Welcome to the Q&A Forum

<a name="_GoBack"></a>I have a real estate client who creates individual property sites (mini-sites), each with their own URL (123MainStreet.com), each linking to 2 or 3 diverse pages on the main broker site (main site). There are a couple thousand on these pages at any one time, feeding into a large broker site.

The SEO effect of these mini-sites is that there are many incoming links to the main site from various URLs, however, the mini-sites have little SEO relevance, given that there are few, if any inbound links to the mini-sites themselves, and the mini-sites only exist for the market life of a property.

My question is: Does it make more SEO sense to create a series of pages (externalsite.com/123mainstreet) on a single site that already has good traction and relevance?  The inbound links to the main site will have more relevance, but they will all be coming from the same domain (or subdomain).  And although the links will all be coming from the same external site, the inbound links will be from a variety of pages on external site to a variety of pages on the main site.

Any insight would be appreciated.

Would you pay to post good content on a site relevant to your audience that has good domain authority to boot? Depends on the site and depends on the content.

We don't charge our guest bloggers (yochicago.com), but we vet them pretty heavily - they need to contribute something to our audience.  But we do blog on behalf of sponsors - and since we're doing the writing - it's always relevant (to some degree at least).  Our readers comment on our (clearly identified) sponsored content's relevance occasionally, but generally understand that someone has to pay the bills.  It's a pretty effective means of advertising / editorial / authority-building in one.

I could see paying to guest blog on the right site as being more effective than starting your own under certain circumstances.

My company runs a real estate site (http://yochicago.com) that features editorial blog and video content. In our footer, we feature links to some of our client sites.  That footer is global, i.e., on every page of the site, of which there are thousands.

One of our clients has been hit by Google for unnatural links.  While I am very aware of them using a network of junk sites (http://www.seomoz.org/q/can-our-white-hat-links-get-a-bad-rap-when-they-re-alongside-junk-links-busted-by-panda), could we be contributing to the problem?

Our site has the most links into the troubled site.

My firm has been creating content for a client for years - video, blog posts and other references.

This client's web vendor has been using bad links and link farms to bolster rank for key phrases - successfully.  Until last week when Google slapped them. They have been officially warned on WMT for possibly using artificial or unnatural links to build PageRank.

They went from page one of the most popular term in Chicago for their industry where they had been for over a year - to page 8 - overnight.  Other less generic terms that we were working on felt the sting as well.

I was aware of and had warned the client of the possibility of repercussions from these black hat tactics (http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-google-makes-liars-out-of-the-good-guys-in-seo#jtc170969), but didn't go as far as to recommend they abandon them.

Now I'm wondering if one of our legitimate sites (YoChicago.com), which has more than its share of the links into the client site is being considered a bad link.  All of our links are legitimate, i.e., anchor text equals description of destination, video links describe the entity that is linked to.  Our we vulnerable?

Any insight would be appreciated.

My firm does some of the same as you describe - creates content for clients with supporting inbound links for their websites.  We also do subsequent social distribution to our clients social venues and to our own.

We experimented with the automated distribution (and still employ it in certain situations), but have found that there isn't nearly as much engagement - which is what really matters as social signals if you're looking for SEO value.

Automated submission frequently misses images or picks the wrong one, totally skips video, and most importantly doesn't allow you to comment on what you're submitting - a key attention getter and response generator.

Yeah, it takes time, but so does good content, which is what it's all about.

Under the 'no panacea' category, Simon and Alan are right.  Authority means just that and the best way to become one and hence give your website some is to display it online.  It's hard and time consuming but it's the only method that builds and lasts.

Given that pages are viewed independently of one another, the only consistency that matters is if you're consistently using keyword strings that would tend to surface for the broadest range of queries 'remove chocolate stains'.  That said, competition may require that you get more specific, i.e., 'remove x stains from y'.  Consistency will make it easier to test and get a feel for what works over time.

I had a feeling that there was something inherently wrong with my approach which is why I asked the question.  Good to know that there's folks willing to help out - thanks for the clarification(s).  And the separate town pages is a good solution.  Thanks.

Thanks. That makes sense.

Consider this though.  I should have been clearer.

The keyword phrase that I would be targeting in almost every case would be 'townname homes for sale' and/or 'townname homes'.

'Oakwood Estates' and the other community names don't really generate much traffic, and while I need them for the small amount of traffic they produce, I'm more interested in penetrating the broader area names.

Your take?

I'm recommending some on-page optimization for a home builder building in several new home communities. The site has been through some changes in the past few months and we're almost starting over.

The current URL structure is

http://homebuilder.com/oakwood/features

where

homebuilder = builder name

Oakwood Estates= name of community

features = one of several sub-paths including site plan, elevations, floor plans, etc.

The most attainable keyword phrases include the word 'home' and 'townname'

I want to change the URL path to:

http://homebuilder.com/oakwood-estates-townname-homes/features

Is there any problem with doing this?  It just seems to make a lot of sense. Any input would be appreciated.

My firm does some of the same as you describe - creates content for clients with supporting inbound links for their websites.  We also do subsequent social distribution to our clients social venues and to our own.

We experimented with the automated distribution (and still employ it in certain situations), but have found that there isn't nearly as much engagement - which is what really matters as social signals if you're looking for SEO value.

Automated submission frequently misses images or picks the wrong one, totally skips video, and most importantly doesn't allow you to comment on what you're submitting - a key attention getter and response generator.

Yeah, it takes time, but so does good content, which is what it's all about.

I had a feeling that there was something inherently wrong with my approach which is why I asked the question.  Good to know that there's folks willing to help out - thanks for the clarification(s).  And the separate town pages is a good solution.  Thanks.

Under the 'no panacea' category, Simon and Alan are right.  Authority means just that and the best way to become one and hence give your website some is to display it online.  It's hard and time consuming but it's the only method that builds and lasts.

Would you pay to post good content on a site relevant to your audience that has good domain authority to boot? Depends on the site and depends on the content.

We don't charge our guest bloggers (yochicago.com), but we vet them pretty heavily - they need to contribute something to our audience.  But we do blog on behalf of sponsors - and since we're doing the writing - it's always relevant (to some degree at least).  Our readers comment on our (clearly identified) sponsored content's relevance occasionally, but generally understand that someone has to pay the bills.  It's a pretty effective means of advertising / editorial / authority-building in one.

I could see paying to guest blog on the right site as being more effective than starting your own under certain circumstances.

Given that pages are viewed independently of one another, the only consistency that matters is if you're consistently using keyword strings that would tend to surface for the broadest range of queries 'remove chocolate stains'.  That said, competition may require that you get more specific, i.e., 'remove x stains from y'.  Consistency will make it easier to test and get a feel for what works over time.

Talk about chasing a greased pig.  Google seems to be constantly shifting its places page rankings. My page showed on page one for 'chicago real estate video' for months, then disappeared.  Sigh.  I haven't given up, but it's certainly a time-suck trying to figure it out.  Sorry this isn't really helpful - venting.