I think I have my fifteen keywords but which ones should I start with? Hmm...

[carlos123]

I might be better off finding a good SEO forum to ask these questions at but for now I'd like to see if I can get just a whee bit more input from the good members of this forum first since my sites will be aimed squarely at Adsense.

Here are the numbers for the top keyword phrases I have been able to uncover using the Google Adwords Keyword and some other free tools.

Which 3 would you all pick to start with? For creating Adsense pages I mean.

Now I know that there are other factors to consider than just these numbers and I will do that considering too but for now and for purposes of this thread if you had absolutely nothing else to go on and could not go on anything else which 3 would you pick and why?

(I know some of you will say none on that basis but as usual please humor me and pick your top 3).

LSV = local search volume.
ECPC = estimated cost per click
The numbers under the page headings are the pageranks of the first, second, and third pages that appears in the SERPS.

? = local shopping type pages which don't seem to have a rank.

      LSV   Competition   ECPC     Page1  Page2  Page3
					
1.    480	24,000	$2.00        ?      3     3
2.    880	32,400	$1.39        2      1     3
3.  1,300	15,100	$1.03        0      3     2
4.  1,900	36,700	$1.56        3      2     2
5.  1,900	40,700	$2.25        1      0     ?
6.  2,900	14,500	$3.38        ?      3     0
7.  3,600	33,300	$1.41        4      3     2
8.  4,400	54,000	$1.74        2      0     5
9.  4,400	15,200	$4.31        3      2     1
10. 5,400	13,800	$2.86        3      2     3
11. 5,400	34,500	$3.37        3      2     4
12. 5,400	59,200	$3.50        3      2     4
13. 8,100	26,200	$1.06        4      3     3
14. 9,900	23,400	$2.18        4      4     2
15. 40,500	58,500	$2.04        1      1     1

Personally I think I would pick numbers 15, 8, and 5. I like the traffic to 15 and the top pages on 8 and 5 should be relatively easy to beat. I will check incoming links as my next step before making a final decisions as to which one's to start with.

Any and all input would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Carlos

[JMartin]

Honestly, I couldn't even begin to say for sure as key things are missing, but for the purposes of this experiment, the couple I'd do would be 9 and 15.

5 might work depending on the KWP. The search is too low for a main KWP unless the phrase is very targeted and will produce solid buyers.

I chose 15 because a lot of searches and low PRs.

I chose 9 because they were all under PR 4 and search volume is ok.

Like I said, there is some critical data missing, so all of these could suck very hard or all be very easy.

Also competing pages # has no/very little relevance if you're analyzing page one results. The original concept of low competing pages was to find KWPs to research. If you look at page one/two results and it's a brick, the number of competing pages don't matter, even if it's just 50.

[carlos123]

Originally Posted by JMartin

Honestly, I couldn't even begin to say for sure as key things are missing, but for the purposes of this experiment, the couple I'd do would be 9 and 15.

Thanks for humoring me. I appreciate that.

5 might work depending on the KWP. The search is too low for a main KWP unless the phrase is very targeted and will produce solid buyers.

Hmm...interesting. All of these are very specific keyword phrases having to do with very specific commercial products. I am not at all certain that I will be able to create more than a one or two page site on each one because of that.

I chose 15 because a lot of searches and low PRs.

I think number 15 is pretty much the favored one. For sure. I am quite surprised I found that one. But based on that one I am going to do some more searches for similar product categories in the next day or two. If I can uncover some more like 15 I will drop some of the worser one's from my list.

I chose 9 because they were all under PR 4 and search volume is ok.

Hmm...I can see why 9 would potentially be a good pick. I like that pick now that you mention it.

Like I said, there is some critical data missing, so all of these could suck very hard or all be very easy.

Without wanting to get into an all out discussion on these other critical items may I ask what you would consider them to be? Just in brief.

Also competing pages # has no/very little relevance if you're analyzing page one results. The original concept of low competing pages was to find KWPs to research. If you look at page one/two results and it's a brick, the number of competing pages don't matter, even if it's just 50.

That is pretty much how I use the Competition metric. As a way of quickly sorting through all possible keywords to arrive at some smaller number for further analysis.

Thanks very much for your input Jason.

Anybody else?

Carlos

[JMartin]

A couple things I look for are on-page SEO first and foremost. I love seeing listings without the KWP in the title, URL, H1, etc.

Another thing is links. This can make or break you (all other things being equal). Are these pages stacked with good links? EDU links? Gov links? Authority sites?

