homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.79.235
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 59 message thread spans 2 pages: 59 ( [1] 2 > >     
great site or great number of sites.
goneinthesun




msg:3312001
 12:48 am on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

I am sure this have been covered already but i will ask again anyway.

would you rather have 10 sites that makes 10 dollar per day or 1 site that pay 100 with google ad sense.?

 

greatstart




msg:3312007
 1:07 am on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

I would rather have one site that makes 100 dollars per day.

Why? Because it requires less work and maintenance then ten sites.

europeforvisitors




msg:3312009
 1:12 am on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Ditto, because "critical mass" leads to other revenue opportunities and to the security that comes from having an established presence on the Web.

Scurramunga




msg:3312012
 1:15 am on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Normally most of us here would respond by advising you to put your visitor first and build one or two great quality site (with genuine topics that take your interest) containing quality content etc etc rather than build sites simply for or around adsense. I have always subscribed to this view and still do as my website is built around the topics of my profession.

Lately however many webmasters here ( presumably of high integrity) who have always done the right thing by putting visitors first, making content king etc etc have been scratching their heads and expressing great despair as they report declining earnings. It seems that no matter how much we try to please the mediapartners bot the situation becomes grimer and grimer as earnings slide.

Now I know I will be flamed here by those few who will contradict me by saying earnings have never been better etc etc but maybe you should judge matters for yourself by reading recent threads say from Dec 2006 till now. The point to all this rambling is that I am begining to believe that putting all your eggs in one or even two baskets is not the way to go if your livelyhood is to depend on making your income online by making your realestate available to advertisers.

gendude




msg:3312058
 2:38 am on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Now I know I will be flamed here by those few who will contradict me by saying earnings have never been better etc etc but maybe you should judge matters for yourself by reading recent threads say from Dec 2006 till now. The point to all this rambling is that I am begining to believe that putting all your eggs in one or even two baskets is not the way to go if your livelyhood is to depend on making your income online by making your realestate available to advertisers.
I'm beginning to be of the mindset that you are.

Having all of your eggs in one basket can be dangerous.

europeforvisitors




msg:3312059
 2:39 am on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Lately however many webmasters here ( presumably of high integrity) who have always done the right thing by putting visitors first, making content king etc etc have been scratching their heads and expressing great despair as they report declining earnings.

Would they be boasting of higher earnings if they'd each published a whole bunch of little sites?

Probably not. What's more, they might well be even more dependent on AdSense than they are now, because small sites typically need ad networks or other aggregators to reach advertisers, media buyers, and other revenue sources.

Swanny007




msg:3312066
 2:53 am on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

I've got a bunch of sites now, started off with just one bigger one ;-) I'd recommend you start with just one or two. If things aren't going that well, then build more. I've got so many now I'm thinking of dumping all but the biggest two, I just can't give up that residual income ;-) So to answer your question, I'd rather have one site making $100/day.

[edited by: Swanny007 at 3:02 am (utc) on April 16, 2007]

simey




msg:3312069
 3:02 am on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

I think it's smart to have one site that gets most of the focus. But it's also smart to have one or two on the backburner.
(Since there are many problems that can befall a site and cause its traffic to fall.)

Scurramunga




msg:3312120
 4:41 am on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Would they be boasting of higher earnings if they'd each published a whole bunch of little sites?
Good question, however I can only speak for myself.

All I know right now is that I did have one good site consitently earning around the $100per day (or more) and now it's making much less.

trannack




msg:3312198
 7:30 am on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

EFV :"Would they be boasting of higher earnings if they'd each published a whole bunch of little sites?

Probably not. What's more, they might well be even more dependent on AdSense than they are now, because small sites typically need ad networks or other aggregators to reach advertisers, media buyers, and other revenue sources. "

I have to disagree here. I did have one big site - I now have around 14 sites. I took the one big site and broke it down into smaller components. Earnings are great at the moment - and on a steady increase.

I do adopt the "don't put all your eggs in one basket" principle. Having smaller sites has attracted a whole new array of people wanting to link to the sites. I have been contacted by more people/companies expressing an interest in different advertising opportunities etc.

I can experiment on one site - leave the others alone, creating a simpler system, and more uniform layout.

Finally, it relieves some of the boredom when managing large sites, with smae/similar layouts. It makes you more creative. I don't believe it has a negative impact of your presence on the net. Personally I prefer to visit smaller sites - I mentaly think that they are more likely to have what I want, care more about me as a customer etc, than one massive site that covers everything - and anything.

I think it increases the user experience, and my figures have reflected this.

Just my pennies worth.

chikung




msg:3312330
 11:25 am on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

for me just one site.

I have come to this opinion after the bad experiance of buiding 2 more sites to follow the "egg and basket concept" but that didn't work for me. Besides it was very difficult to work on all the sites and prepare frsh content for them. I tried blog too.

Now I feel to deep the roots of a single site rather than spread.

May be this depends on the subject and the capacity of a person to work on the sites but I feel with single site, I enjoy my work but with more that one site I noticed that I take it as a burdon.

So I removed my two blogs which I was failing to update since long. Out of which one blog had good rank on G. This blog also didn't do well for adsense.

Besides now since all the companies are slowly allowing each others ads on the same page, is it really necessary to build more websites just out of security?

Hobbs




msg:3312345
 11:57 am on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

is it really necessary to build more websites just out of security?

Yes, if you're doing this full time.

The landscape of SEO changes, but age and links will probably remain a constant factor for search engine trust, 5 years from now, you are going to wish you built a good well aged small site on the side, that over time obtained links on its own merit and can be grown and expanded into something bigger.

I am all for one big site since that's what I do, but last year I started another, and before the end of this year I plan to launch a third one.

So my advice is:
Start with one big high quality site, then expand when it is stable and doing well. Outsource when you cannot dedicate time, and never compromise on quality no matter what you do, otherwise you're better off with just one good site.

europeforvisitors




msg:3312370
 12:34 pm on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

5 years from now, you are going to wish you built a good well aged small site on the side, that over time obtained links on its own merit and can be grown and expanded into something bigger.

My own approach with travel has been to build "sites within the site," beneath the root domain but benefiting from the "core brand." This is the Web equivalent of what travel guidebook publishers have done since the days of Karl Baedeker. (Arthur Frommer and Rick Steves started out with single-volume guides to Europe, for example; today, their brands encompass any number of titles and topics, but all benefit from a common brand identity.)

Another benefit of this approach is that it lets you link from topic to topic without worrying about crosslinking penalties. (An inbound link to any page or subtopic ultimately benefits the entire site.) But the biggest benefit is building trust not just among search engines, but among readers, the press, PR folks, and other people who can influence your success. The Web is filled with no-name, low-profile, below-the-radar sites; if you can build a brand within your niche or niches, you'll have a leg up on your competitors.

Hobbs




msg:3312392
 12:55 pm on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Oh, forgot to add:
When you diversify by the number of sites you own:
Might as well diversify in topic and type too :-)

Otherwise you might find yourself having to repeat yourself like an old record, which Google penalizes by the way, or you might find yourself left behind with a forum when they've gone out of fashion for example..

The trick now is to find multiple niches that you can enjoy developing quality sites within, only few people can.

europeforvisitors




msg:3312411
 1:25 pm on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

ADDENDUM TO MY POST ABOVE:

The "brand extension" approach obviously doesn't apply to every combination of topics; it works when the new topics are subsets of (or related to) the umbrella or master topic.

For example, if you started out with a site called foods-for-breakfast.com and achieved enough critical mass (in terms of content and audience) to split off subtopics, you could create sites within the site for key foods like doughnuts, muffins, and eggs. A subsite like foods-for-breakfast.com/doughnuts/ could have a "vanity domain" pointing to it (doughnuts-for-breakfast.com), which would attract doughnut-related links and be easy for doughnut fanciers to remember. But it would benefit from its clear association with the foods-for-breakfast.com brand, and navigation links from your other "sites within the site" would help it rank for its subtopic.

