one big site or 8 smaller ones?

[rdlzr77]

With all the discussion about "big authority" vs "small authority" and niche sites being kind of dead, I am in a position of making a choice (well, I am kind of past that decision, but it can still be reversed).

Imagine I want to start a site about Motorsports (with sections like F1, Nascar, MotoGP etc). It is just an example.

For each section I will have around 20k pages (x 8 languages) -> 160k pages per section. Having also 8 sections, it means around 1,280,000 pages for the whole site (all sections, all languages).

Domain is brand new, not willing to pay a lot (if you want to have a good domain, you have to pay a lot) for a domain on which I can't choose the name and it might look ridiculous.

I am working alone on this project (backend, frontend, server etc). It's a personal project of mine, more like a challenge for me. I'll make it just for users, but even so, I am interested to make the best choice when it comes to google indexing.

This is why I want to ask you, what would you do? One big site (1,2 million pages) or 8 "smaller" sites (if 160k pages is small)?

 

[tazarbm]

I am working alone on this project (backend, frontend, server etc). It's a personal project of mine, more like a challenge for me. I'll make it just for users

go with 1 big site then...

I am interested to make the best choice when it comes to google indexing.

even more go with 1 big site as google loves authority so it will probably index easier than 8 smaller sites. Just be careful to post manually written content at first as google is becoming more and more pissed off at people doing what google does (hypocrisy, isn't it?), ie: use AI content...

This is why I want to ask you, what would you do? One big site (1,2 million pages) or 8 "smaller" sites (if 160k pages is small)?

oh, so this is YOUR idea of small... I see....

Well, when I've created "small" niche sites in the past they've had like 5-30 pages maximum, but you think that 160k pages is small LOL. I think you'll be Ok with either option in this case, the problem is that you'd have to buy 8 different domains, so probably still go with the 1 bigger site then. But when google decides they'll not like your site anymore you're kind of screwed, as if you had 8 of them 1 or 2 might be able to escape google's hatred. So, I don't know.... I'd probably still risk it all and build 1 big site, the reason being that you build it for users and as long as you have a loyal fanbase your site will survive all idiotic updates of google and you'll have your own traffic...

 

[Dgriffindors]

If I were you I would spread it over the 8 sites cos you are not going to use expired domain for the big site.

Just my 2 cent.

 

[thedorf]

Just my thoughts.

When talking about authority we're talking about EEAT. When talking about EEAT I think of it in terms of "higher" and "lower" authority - not bigger or smaller. In other words the EEAT of a smaller site can be higher than that of a bigger site.

Now is it easier to get EEAT with a smaller or larger website? I think it is easier to build EEAT with a smaller website (especially when considering websites with one million pages vs websites with 100,000 pages).

My first concern would be the possibility of google de-indexing the one big site and then most of your efforts are lost. With multiple websites you can lose one or two and still be active. I think indexing would work better with 8 smaller websites - some websites will index nicely some will not. This is another big risk for big websites.

The thing about building out 8 websites is the duplication of effort for building out the site, doing seo, maintaining themes, publishing content...all of this takes time and effort.

All things considered (well most anyway) I'd go with the 8 websites - more effort but less risk from my viewpoint.

 

[yalang]

If you’re building a site you should focus on building one damn good site that covers the entire niche, and the user intent.

If you are alone, given the current situation with search marking as well as SEO, I will recommend that you opt in for 1 big website and focus on it with all your resources, blood, sweat, grind and money.

 

[rdlzr77]

Just my thoughts.

When talking about authority we're talking about EEAT. When talking about EEAT I think of it in terms of "higher" and "lower" authority - not bigger or smaller. In other words the EEAT of a smaller site can be higher than that of a bigger site.

Now is it easier to get EEAT with a smaller or larger website? I think it is easier to build EEAT with a smaller website (especially when considering websites with one million pages vs websites with 100,000 pages).

My first concern would be the possibility of google de-indexing the one big site and then most of your efforts are lost. With multiple websites you can lose one or two and still be active. I think indexing would work better with 8 smaller websites - some websites will index nicely some will not. This is another big risk for big websites.

The thing about building out 8 websites is the duplication of effort for building out the site, doing seo, maintaining themes, publishing content...all of this takes time and effort.

