Google and Parked Pages

[amplify]

I've read in the forum that Google will rate a page low and not crawl it for a while if it's found to be parked. This could decrease minisites previously parked from being indexed quicker. I have been taking some of my sites out of parking and creating minisites for them. I've found that Google will still crawl the page (with Webalizer stats) almost daily but the content isn't indexed on Google because it still shows the parked page for the cached content. If it's crawled, why isn't the cache updated (or indexed)? Is this because it was once parked?

[DomainSearch]

I've read in the forum that Google will rate a page low and not crawl it for a while if it's found to be parked. This could decrease minisites previously parked from being indexed quicker. I have been taking some of my sites out of parking and creating minisites for them. I've found that Google will still crawl the page (with Webalizer stats) almost daily but the content isn't indexed on Google because it still shows the parked page for the cached content. If it's crawled, why isn't the cache updated (or indexed)? Is this because it was once parked?

Since the bots came around in the past and see it was a parked page they stop coming, give it some time and get a few good links and the sites serps should go up quickly. The pages will get indexed.

[Bodis.com]

Yes, Google and most other search engines want to decrease mini-sites from the index, from the world-wide web, from anywhere.

They don't want it. Most mini sites don't give a good user experience. The Google team wants either fully developed websites or parked pages. No in-between gray area mini-sites, mfa sites, or any other garbage spam linking sites that don't give much user experience.

So yes, their goal is to compose an index of only well developed, great user-experience, websites.

And I estimate 2 years from now there will be NO parked pages or min-sites or mfa sites in their index. It's going to be their next big clean up process.

[NosajiX]

And I estimate 2 years from now there will be NO parked pages or min-sites or mfa sites in their index. It's going to be their next big clean up process.

I dunno 'bout that, mini-sites help in a lot of ways, and they definitely earn well because of their existance

[David G]

I don't understand how some here (in this thread and others) believe a parked page is better vs a good minisite

[HWW]

I've read in the forum that Google will rate a page low and not crawl it for a while if it's found to be parked.

Would the same apply to googles own "adsense for parked pages"

[dcristo]

I would have to disagree with ShytKicker as well.

I don't understand the logic that parked pages provide a better user experience then mini sites.

The main goal for G is to serve up relevant results, whether it be a mini site or portal site it doesn't matter. Keep in mind that G ranks pages not sites.

Larger sites tend to rank better because they have more authority and more pages indexed, hence more internal links. It's hard to get a small site noticed...

[Focus]

Parked pages are better because the users get jumped right off to a "real" website and everyone makes money... "mini-sites" are more like competitors to the real sites imo

But I am kinda high so who really knows wtf I am talking about....I know I don't lol

[dejanlesi]

Get your sitemap into your webmaster tools, build a few good backlinks, ping you site and/or post/s on a few pinging service and google will come running.. That is the simplest way to get indexed fast..

[katherine]

I would have to disagree with ShytKicker as well.

I don't understand the logic that parked pages provide a better user experience then mini sites.

What he says perfectly makes sense, and the writing has been on the wall for years already.

What google don't want is MFA and crappy minisites that provide no quality content and exist just for the purpose of collecting clicks (poor user experience).
So yes, I think that in the near future google will drop undeveloped/underdeveloped domains from the index completely. Right now parked domains are ranking badly. Soon they will not rank at all.

The choice is yours: have parked domains that receive (quality) type-in traffic, or develop fully-fledged websites.
In the end, Big G wants nothing in between. It's all about quality, and that's how google makes surfers happy.

[dcristo]

Kate - You are telling me parked pages provide a better user experience then a mini site? How so? You actually agreed with everything I basically said.

What I was suggesting was if the option was parking or creating a mini site, go the development route. You can always develop the mini site into a more robust site later on.

[katherine]

Parking exists for a reason, and some domains perform well (high CTR). So yes for some parked domains (not all), the user experience is rather positive. In particular with type-in traffic, which is considered to be quality traffic, because it usually means the visitors know where they want to go.
Such domains don't depend on being indexed in search engines.

Basically there are two strategies available to us:
1. park domains but do not rely on SEO at all.
You then need to have good domains that receive type-in traffic. After all direct navigation is the idea behind parking. Clearly, the vast majority of parked domains don't get type-in and are hopeless.

2. develop hard and take full advantage of SEO

What Big G don't want is promote domains with no contents. If surfers actually type in the domain, all is fine. Type-in circumvents search engines. On the other hand, if they are redirected to a parked page from search engine results, they will most of the time consider it's spam. Internet users don't want search results that include garbage pages (that includes parked domains).
That's the way I see it.

[dcristo]

Sure, parking has it's purpose. There are plenty of lazy domainers with huge domain portfolios who have no time for development. They park their domains and in some cases even get a good CTR with them. But this doesn't mean it's the best option for their domains.

With parking you are limiting your traffic and revenue potential by putting a ceiling on how much you can make. You have one traffic source (type-in traffic) and one revenue stream, and since you can't promote the domains there is no room for growth.