Also I like actually looking at the pages to get a feel for the content. Is the page like 100 words of nothing or is a a 1,000 word review loaded with related KWPs and stuff?

Lastly, I always do an ad check. For starters, I hit Google for the KWP to see what ads come up. If I'm doing a site about Sony CD players and all my ads are for Wal-mart for Baby pillows or Sony DVD players, the targeting sucks. Additionally, I keep clicking through listings until I find a couple sites using AdSense so I can see what's going on with them.

The green light for a site isn't just about if I can rank with a KWP, it's also about what I can do with a good ranking once I have it.

[kingside]

Awesome advice there. What's your preferred method of checking out a site's backlinks?

[carlos123]

You sound quite knowledgable in this Jason. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts with me.

How do they say it around here? Oh yeah...pure gold? I'm not sure I know enough about Adsense to say that definitively but it sure sounds like what you are saying is pure gold.

Carlos

[AvidAZ]

I often have the same dilemma as the first poster.

Jason, your advice is a great start for me as well. Thanks.

[JMartin]

Originally Posted by carlos123

You sound quite knowledgable in this Jason. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts with me.

How do they say it around here? Oh yeah...pure gold? I'm not sure I know enough about Adsense to say that definitively but it sure sounds like what you are saying is pure gold.

Carlos

Well thanks. I hope it helps.

Over the years, I've learned through my own experience (easier to tell the crap from the gold that way). That's why it's good to eventually just dive in and try some stuff out. You could lose your life on these forums and hear the same stuff over and over and spun a million wrong ways.

However, product sites for Adsense is newer to me. I've had product sites for years now, but they've been in Amazon's AFF program. For years all my Adsense sites were non-product based (travel, finance/investing, health, hobbies, etc).

[carlos123]

One of the things I still have not figured out is how to create a web site around a particular product. I mean I see these one page Adsense pages around but unless I am mistaken those sites don't last long in the SERP's.

Take schick sensitive skin razors. Assuming everything is a go for that keyword phrase how would one build an Adsense site around that?

Would one create pages on what color they are, who makes them, how tall and wide they are, what kind of hair they can be used on, how much they normally are, where they can be bought, whether women or men are more likely to use them, and how long they have been on the market?

Is that what one would have to do? I mean some of those pages sound pretty ridiculous. If not making pages like that what would one talk about with respect to schick sensitive skin razors? I mean the plain matter of the thing is that they...well...shave skin that is sensitive. Nothing complicated about that.

How does one flesh out product pages into a reasonable Adsense site?

Carlos

[DireStraits]

Originally Posted by carlos123

One of the things I still have not figured out is how to create a web site around a particular product. I mean I see these one page Adsense pages around but unless I am mistaken those sites don't last long in the SERP's.

Take schick sensitive skin razors. Assuming everything is a go for that keyword phrase how would one build an Adsense site around that?

Would one create pages on what color they are, who makes them, how tall and wide they are, what kind of hair they can be used on, how much they normally are, where they can be bought, whether women or men are more likely to use them, and how long they have been on the market?

Is that what one would have to do? I mean some of those pages sound pretty ridiculous. If not making pages like that what would one talk about with respect to schick sensitive skin razors? I mean the plain matter of the thing is that they...well...shave skin that is sensitive. Nothing complicated about that.

How does one flesh out product pages into a reasonable Adsense site?

Carlos

Many will advise to come up with novel ways to write about that product. The trouble being, after they've read the main product page with the description/review, it's unlikely anyone is going to be truly interested in "how <product name> performs at 11,000ft altitude", or "how <product name> can help you weave wicca baskets when used under a full moon in December".

There is a point where the information you're supplying is simply no longer of use to anyone, and the only reason that content exists is because you were trying to write as much as possible to capture as much long-tail search traffic as possible.

IMO, all my content has to be useful and applicable in the real world. If it's not, it's useless spam content and it will not pass a manual review by Google.

So yes, try to think about how you can write about the product in a different context rather than just describing its features and how it performs. You could at least create pages where you write about the product in comparison to other specific similar products. That gives you a good excuse to ues that products keywords whilst you're writing about something else... and you can still have targetted adsense ads and get clickthroughs by people interested in that product.

But in the end, don't try too hard. IF there's really nothing else you can write about that product, look for keywords about similar (but different) products and create pages about those instead (whilst still using your keyword(s) where possible). Even if not every page on your site is directly and solely related to the specific product that is mentioned on your site, it's better to have information that is applicable and useful than information that is spammy and stupid.

There's no point in busting your ass creating sites only for them to not pass a visual inspection by Google.

