Forum Moderators: martinibuster
The 1.0 site, in contrast, would be mostly static HTML pages and/or a basic CMS, and maybe a forum or blog.
So do you have a Web 2.0 site? If not, do you plan to go in that direction? If you don't, is it because you consider Web 2.0 a passing fad, or because you just aren't interested in that type of site? If you have both types, which performs better with AdSense and why?
And that's mostly by intent.
The fact that the biggest of the "user review" sites in my general category sold out to a huge e-commerce site implies that I'm not alone in being skeptical about the long-term viability of that business model.
So do you have a Web 2.0 site?
No
If not, do you plan to go in that direction?
No plans
If you don't, is it because you consider Web 2.0 a passing fad,
Primarily
or because you just aren't interested in that type of site?
Realistically not interested since it's still a hard slog to get business users to use the Net now let alone give them even more options they either don't want to use or know how to use.
Considering the size of my widget trade industry worldwide (3+ Trillion Dollars) only a very small percentage of trade people use any of the facilities already available with, realistically, only one successful, regularly used forum board (not mine!).
My widget trade tend to prefer to still participate in physical exhibitions/fairs where they can actually see the products they are purchasing. These are specialised products and not off-the-shelf, standardised catalogue items.
I have several thousand keywords ranking #1 for many years, way before Googletime, and believe this or not I can go to exhibitions and international companies still have NOT heard of my companies or web sites!
There are many multi million Dollar corporations in my trade that do not even bother with web sites to this day, some still insist upon using faxes rather than e-mail.
If Web 2.0 ever happens in my industry I reckon I'll be well-retired or long gone.
I keep waiting for someone to explain it to me but all I see is...
-Increased interactivity between visitor and site-
How is that 2.0? To me, that's 1.0 enhanced...
So do you have a Web 2.0 site?
No.
If not, do you plan to go in that direction?
Maybe, I don't know...
If you don't, is it because you consider Web 2.0 a passing fad, or because you just aren't interested in that type of site?
It's because I don't even know what web 2.0 is.
If you have both types, which performs better with AdSense and why?
See above...
You get the idea.... it is a site where all content is user-generated mostly... which leads us to some issues like: quality of (user-generated) content, somebody has to do the "maintanance" of that content.
But it is a good thing in terms of traffic, you get repeating visitors, and if your site is cool, they will invite others to join your site, which means more and more traffic, and more and more content.
If you're making a web 2.0 site, I suggest you make a very niche oriented user community, where content that users generate will also be specific to your niche.
I suggest you make a very niche oriented user community, where content that users generate will also be specific to your niche.
Precisely but how do you get users to interact when the majority of them either:
1. Don't want to
2. Don't have the time since they are too busy
The major problem we have had with Web 2.0 type sites is clamping down on the younger staff "messing about" rather than working.
It's a huge problem and these kids don't appreciate just how much it's costing their employers for them to have "fun". They think because it's there they have the right to access it during their work time!
Again, how is this 2.0? Why not 1.0+?
I am STILL waiting for someone to adequately define just exactly what this 2.0 thing is all about. Is it new or is it just old stuff with a different name? Personally, I'm going with the latter...
just old stuff with a different name
Pretty much.
It's called ** branding **...
(ork ork)
It means your web site is not just for "consuming" or for passive reading... it means that your users are actively involved in your overall website content creation, be it photos, articles, stories, club reviews, travel destination reviews etc... In other words, users help you build your website.
You know, people like the idea that they are part of something big, that they are somehow contributing to the website.
That is Web 2.0.... and I agree, for some niches web 2.0 might not be the way to go.
An example of web 2.0 site is a dating site.
It is true, many of the concepts are not new. But people are finding new ways of applying them and creating what seem like "next gen" web sites, hence the name Web 2.0.
It's arguable, I know. But that is for another thread. Here, I'm interested in whether AdSense publishers are making any sort of transition to this type of site, how this type performs with AdSense, whether it is regarded as a fad, etc.
[edit]carpediem beat me to it![/edit]
[edited by: FourDegreez at 5:50 pm (utc) on Aug. 9, 2007]
It means your web site is not just for "consuming" or for passive reading... it means that your users are actively involved in your overall website content creation, be it photos, articles, stories, club reviews, travel destination reviews etc... In other words, users help you build your website.
You've just described a forum. Way to go.
Again, how is this 2.0?
That overwhelming mass of text is bound to create some interesting keyword phrases and combinations.
Oh.. that's what web 2.0 is.. flooding the net with contributed text...
