What would be better for SEO: Link DB or article DB?

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

What would be better for SEO: Link DB or article DB?

Would a content DB or a Link DB be better for SEO?

pood

5:13 pm on Nov 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Last night I just came up with a new idea for a site. There's 2 ways I can do it, through a link directory type site or have the whole content or at least partial (with an link back of course).

Which one would be better for SEO? I'll probably put Adwords or some PPC ads on their once it gets a following.

I've read recently that google doesn't like it when their is duplicate content and especially when the site that has a duplicate content is linking back to the original and the original isn't linking back.

[edited by: caveman at 5:19 pm (utc) on Nov. 1, 2006]
[edit reason] Removed specific site mention, per TOS [/edit]

LifeinAsia

6:27 pm on Nov 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

So you want to have just a bunch of links or a bunch of duplicate content with links?

What's the new idea in that? What type of value are you adding to the page besides just links and/or content that can be found elsewhere on the Internet?

I'm not asking to sound mean- this is exactly the question that Google (and other earch engines) will ask when they visit the page: what value does this page add to what's already on the Internet? If there's good added value, then (theoretically) the SEs will index the page and rank it highly. If there is no added value, then why waste more storage space with what's already indexed.

pood

6:49 pm on Nov 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

I do plan on having fresh new content, actually that's how I plan on promoting the site, but I would like to populate the site so surfers will have lots to read.

The idea is very unique (so I'm not going to post what it is), of course I've seen a couple site that is very niche specific, but I'm looking to make a repository of all niches.

LifeinAsia

7:03 pm on Nov 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

My guess is that if you include duplicate content on your site, it's going to dilute the value of your own original content. However, if you provide a lot of links to related sites, that will be better from an SEO standpoint.

That's my $.02.

jimbeetle

7:09 pm on Nov 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

have the whole content or at least partial (with an link back of course).

The way you phrased through in the "with a link back of course" kind of makes me wonder.

Is this going to be a repository of articles from other article-type sites that allow reposting of content as long as there is a link back?

Or, is it going to be a repository of articles that you collect from around the web and are going to provide a link back as acknowledgment of the source?

If it's the first, you're okay. If it's the second, you might want to go with your link directory option so you don't wind up running afoul of copyright laws.

pood

10:07 pm on Nov 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

I had a little more time to think about this today.

The articles that will be submitted by users or written by me will have the entire article on the site.

Content that are from other sites will have short summaries with link to full articles. That way I won't have to worry about potential lawsuits and duplicate content.