My comments aren't theoretical, by the way; this "solar system instead of freestanding stars" strategy (which I adopted more or less by accident and for my own convenience in managing a growing site) has worked extremely well not just for building a brand, but also for ranking quickly--and well--for major new subtopics.

Side note: You don't have to be a big corporation to establish a brand name. Webmaster World is a perfect example of a mom-and/or-pop site that has come from out of nowhere to become a player in its niche. Brett could have diluted his brand by setting up completely separate sites for SEO, AdSense, Webmastering, etc., but he didn't: All those topics are under the "Webmaster World" umbrella, and each section of the site feeds the others while creating prospects for Brett's conference business.

andrewshim




msg:3312424
 1:53 pm on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

When you diversify by the number of sites you own:
Might as well diversify in topic and type too :-)

Hobbs! I thought you hated that "D" word!

Diversify! That's my motto...
Diversity your sites...
Diversity your revenue streams... (contextual ads, intext ads, affiliate, direct advertisers etc)
Diversify offline... always set aside a portion of your earnings for offline revenue streams - mutual funds, stocks, business investments, fd etc

In other words - never put all your eggs in one basket - put them in your pocket, your glove compartment, your cupboard, your fridge, your CD drive, your drawer, your car boot...

And learn to fry, poach, boil, scramble them eggs...

Hobbs




msg:3312428
 1:56 pm on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Warming up to it in the colder days Andrew :-)
What I can't swallow nowadays is all that eggs talk.

Added: Congratulatins on becoming a Senior Andrew
Just so you know, I'm never visiting your house or getting into your car!

[edited by: Hobbs at 2:01 pm (utc) on April 16, 2007]

malachite




msg:3312447
 2:23 pm on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

But the biggest benefit is building trust not just among search engines, but among readers, the press, PR folks, and other people who can influence your success.

Broadly, I agree with you EFV, but have to disagree on aspects of this point. Unless we're talking The New York Times or the London Times, I've found press and particularly PR folks tend to prefer niches geared closely to their client's niche rather than more generalized sites.

Readers from certain demographics also tend to prefer to see a site which is aimed at their demographic. Big spenders don't want to see sites about all-kindsa-widgets and cheap widgets; they want luxury widgets. Likewise, while Joe average might enjoy reading about ultra-expensive widgets, he's not likely to be buying.

I've definitely found diversity to be the key that works for me, but I guess it won't work for everyone.

--

Hobbs - Forget the car, I wouldn't want to be doing Andrewshim's laundry! :)

europeforvisitors




msg:3312469
 2:36 pm on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Broadly, I agree with you EFV, but have to disagree on aspects of this point. Unless we're talking The New York Times or the London Times, I've found press and particularly PR folks tend to prefer niches geared closely to their client's niche rather than more generalized sites.

I'm not talking about "generalized sites" such as news sites or portals; I'm talking about niches and subniches.

malachite




msg:3312512
 3:07 pm on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'm talking about niches and subniches.

Exactly my point. I wouldn't put a sub-niche - for example ultra-expensive widgets on a site which dealt mainly with general widgets or cheap widgets. It just doesn't fit.

I'd diversify and build a new site about expensive ones targeted exclusively at the right demographic.

chikung




msg:3312517
 3:17 pm on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

I fully agree with EFV, because his niches and subniches approach works for me. I may not want to build the site like about dot com that may be covering all the topics under the sun but as EFV suggested, it can be the one prominant topic and the site divided into sub topics as he rightly pointed out in his words "solar system instead of freestanding stars"

when I deleted extra site, I started working peacefully on the main site just the way artist work on his canvas. I get the chance to experiment, I easily keep the consistancy of the pages, I can link lot of small but popular sites on my subtopics. My visitors may be interested in the beginning for perticular topic but once they start visiting the site they may check out the other pages too as subtopics are also closely related.

Yes I love this approach and the words of EVF: solar system instead of freestanding stars

Ofcourse I also agree at the same time what hobbs said: never compromise on quality no matter what you do, otherwise you're better off with just one good site.

