• Welcome to DNForum.com - Domain Investor Forum, Free Domain Marketplace and a community for 45+ domain pros
    If you are new to domains and looking to buy, sell and learn about domains then you have come to the right place. DNForum is the oldest global domain name community on the internet and continues to grow every day. There are over 45,000 domainers on DNForum doing everything from buying domains, selling domains, using our free in-house built tools, learning about domains and discussing domains. Take a minute and Register.

Copy former sites...anyone ever done this?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gerry

Dances With Dogs
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2006
Messages
14,984
Reaction score
1,302
Curious to know something -

pm me if you don't want to answer in public.

Let's say you catch a dropped domain.

And that domain not only has decent age to it but it also has good history, backlinks, etc.

And it was a former active site.

There were no TM's or copyrights.



It is simply a dropped domain.

It is very easy to see what the former site looked like and what the keywords were, etc.

But now the site is no more.

How sad :disappointed:

Has anyone ever copied that former site and brought the site back to life using the same domain and the previous contents? :eek:
 
The answer is a simple no. Why would I want to copy someone else's work. It obviously didn't work out to well for them since they let it drop so I can't see it working out for me. Better to take it in a new direction don't you think?
 
It is not a question of "would you".

I am curious to know "have you" , as in anyone, ever done this?

As an example: dropping 14 year old domain, 596 Alexa back links, 14,800 Yahoo links, 484 WayBack, 9,700 Google Links of a company that has gone out of business, merged, or whatever - you can hardly call them a failure simply because the domain is dropping.

Domains with age drop for any number of reasons - some good, some so-so, some horrible reasons (death) that we simply do not know of.

To automatically think a former website and its contents and all the back links and its history and its age and its ranking is a failure simply because it (the domain) has or is dropping - well, I wish every one in the domain business saw things that way.

Sure would make things easier for me if every one felt that way.

-----------------------------------

Getting back to the question:

is this a form of scrapping?

With parking going into the gutter, taking aged sites (domains) back to their similar selves seems to be a logical choice.

Re-construction or Restoration more or less.
 
I've done it before to get a domain unbanned from Google, then once the domain had a clean bill of health, I removed the content, as I didn't want to wait around for a cease and desist.
 
I've done this once for a small Peruvian geo domain and I'm considering do it again an a recently acquiried Peruvian geo domain, where possible giving acknowledgement for the work done by the previous owners.

I seem to remember getting an e-mail from the previous owner last time saying he was pleased that the domain and information were being put to good use.
 
Sounds like what BO is doing with the old Clinton administration.

Kidding aside, why wouldn't someone copyright the result of long hours of work it takes to create a decent and original site from scratch?
The former owner might have "borrowed" the content from someone else.
 
I have done this as well. I used archive .org and did "rebuild" a site.
It kept its pr and back links.
I did change the layout/design and did as Seraphim. Removed old content, then forwarded old pages to new ones via htaccess, looking at all the 404 gave a very easy list of to dos.

I say go ahead, but change it up to make it your own once you have a handle on the name/site.
 
Yep. I have done it and it works okay but add new content sharpish :-) It works because the backlinks work in terms of people finding what they are looking for. However, a content update is good for Google. You can use archive.org to your advantage.

Edit: Keep the URL structure the same.
 
Last edited:
I have done this as well. I used archive .org and did "rebuild" a site.
It kept its pr and back links.


I say go ahead, but change it up to make it your own once you have a handle on the name/site.
EXACTLY what I was thinking. PR and backlinks drop quickly.

How rapidly did you build the site to keep the PR and backlinks?

Yep. I have done it and it works okay but add new content sharpish :-) It works because the backlinks work in terms of people finding what they are looking for. However, a content update is good for Google. You can use archive.org to your advantage.

Edit: Keep the URL structure the same.
BINGO!

New content but the structure, product/service, and overall "theme" remain the same.

Good to know.
 
EXACTLY what I was thinking. PR and backlinks drop quickly.

How rapidly did you build the site to keep the PR and backlinks?

When: Last time I did this was little over a year ago.
Time: Within 48 hours of registering the name I had the site structure and what ever content was "there" before done. (I had researched the domain previously).

I swapped out content daily until it was all replaced. It was a relatively small site and pages that I couldn't save were 301'ed to the index. Not just a blanket 404 to the index, but using cpanel stats of 404 pages to show the bots and spiders that I was taking the time and cared about those lost pages. Same for old html files --> 301 to same-name.php I could have used a handle change, but again I like the htaccess so the bots get cozy with the site.

So total time from reg-to-mini-site with new look and content: a few hours a day for 1 week.
 
Last edited:
yes, I've done it as well- not using the texts the previous owner had, but the same menus, pages, and "look and feel".This way, everybody is happy.
 
Thanks to all.

Good responses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom