Help! My xfactor/ Clickbump sites not doing as well as I'd hoped! (detailed actual stats inside)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1978298].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Fraggler

Your sites aren't even 1 month old. Expect a lot of ups and downs for the next few months. This is why your site dropped so far, it is only new so it hasn't been properly indexed yet. I doubt it was de-indexed.

I suppose it could be seen as early days, although this strategy is geared towards fairly short-term results.

Still hoping site 3 is going to come back one of these days.
I have another site outside of this test though. Which was basically de-indexed for god knows what reason and it still hasn't come back after a couple of months know, even though all the sub-keywords are ranked.

Originally Posted by Fraggler

Your keyword research looks good to me. I can't see the backlink analysis so I can't comment on that. The PR's do seem to be pretty low though so you should be sweet there.

As per this particular strategy: In terms of backlink generation: none, other than the initial indexing push, which did create a handful of backlinks for some of the sites.

Originally Posted by Fraggler

Make sure your searches are based on the location you are checking the rank on. No point using Google.com if all the traffic comes from Google.com.au or.co.uk.

yes mainly targeting us and other english speaking markets and so all research was conducted with G.com default

Originally Posted by Fraggler

Don't be concerned about traffic until you are on Page 1. Use Google Webmaster Tools to see your CTR when on page 1. Find out how many times your site is being seen, just not visited.

I see, haven't tried, will look into this... might try adding site 3 to webmaster tools, to see if they've got anything to say about it

Originally Posted by Fraggler

You need a lot more keywords to target. Expand your sites to increase your exposure. You are still learning so you should be getting as many pages into Google as possible to learn your limits and to experiment. There is no need in creating fresh domains for this, just build more pages relevant to your site's niche.

You seem pretty particular in your approach so I think if you keep at it and have some patience you will be cool bananas in a few months time.

If there are no major issues with k/w research, etc then I guess I'll carry on with building more. I might try two things. Building out a couple of the sites to the xfactor 4 pages, see if that makes a difference as well as more clickbump sites, hoping the first lot, was just an unlucky draw. Probably to diversify in terms of niches more as well.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1978449].message }}

- Stop Wasting Time & Money on Traffic!
- You Can't Improve What You Don't Measure
- Why You Should Create Separate Desktop and Mobile Google Adwords Campaigns

14 years ago

Originally Posted by peter.h

I suppose it could be seen as early days, although this strategy is geared towards fairly short-term results.

Don't leave money on the table or be put off a business model if the claims of fast results aren't always true.

Originally Posted by peter.h

even though all the sub-keywords are ranked.

The site wasn't de-indexed then. Google removes the entire domain from its index, not just a page. Your page just isn't being rnaked for that keyword anymore. It will come back down the track when Google thinks it is worthy. At the moment it isn't.

Originally Posted by peter.h

As per this particular strategy: In terms of backlink generation: none, other than the initial indexing push, which did create a handful of backlinks for some of the sites.

I was referring to the backlinks to the competition. Once again, don't give up on a site because it needs some links (very easy to get these days) to push it along. You have done the hard work and made the site, give it a hand to pay you back.

Originally Posted by peter.h

yes mainly targeting us and other english speaking markets and so all research was conducted with G.com default

Google has many english based servers. Different Countries search for different things. Product names usually aren't global. They have localised names. For example, Hungry Jacks might get searched for 50k/month globally. It might be really easy to rank that on Page 1 in USA but that will get you hardly any traffic. It will be A LOT harder to rank for it in Google.com.au - the server generating the traffic. Make sure you check your rank on the server generating the traffic.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1978634].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Fraggler

Don't leave money on the table or be put off a business model if the claims of fast results aren't always true.

yes I know what you mean re "fast results" claims, that's why I test things for myself to see if it's true and works for me (2 diff things), and just trying to find the right angle, something that gives me a decent success rate, so I have something to work

Originally Posted by Fraggler

The site wasn't de-indexed then. Google removes the entire domain from its index, not just a page. Your page just isn't being rnaked for that keyword anymore. It will come back down the track when Google thinks it is worthy. At the moment it isn't.