Thanks a lot all of you. This clears my confusion.

europeforvisitors




msg:3312604
 4:18 pm on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

I wouldn't put a sub-niche - for example ultra-expensive widgets on a site which dealt mainly with general widgets or cheap widgets. It just doesn't fit.

Fine, but why assume that every subtopic is aimed at a different demographic? That isn't necessarily the case, and indeed it probably isn't the case most of the time. In the case of a travel site, for example, the target audience for Rome may not be much different from (and may well overlap with) the target audience for Florence and other cities in Italy or Europe in general.

What's more, you can target different demographics (in terms of age, income, etc.) within a site. On a travel site about Widgetville, for example, you could have pages about luxury hotels and pages about youth hostels. Each will attract a different type of reader and different AdSense ads. (Targeting only high-end buyers might make sense if you're going after certain types of "lifestyle" CPM advertisers, but we're talking about AdSense in this thread, and keyword-targeted contextual ads are AdSense's bread and butter.)

Whatever publishers choose to do, they should make their decisions for the right reasons, and they shouldn't limit their growth or potential earnings by thinking only about the short term. Having a bunch of sites merely because you're afraid you might get whacked in Google Search in shortsighted thinking, in my opinion. (Publishers who are really worried about having all their search-related eggs in one basket shouldn't place all their revenue bets on AdSense, either.)

trannack




msg:3312606
 4:20 pm on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

"I started working peacefully on the main site just the way artist work on his canvas."

But the thing is artists first rarely are just working on one canvas. And secondly, when the canvas is finished they sellit/ hang it on the wall - or dump it.

Not quite the analogy I wanted. But in my opinion more than one is good.

I have noticed that if for any reason my ads go off topic - they go off topic for the whole site - not just one or two pages. By having one big site - that is a lot of potential revenue to lose.

More than one site can result in spreading the load. For myself - I use different hosts and servers for some of my sites as well. So that if one server is down - not everything is offline.

I really think you can argue this back and forth until the cows come home. I'm just saying what works for me. I'm not a newbie, am in the UPS club by several multitudes. I guess you have to find what works for you, but I do think that diversification is the key.

Hobbs




msg:3312635
 4:40 pm on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Having a bunch of sites merely because you're afraid you might get whacked in Google Search in shortsighted thinking

This is like saying people who keep multiple backups are wasting disk space, limiting the value of diversifying to only SE security and calling it shortsighted is over simplifying without taking into account all that has been discussed. As others have said, there are two schools of thought here, and both should be respected.

malachite




msg:3312670
 5:01 pm on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Fine, but why assume that every subtopic is aimed at a different demographic? That isn't necessarily the case, and indeed it probably isn't the case most of the time.

Point taken. I can only speak from personal experience. My sites cover broadly the same topic, but are aimed at totally different target markets.

What's more, you can target different demographics (in terms of age, income, etc.) within a site. On a travel site about Widgetville, for example, you could have pages about luxury hotels and pages about youth hostels.

Sorry EFV, but on this one I totally disagree. Sticking with your travel theme, if I'm looking at a page about luxury hotels in Widgetville, I don't want to see ads for Widgetville's youth hostels, or ads for general Widgetville topics, I want to see ads for luxury hotels in Widgetville. Adsense often tends to pick up on and display ads for anything Widgetville before anything else.

Each will attract a different type of reader and different AdSense ads. (Targeting only high-end buyers might make sense if you're going after certain types of "lifestyle" CPM advertisers, but we're talking about AdSense in this thread, and keyword-targeted contextual ads are AdSense's bread and butter.)

True, each page will attract a different type of reader, but Adsense is not infallible and as a reader, I'd rather see ads for luxury hotels in Elbonia than ads for Joe Bloggs hardware store in Widgetville.

Whatever publishers choose to do, they should make their decisions for the right reasons ...

Agreed. And in my case, the right decision was to create separate sites which concentrated on and targeted specific sub-niches of a niche. I tried your way, and it didn't work for me, especially once I introduced Adsense. The ads were all over the place.