All things considered (well most anyway) I'd go with the 8 websites - more effort but less risk from my viewpoint.

Right now, one section is ready (front and back), while on the next one I'm working on backend.

There is no issue with publishing content, it's all APIs.

As of now, pros for multiple sites would be:
- faster deployment (work on one section and then go live, not wait for the whole thing). I know I can do that on one single domain, but it is just not the way I like it.
- less pages per domain (probably best for google indexing budget for the site, since I've been hit lately by big indexing issues). There are more things to talk about indexing for authority sites etc.
- more safety in terms of google fuckups (updates, that is).
- strangely, more freedom in terms of design (one big site would require a standardized design, not always suitable for all the content).
- catching bugs on the first site and be sure I don't repeat them on the second etc. Actually, this is quite good as bugs will appear.
- between deployment of section 1 and section 5, I can make a broad idea if this is working or not.

Cons for multiple sites:
- doing the same thing all over again 8 times. Not that hard, but time consuming. On the other hand, I will learn it by heart.
- different design (takes some time). Probably I will not suck at frontend for the first time in my life.
- getting links will be harder.
- maintenance can be difficult.

Still not sure which one is best. I would go for fast deployment (that's my main obsession when it comes to google -> age...). On the other hand, SERPS are kind of 50/50 between general authority sites and niche sites, for my keywords (that's probably the norm anyway).

 

[omarjamil27]

One big one in my opinion.

 

[Somethingidktbh]

One big IMO is better because less management required, small ones would be headache comparing to just managing one.

 

[zocx]

I suggest multiple domains, true is more work, at least at the start till you fix them, but by building multiple domains you have the chance to reach with each of them 1.2m or more in the future ... building only a domain you reach only with 1 that amount ... G limit blogs traffic to 1k/2k/10k per day, etc ... but if you have 8 domains = 8k/80k, per day, etc.
It depends on you of course... but right now I'm testing multiple domains too.
And the same time building just one domain and posting a lot on Start the domain will be on Sandbox, It has kept happening since the last update in September last year...my 6 projects got on Sandbox because too many posts on Start.

 

[hk dogar]

that is interesting question that either we should do with one big site or more small sites. so i believe in one , we should focus on things

 

[GreenBird]

Why not the happy medium of 2-3 sites?

 

[good_luck_commander]

a site with 160k is anything but small. Probably adding more sites isnt going to help you anyways as im not sure google would index all those pages without significant link juice pointing to that domain.

 

[rdlzr77]

a site with 160k is anything but small. Probably adding more sites isnt going to help you anyways as im not sure google would index all those pages without significant link juice pointing to that domain.

It depends on the niche. I agree 160k is obviously not small, but to reach this number (for certain sections) I have to cut down on the data.

My current site has 500k pages (traffic between 80k-120k/month), and I did cut off a lot of unnecessary data. Top players on my niche have between 50-90 million users monthly. Probably more.

One big issue for starting multiple sites is that I want to focus on social media promotions, and it will be a pain to manage 8 insta accounts, 8 twitter, 8 tik-tok... I just don't want to think about, as I hate social media as a whole

 

[GhostVision]

I would choose 8 smaller sites... if google hits you and you only have 1 site you have hard work to do with 8 sites you can also test different SEO campaigns and more... good luck!

 

[samoyed]

go 1 big

 

[TechEinstien]

Eight smaller one is a good option.

 

[GenesisOne]

Focus on just 1 site.
You'll still need to do a backlink campaign - why would you want to engage in 8 instead?

 

[Dot Mirror LTD]

I would suggest you to go for 8. Some of these might do well some dont. You have the opportunity to work with. But if the one big site fails, you will be in nowhere.

 

[rdlzr77]

The most viable argument for more sites is safety in terms of google updates. The second would be technical, but with pros and cons. The biggest issue seems to me the management of social profiles.

Now, for just a big one, pros would be technical & SEO (again with pluses and minuses for each), and easy management of socials. The biggest issue for one single website is the danger of google updates.

Still haven't decided, it's a tough one

 

[Rulingseo]

My pick is one big because it works better than that

so I would suggest this one.