Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Given that there is a finite number of hours to perform site work;
AND
the site I will work on has X pages which are strong producers, rank pretty well, and on a 1-10 score of my satisfaction would get a 7;
AND
Y pages which are laggards, bumsteads, and weaklings, getting about a 3 on the 1-10 scale.
Which is the best investment for the limited resource of work: take the strongest -the X pages- and build with them to even more success; OR try to improve the runts, the Y pages, into something more satisfactory.
For the sake of argument, assume that all pages are about equal in design, content quality, and other basic factors.
[edited by: dibbern2 at 5:11 am (utc) on May 16, 2009]
There are those that tire fast from doing the same kind of work, don't enjoy looking back at any work they've already finished, perform best with new fresh challenges..
Short attention span, many sites, lots of hits and even more misses.
And those that are meticulous, will analyze and try perfecting everything they've done for profit or for future lessons to learn.
Could tend to waste time, less sites, but with bigger hits and fewer misses.
Finally there are those naive to think people can be categorized into only 2 types ;-)
I have sites that rank well and even have better ROI than the others, but somehow I'm more interested in my other sites.
I must confess I'm having a hard time accepting that I have put a lot of effort on X sites and not performing well, in fact have more traffic that the ones doing good.
Anyway the best answer would be to put more work on the sites that rank better and perform better.