[JMartin]

The best thing to do is spend a little time looking at G results for ideas. Maybe stuff like:

1. Good schick sensitive skin razors for guys with sensitive skin.

2. Shaving creams and products to use with schick sensitive skin razors for people sensitive skin.

3. Good schick sensitive skin razors for women with sensitive skin.

4. The types of razors Schick makes for sensitive skin--combo page--(since they make more than 1).

5. Refills for schick sensitive skin razors.

6. How to shave with schick sensitive skin razors for guys.

7. How to shave with schick sensitive skin razors for girls.

8 ,9 , 10, etc. Pages for each model of schick sensitive skin razor.

And so on

[carlos123]

Originally Posted by DireStraits

Many will advise to come up with novel ways to write about that product. The trouble being, after they've read the main product page with the description/review, it's unlikely anyone is going to be truly interested in "how <product name> performs at 11,000ft altitude", or "how <product name> can help you weave wicca baskets when used under a full moon in December".

Now THAT'S funny! LOLAROTG

EXCELLENT input on the rest of what you said. I suspected as much but it's great to hear my suspicion validated. For long term Adsense income you MUST write some worthwhile content or else one's site will be in danger of being considered just another of a zillion sites built just for Adsense and as such in constant danger of being considered spammy by Google.

Thanks for the excellent input! Wonderful! Bravo!

I am having a delicious Adsense insight meal today (along with input given to me on some other threads). Yum, yum! I wonder what I will have for lunch LOL.

This stuff is becoming addictive. I have to watch that. I haven't even had my real breakfast and it's almost 11:00 AM. I don't want to turn into an Adsense couch potatoe LOL.

Carlos

[Joe118]

The CPC indicates that the most monetizable keywords are #9, #12, #6, and #11 in that order; thats because of the obviously high competition for ad placement.

As others have pointed out, there's some missing information --

* How many back links do each of the pages have, and what percentage of the back links have anchor text that is relevant to your keywords?
* How optimized is each competing page for the keyword and how optimized is the set of back links?

Originally Posted by carlos123

I might be better off finding a good SEO forum to ask these questions at but for now I'd like to see if I can get just a whee bit more input from the good members of this forum first since my sites will be aimed squarely at Adsense.

Here are the numbers for the top keyword phrases I have been able to uncover using the Google Adwords Keyword and some other free tools.

Which 3 would you all pick to start with? For creating Adsense pages I mean.

Now I know that there are other factors to consider than just these numbers and I will do that considering too but for now and for purposes of this thread if you had absolutely nothing else to go on and could not go on anything else which 3 would you pick and why?

(I know some of you will say none on that basis but as usual please humor me and pick your top 3).

LSV = local search volume.
ECPC = estimated cost per click
The numbers under the page headings are the pageranks of the first, second, and third pages that appears in the SERPS.

? = local shopping type pages which don't seem to have a rank.

      LSV   Competition   ECPC     Page1  Page2  Page3
                    
1.    480    24,000    $2.00        ?      3     3
2.    880    32,400    $1.39        2      1     3
3.  1,300    15,100    $1.03        0      3     2
4.  1,900    36,700    $1.56        3      2     2
5.  1,900    40,700    $2.25        1      0     ?
6.  2,900    14,500    $3.38        ?      3     0
7.  3,600    33,300    $1.41        4      3     2
8.  4,400    54,000    $1.74        2      0     5
9.  4,400    15,200    $4.31        3      2     1
10. 5,400    13,800    $2.86        3      2     3
11. 5,400    34,500    $3.37        3      2     4
12. 5,400    59,200    $3.50        3      2     4
13. 8,100    26,200    $1.06        4      3     3
14. 9,900    23,400    $2.18        4      4     2
15. 40,500    58,500    $2.04        1      1     1

Personally I think I would pick numbers 15, 8, and 5. I like the traffic to 15 and the top pages on 8 and 5 should be relatively easy to beat. I will check incoming links as my next step before making a final decisions as to which one's to start with.

Any and all input would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Carlos

[carlos123]

Originally Posted by Joe118

The CPC indicates that the most monetizable keywords are #9, #12, #6, and #11 in that order; thats because of the obviously high competition for ad placement.

Yes but wouldn't #15 be the best in the sense that there is way more traffic interest in that keyword phrase?

In other words is it not just as good if not better to focus on keyword phrases that have a larger amount of traffic even if the ECPC is lower by even half? I mean if the numbers I have indicated was all we were taking into account (which it should not be but for purposes of this thread...it is).

You additional thoughts on this?

Carlos