Who comes up with these things any way? (Web 2.0 I mean)
Does that mean WebmasterWorld is 2.O and Brett was ahead of the times?
Marshall
[edited by: Marshall at 7:18 pm (utc) on Aug. 9, 2007]
I think there are basically two Internets: 1.0 (business) and 2.0 (social).
Information preceded business, and it's still very much around.
Does that mean WebmasterWorld is 2.O and Brett was ahead of the times?
Web forums aren't really anything new--they're just another implementation of online discussion groups that have been around since at least the 1980s. (FWIW, I've never found a "Web 2.0" site or forum that worked as efficiently as CompuServe did with AutoSIG nearly 20 years ago.)
As for the question of whether AdSense works will with "Web 2.0" sites, I think that depends on the topic and the audience. It might work okay on a user hotel-review site, for example, because users are using such sites to research purchases. It probably doesn't work very well on a social-networking site like MySpace where users are more interested in interacting (or in writing about themselves) than in spending money.
my web sites = pretty much web 1.0
why? i've experimented a bit, but my conclusion is, web 2.0 must be only bad for adsense income:
too much hassle with creating and maintaining web 2.0 components. drives down my quality standards and takes insanely lot of time to weed out the user generated crap from the competent contributions. i better spend that time to create useful content myself (in my case: not necessarily writing myself, but out of competent sources, agency releases, good writers who actually deal with the themes they are writing about).
imo in this connection the so-called "wisdom of the crowds" is actually most of the time worse than wisdom of few experts (or one expert for that matter = the publisher).
secondly: every added user interaction feature is one more thing to distract the user from the essential: reading your content and clicking on adsense :) remember: attention span is limited. people don't click if they are busy with community features like chatting, flirting, writing messages.
look at the click rates of highly interactive websites like facebook, look at forums, interactive gaming sites.. i'm not saying these sites are pointless. actually the're a lot of fun. but in terms of adsense, they are extremely difficult.. good old one-way communication fed with ads does the trick here.
thing is, for web 2.0 sites a new form of functional advertising has yet to be found..
will ever be? - NO
why? I'm, as someone already said, too much of a control freak to allow users to run wild with content. It will cost me too much time to moderate. Plus, I think I'm a much better content producer than most.
I've read posts here where others stated these 2.0 sites are profitable b/c of user comments and search strings they create. I experimented and asked users to write reviews to be submitted for posting through a form on my site -- 99% were fluff type with 'I love this product. I use it all the time it never broke down'. I mean, how's that valuable SEO content? I'd rather see "I love this blue widget because it helps me pay down my mortgage'. one a very basic level, that's good SEO text.
I've never been clear if forums qualify...
Many people see certain things on other website and think that this is so cool they need that also. And so they implement it. But that's often like buying a Ferrari because it's cool when in reality you need a truck.
Same with user generated content, blogs or podcasts. If it benefits your project and creates revenue go ahead. If not than leave it.
The really sad converse of this was a couple I saw at a music festival wearing badges with the logo of a well known music bulletin board and badges with their on-line nicknames.
There are some internal debates on whether they should use AdSense or any other such ad networks. Currently they don't.
...
Having the bot determine a proper theme for the pages seems to be a very difficult task. Not to mention it's international audience, and an audience of all ages, interests, sexuality, religion and social class...
It might be getting more traffic than all the other sites I work on combined but, user contributed content / web 2.0 applications are unlikely to be SEO'd just for the AdSense bot.
So it's currently *ideal* for public awareness and branding, but not contextual ads. It's a step further down the road to play it big... with the usual ROI related problem: to work it out on all levels, they'd need a whole new department, focusing on AdSense.
There's no point, the site would lose its focus in general.
You have to forget about some revenue streams if you aim for the next step.
...
I would only wish I had a web 2.0 site on which I can experiment on. But most of such social/community sites have a VAST network of servers just to host them, which means a lot of money for keeping them online, which means you really can't steer away from the original idea / tech specs / code without substantial expenses. And not without any risks involved.
An example of web 2.0 site is a dating site.
Everyone in my office was on a free dating site back in 1997. Match-maker if I recall correctly, you could upload photos and everything. The guy who owned it, ran it out of his house in Houston in big server rack. I'm not sure who bought it though.
Thank god NO!
If not, do you plan to go in that direction?
I guess I will not.
If you don't, is it because you consider Web 2.0 a passing fad, or because you just aren't interested in that type of site?
I love to work on my site with my own pace. I am basically a designer and have no plans to switch to programming and handover my site to programmer. I am not interested in that type of site also.