If you take the development option, you can increase traffic through SEO (even if it's a mini site, but preferable to build a full fledged site) It also gives you the option of monetizing though other revenue streams such as affiliate programs, direct banner ads, etc.

[Gerry]

I have been taking some of my sites out of parking and creating minisites for them.

If this is something you have recently done, it may take awhile (month or so) to show up in the results.

Plus, it is crucial that you not only have relevant content but up-to-date and current content.

[katherine]

Sure, parking has it's purpose. There are plenty of lazy domainers with huge domain portfolios who have no time for development. They park their domains and in some cases even get a good CTR with them. But this doesn't mean it's the best option for their domains.

It's because parking is scalable, quality development is not. Some people will tell you that mass development is the answer but I mean quality development, compelling websites.
Let's face it: we are lazy and/or busy but it's difficult to get hundreds of domains off the ground at a time.

Personally I see minisites as a transient action ie. to keep some SEO juice and avoid dropping off the index completely.

[Bodis.com]

LOL Chris.

There are two major problems here. #1, as sdsinc has stated, no one wants sites existing for just generating clicks. Why? Because most of their traffic is from Google and other search engines itself. If Google wanted to, they'd display sponsored search ads instead of your site and make even more money AND get the user DIRECTLY to advertiser, so they figure that they do not need sites like these.

Most mini sites are built around the idea of bringing in revenue from Adsense or similar. And if it's not Adsense, then that does even more damage to Google. If they wanted to make the most money, they'd go the route of Dogpile.com, and replace search links with search ads. They'd probably multiply their revenue x 20. Who knows, maybe they one day will start playing around with this idea. Just wait for another financial crisis and I'm sure they'll be hard pressed to grow revenue just like they did during this one, which is why they are a good company.

But the point here is, when it comes to their search engine, they want quality sites on there, not quantity. When it comes to parked domain names, it's a different ball game. They still don't like if parked visitors are coming from a search engine, but they do like if they are type-in visitors - since the type-in market is one they cannot win over. I know for a fact that their requirements for parking partners is NO MINI SITES ALLOWED. This is a fact that has been known by many. If you are a google domain partner, you can't run google ads on mini sites. They do NOT approve it. Mini sites drop CTR and provide a not so great user experience. They want either great developed sites on their search engine, or parked domains that get the type-in visitors directly to advertiser - nothing in between.

When it comes to mass development of mini sites - make sure you host it on seperate servers. 500 sites per server. Otherwise it will be banned by Google, Bing, and soon by Yahoo (once they merge).

I believe the automated developed of mass mini sites is one of these things that has been spread around by the "domain industry celebrities" that we know, and they keep talking about it and everyone thinks it is the route to go. I believe it is not. But I guess we will see how it all turns out a few years from now.

I'd bet more money on the survival of domain parking than mass development.

[PokerPie]

Google does not view parked pages as better than mini-sites, they view them both the same - as useless spam they do not want to show up in their search results. They are just currently better at determining what is a parked page than they are at determining what is an MFA mini-site. I agree they will eventually figure mini-sites out and de-index all/most of them - how fast they do this depends upon how widespread the use of them becomes. If companies like Demand Media keep churning out MFA garbage by the thousands of pages per day, they'll be on to us a lot quicker - if mini-sites/mfa sites remain a relatively low proportion of overall websites on the internet, and thus show up somewhat infrequently in search results, they will be slower about nuking them.

If things continue as they are now, 80% of the top results for all but the most competitive of terms will be MFA or mini-sites with a year or two, so Google will be forced to do something about it. We are now collectively forcing their hand.

[dcristo]

It seems we are talking about two different things here...

Mass development and mini sites. I don't always associate them as being the same thing.

Mass development is just glorified parking.

When I refer to mini sites, typically they will have 5-25 pages of content and while they are not comprehensive, the quality of content can still be decent. It's these type of sites which I don't feel G has a problem with and you can still get them to rank.

[Bodis.com]

Yes two different things, but both the same thing I'd have to say in Google's eyes based on the knowledge I have collected.

The difference here is that mass developed mini sites are easier for them to crack down on. The end goal is to get rid of all mini sites, but they are starting from the easiest - the mass developed since it is easy to weed these out of the SERPs.

And to PokerPie: I didn't say Google thinks parked pages are better than mini sites for search results. Both are bad (parking definitely worse ofcourse), but what I am saying is that Google doesn't even want to publish their ads on mini sites. If I was a big company with hundreds / thousands of successful mini sites, bringing in millions, and go to Google - I'd probably get declined for a strategic deal. But not with big sites or parked domains.

End goal: Get rid of everything from results that is not a full scale developed website. That is their mission I believe. If you're going to put your money into something, put it into a full scale developed website / business, or into domain names. I think creating 1 business and focusing on it is the best way to go. Google will always like you, and you'll be set for another 40 years.

[murphyteam]

Does anyone know where to get information on the history of parked page revenue? I need to know if there were parked pages, garnering revenue, as early as 2002.