people for no reason

Yeah I've seen the M Cutts vid, just saying that Moz seem to think according to their own testing there may be some link juice lost in the process.

Adam H · Jul 12, 2014

murph said:
Yeah I've seen the M Cutts vid, just saying that Moz seem to think according to their own testing there may be some link juice lost in the process.

Its hear say, its virtually impossible to measure with so many variables without access to the algorithm . Much like is said here in the comments :

http://moz.com/blog/save-your-website-with-redirects#comment-226719

His "statistic" was sampled years ago which he then points to Matts video as "confirming nothing" although its pretty black and white to someone who isnt protecting his made up stat.

Dont get me wrong Matt talks like he wrote the bible and his general wording could mean 1000 different things but you'll also get people read too much into things.

Nearly everything in SEO is catch 22 if you listen to everything you read, for example the correct way redirecting a site is 301, and then to start doing a bit of outreach to ask some of the more authoritative backlinks to change to the new URL , HOWEVER by asking for that change you then take away the aged backlink authority "which apparently" also exists.

301's done properly is "the" recommended form to relocate a site, if it was hugely detrimental it woudnt be advised , especially these days you have Google webmaster tools which you can also tell google the URL has changed which will help with the 301 pass through.

Murray · Jul 12, 2014

murph said:
But there is surely a % of link juice lost? I read that it's around 85% passed on by 301

Http://www.moz.com/blog/save-your-website-with-redirects

That's interesting, first time I've seen someone put an actual figure on it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Filv4pP-1nw

Matt Cutts talking about it

It used to be advised that you might want to ask webmasters to change their links to your new domain where possible to negate losing any link juice from the 301

I read the other day though that an ex google employee said links that have been modified may be trusted less

http://www.seroundtable.com/google-link-change-trust-18790.html

It's interesting to think about trust and pagerank and the like

As we know, sites with the highest visible pagerank don't always rank the highest, so if you do a 301 are you just losing pagerank or are you also losing a % of "trust" or something else

From my experiences as long as a move is done properly any difference in rankings have been minimal, but they haven't been is massively competitive niches.

Obviously the higher the stakes the less you want to potentially rock the boat if you don't need to.

Adam H · Jul 12, 2014

Murray said:
It used to be advised that you might want to ask webmasters to change their links to your new domain where possible to negate losing any link juice from the 301

I read the other day though that an ex google employee said links that have been modified may be trusted less

Exactly what i just mentioned above Murray