I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right. I'm just disagreeing with you based on my own experience. Horses for courses. :)

europeforvisitors




msg:3312674
 5:05 pm on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Hobbs, you're misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I said. If a publisher is truly worried about the risk of having all eggs in one basket, then he or she needs to consider diversification of revenue sources, not just diversification for SEO purposes. That lesson should be obvious to anyone who's ever seen a forum thread on "My AdSense EPC has dropped to a penny per click!" or "My AdSense account has been disabled!"

I'd also suggest that an established, respected, brand-name site is less likely to have long-term search issues than a network of separate and interlinked domains, but that's a topic for the Google Search News forum, so I won't belabor the point here.

Anyway, as the old song goes, "You go to church and I'll go to mine, but let's walk along together."

explorador




msg:3312676
 5:09 pm on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

One site or many...

Having great working websites takes a lot of effort if you run all the show by yourself. As you get better and better you can of course build more without letting the others fail.

Take in count, passwords, logs, accounts, uptime, mails, transfers and so when having multiple websites. When things go wrong on one IP blocked or your host company going down... Things can get ugly moving 20 sites and reconfiguring everything, plus. Dif hosting accounts can work for you but then, the sites must start doing their job to pay everything.

I often think the "webmaster" occupation is underestimated... it requires hard work

trannack




msg:3312707
 5:37 pm on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

"I often think the "webmaster" occupation is underestimated... it requires hard work "

Absolutely - no pain, no gain. But I would argue that I haven't particularly found an increase in workload. Servers rarely go down, and if one goes down the other is there - so revenue continues.

I find it more interesting to develop - therefore I am more likely to achieve more in a day - as the different sites give me different inspiration.

The older more established sites require less work and attention - giving mne more time to focus on the new sites. Sometimes if something is working well on one site - I implement it on the others, but generally they tick over nicely.

Perhaps this option isn't for everyone, and in fairness I don't have another job, so I am able to devote as much (or as little) time as I want to on site development.

I'm just showing that more sites can work, and that more sites doesn't mean that you are bombarding the internet with crap. The sites can be well built and focused. And for some this might be a good option.


Jane_Doe




msg:3312710
 5:38 pm on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

You can probably make the most money by focusing all of your efforts on one site, but then it is a bit riskier because if that site gets banned, penalized, or some major competition moves into your area, you are out of luck. Having just one site is like like putting all of your money into just one stock - it could be a Microsoft or it could end up like Enron.

europeforvisitors




msg:3312773
 6:43 pm on Apr 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

You can probably make the most money by focusing all of your efforts on one site, but then it is a bit riskier because if that site gets banned, penalized, or some major competition moves into your area, you are out of luck.

If we're talking in the context of AdSense (the topic of this forum), you're going to get screwed if your AdSense account is cancelled, whether you've got one site or a bunch. So, if you're going to have multiple sites for the sake of avoiding a disaster, you shouldn't rely too heavily on AdSense for any of them.

Also, having a site that has good visibility within its niche (and that attracts repeat visitors) can make you less reliant on search for traffic and revenue. On my own site, traffic on "money" pages comes largely from within the site, not from search engines (even though those pages rank well in Google). When I lost 70-90% of my Google referrals for two months in 2005 because of a "canonical" glitch, income dropped painfully but not precipitously, because the site had enough critical mass in terms of content to keep existing visitors coming back for more until my Google rankings recovered.

In the end, though, personal preference matters more than "what's best" arguments do. It's like magazine publishing: Some magazine publishers (such as FORBES) earn nearly all their revenue from a single title, while others (such as many trade publishers) have a long list of titles that the average person has never heard of. Part of long-term planning involves asking yourself what you want to be doing five, ten, or fifteen years from now. Do you want to build a strong brand within a niche that can be extended into new products or extensions, or do you prefer to work on a whole slew of different projects that can be created or killed off as your tastes and attention span change? Do what you want, but know why you're doing it and what you hope to achieve.

This 59 message thread spans 2 pages: 59 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved