301ing Pages & Moving Content To Many Other Domains

[94501]

Recently started working with a large site that, for reasons way beyond organic search, wants to forward internal pages to a variety of external sites.

Some of these external sites that would receive the content from the old site are owned, admin'd and/or hosted by the old site, most are not. All of the sites receiving content would be a better topic fit for that content than the original site. The process is not all at once, but gradual over time. No internal links on the old site to the old page or the new site/url would exist post content move and 301ing. The forwarding is mostly to help Google realize the host site of this content is not hosting duplicate content, but is the one true copy. Also, to pick up external links to the old pages for the new host site.

It's a little like domain name change, but not really since the old site will continue to exist and the new sites are a variety of new/previously existing sites that may or may not share ownership/admin etc.

In most cases, we won't be able to change any external link pointing to the original site and will just be 301ing the old url to the contents new home on another site.

Since this is pretty unusual (like I wouldn't get up in the morning and choose to do this for the heck of it), here are my three questions:

• Is there any organic search risk to the old site or the sites receiving the old content/301 in this maneuver?

• Will the new sites pick up the link equity benefit on pages that had third party/followed links continuing to point to the old site but resolving via the 301 to this totally different domain?

• Any other considerations?

Thanks! Best... Mike

[EGOL]

Will this help the sites that receive the content?    Yes.  They will acquire content that they can display to their visitors.  That content should appear in the search engines and pull in traffic.  The 301s will redirect links that might help rankings and deliver click-through traffic.

Will the content rank in the search engines as well on the new sites as it did on the old sites?  Maybe better, maybe worse, probably not the same.  When you move content from Site A to Site B, that content loses the domain authority that it enjoyed on Site A.  If Site A is powerful, authoritative and topically relevant to the moved content and Site B is not, then lower rankings in the search engines for the content on Site B would be expected.  If Site B is more powerful, authoritative and topically relevant then rankings might be higher there,  Maybe.  No guarantees.

The value of the redirected links is questionable.  The links into the content on Site A that will be redirected.  If they duplicate the domains or pages of the links already hitting Site B then the lift that they will give to Site B will be minimal.  However, if they are all uniquely new to Site B then their lift should be positive.

Finally, will moving all of this content damage Site A?   Yes.  This is cutting out body parts similar to arms and organs.  When this content leaves the traffic flow into Site A will drop.  The number of linking domains and pages will drop.  The offer of this content to entertain existing visitors will be gone.  The size of that loss will determine the impact.  Rankings of remaining content might fall if the loss is great.    If arms and legs or heart or brain are extracted then expect Site A to suffer.  But if lesser things are lost then the damage will be lower but some damage will happen.  Search engines and visitors will all notice.  Enthusiastic visitors will find the content in its new home and they might move with it.

Content moves from one site to another happen often.  Sometimes the content is moved for strategic purposes, sometimes tactical purposes, sometimes it is sold for a nice price.  There are many reasons.  The alternative to the 301 is the rel=canonical.  Each has its advantages, risks and shortcomings.  The rel=canonical allows Site A to continue to use the content but any ranking value supposedly transfers to Site B.  How much?  Only the search engines know how they process that.  My experience with rel=canonical is that it is valuable to consolidate the power of content that appears in multiple places on a single site.  I don't see it sending a lot of value from one domain to another.  Just an observation.  I don't know of anyone who has written the results of carefully controlled experiments.

[94501]

Hi Egol,

Once again I am acquainted with why you are objectively ranked #1 in the Moz community. That was encyclopedic!

Yes, I should have mentioned that I understand site A losing externally linked content would hurt site A.

What I was really getting at, which you answered, is that it's no search crime against humanity to effectively part-out a site. It's not viewed by Google as "what the heck are you doing?" ... for all concerned.

Thank you for the insight.

Best... Mike

[danatanseo]

Hi Mike,

EGOL's answer is a good one. You should mark it so (hint, hint, nudge,nudge, know what I mean?)

Cheers,

Dana

[94501]

Yes, thanks Dana!

Best... Mike

[Joe.Robison]

This is a great metaphor:

"Finally, will moving all of this content damage Site A?   Yes.  This is cutting out body parts similar to arms and organs.  When this content leaves the traffic flow into Site A will drop.  The number of linking domains and pages will drop.  The offer of this content to entertain existing visitors will be gone.  The size of that loss will determine the impact.  Rankings of remaining content might fall if the loss is great.    If arms and legs or heart or brain are extracted then expect Site A to suffer.  But if lesser things are lost then the damage will be lower but some damage will happen.  Search engines and visitors will all notice.  Enthusiastic visitors will find the content in its new home and they might move with it."

Will definitely be using this for future explanations!