yes well it's not deindexed, it went from steady 10 to steady 700+, which is pretty much the same as deinxed, it's been a week like that now, I'm thinking if it doesn't come back by itself, I'll go and add a couple more pages and backlinks.... although I was hoping I wouldn't need to do it, not because I'm lazy, because the strategy said it was necessary in most cases, but sometimes you just have to adjust

Originally Posted by Fraggler

I was referring to the backlinks to the competition. Once again, don't give up on a site because it needs some links (very easy to get these days) to push it along. You have done the hard work and made the site, give it a hand to pay you back.

ok I see what you mean... most of the competitor sites are amazon and web 2.0 type listings, with either thousands of backlinks or none at all of course some authority sites here and there as well

Originally Posted by Fraggler

Google has many english based servers. Different Countries search for different things. Product names usually aren't global. They have localised names. For example, Hungry Jacks might get searched for 50k/month globally. It might be really easy to rank that on Page 1 in USA but that will get you hardly any traffic. It will be A LOT harder to rank for it in Google.com.au - the server generating the traffic. Make sure you check your rank on the server generating the traffic.

yes quite true and being from Australia I had to pay attention to this and so I used MNF and MS with google.com settings instead of local and all domains are either .com, .net or .org

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1978918].message }}

InternetMarketingIQ

14 years ago

Marketing isn't about mechanics... it's about people. And so many people who want to make money online never stop and figure out that the only way that is going to happen if someone else cracks open the wallet and buys something they are offering.

So stop what you are doing and focus on the person on the other end. What value are you offering them that is so compelling they must take advantage of your offer?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Internet Marketing IQâ„¢

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1978308].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by InternetMarketingIQ

Marketing isn't about mechanics... it's about people. And so many people who want to make money online never stop and figure out that the only way that is going to happen if someone else cracks open the wallet and buys something they are offering.

So stop what you are doing and focus on the person on the other end. What value are you offering them that is so compelling they must take advantage of your offer?

I suppose this strategy is certainly based on a money making action, in this case visitors clicking on AW ads. And if CTR is a measure of performance, it does better than most others. There's no cpa or other kind of offer.

In terms of value the article is unique and well written. Not a NY Times article but geared towards the person in search for the product the site based upon.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1978483].message }}

- Stop Wasting Time & Money on Traffic!
- You Can't Improve What You Don't Measure
- Why You Should Create Separate Desktop and Mobile Google Adwords Campaigns

14 years ago

Originally Posted by InternetMarketingIQ

Marketing isn't about mechanics... it's about people. And so many people who want to make money online never stop and figure out that the only way that is going to happen if someone else cracks open the wallet and buys something they are offering.

So stop what you are doing and focus on the person on the other end. What value are you offering them that is so compelling they must take advantage of your offer?

When you are building a business model off organic search engine traffic it requires knowledge or proper keyword research. That is mechanics.

What happens on the site or how you treat your visitors is only part of it. You can't make they take advantage of an offer they never see.

I don't like the whole knock a site as quick as possible with the aim of targeting a single keyword because I think it is an inefficient approach. I think there is more potential in creating a proper site which is of real use to the end-user because it has a lot more potential for growth, diversification, and for it to be naturally promoted. It still needs the mechanics of keyword research though (if you want search engine traffic).

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1978650].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Fraggler

When you are building a business model off organic search engine traffic it requires knowledge or proper keyword research. That is mechanics.

What happens on the site or how you treat your visitors is only part of it. You can't make they take advantage of an offer they never see.

I don't like the whole knock a site as quick as possible with the aim of targeting a single keyword because I think it is an inefficient approach. I think there is more potential in creating a proper site which is of real use to the end-user because it has a lot more potential for growth, diversification, and for it to be naturally promoted. It still needs the mechanics of keyword research though (if you want search engine traffic).

In theory a 100 1 page sites compared to 1 big 100 page would require a similar amount of effort to build, I would assume.

In theory small sites would be more focussed on the keyword and get better ranking more quickly, the domain name being the biggest advantage. You'd have to do a lot more backlinking to a sub page to get anywhere close.

The big site is cheaper of course and can turn into an authority site in the longterm.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1978981].message }}

- Stop Wasting Time & Money on Traffic!
- You Can't Improve What You Don't Measure
- Why You Should Create Separate Desktop and Mobile Google Adwords Campaigns

14 years ago

Originally Posted by peter.h

In theory a 100 1 page sites compared to 1 big 100 page would require a similar amount of effort to build, I would assume.

In theory small sites would be more focussed on the keyword and get better ranking more quickly, the domain name being the biggest advantage. You'd have to do a lot more backlinking to a sub page to get anywhere close.

The big site is cheaper of course and can turn into an authority site in the longterm.

No, this is a common misconception from everyone pushing the exact domain name match these days and people's desire to have results, fast. The exact domain name match will give you a quick initial boost - for one keyword. Just like you have experienced it will fade away as Google realises the site has no credibility.

A site doesn't have to be targeted at one keyword. It can be targeted at a heap of relevant keywords. This creates a 'theme' for the site.

The web is loaded with sites that use a domain name as nothing more than brand familiarity. Amazon does not have a keyword rich domain name and it still manages to get new product pages with no external backlinks onto the first page of Google with no issues at all.

They get this boost because they have a domain that has been built up over time and has earnt trust and authority with the search engine (as well as users). The size of the site allows for a large amount of internal linking to help push PageRank to the new pages. This is what gives it the initial boost.

You cannot get this from a fresh domain. Each site you create you have to start from scratch in Google's eyes. With an established site that you just keep adding new pages to you don't need to spend as much time building backlinks or other promotion to make the sites worthy.

In 6 months down the track you will notice that your sites will really start to kick and and exponentially increase their returns. This does depend on if you put the work in with them now though.

[ 1 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1979227].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Fraggler

No, this is a common misconception from everyone pushing the exact domain name match these days and people's desire to have results, fast. The exact domain name match will give you a quick initial boost - for one keyword. Just like you have experienced it will fade away as Google realises the site has no credibility.

A site doesn't have to be targeted at one keyword. It can be targeted at a heap of relevant keywords. This creates a 'theme' for the site.

The web is loaded with sites that use a domain name as nothing more than brand familiarity. Amazon does not have a keyword rich domain name and it still manages to get new product pages with no external backlinks onto the first page of Google with no issues at all.

They get this boost because they have a domain that has been built up over time and has earnt trust and authority with the search engine (as well as users). The size of the site allows for a large amount of internal linking to help push PageRank to the new pages. This is what gives it the initial boost.

You cannot get this from a fresh domain. Each site you create you have to start from scratch in Google's eyes. With an established site that you just keep adding new pages to you don't need to spend as much time building backlinks or other promotion to make the sites worthy.

In 6 months down the track you will notice that your sites will really start to kick and and exponentially increase their returns. This does depend on if you put the work in with them now though.

I know where you're going with this and so far I'm agreeing about 50% with you and let me explain why.

I'm already sold on the value of "big" sites and the fact that the authority they carry will eventually make ranking many keywords easier. For example I also built a 10 page (not big but bigger than a 1-page site), for an unknown reason it's not ranking for the main keyword, however the funny thing is, it's ranking for all sub keywords and whole bunch of other little keywords, which I hadn't even optimised for. And it's making an ok income via adsense. So I get what you mean.

Having said that if you are starting out, like me you are starting from scratch and the easiest and quickest way to do that is with small domain keyworded sites, I assume anyway.

I'm not buying into the quality content argument just yet. You can have a quality article on a one page site and 100 fluff articles on a bigger site.

Say you did 100 micro sites vs a 100 page site. If you were able to get a large percentage of micros into the top then surely they'd make more income than a 100 page site - with adsense anyway.

Question is, is it possible to get good rankings and a lot of traffic with micros and do they have staying power or not. A lot of people say they do a lot of people say they don't. What's left to do is test it for yourself

... but you probably don't want to put all your shoes in one basket and test both ways

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1982375].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by unlimitedsubmissions

They do, I own hundreds of them. You just need a system that works and approach this whole farming thing systematically. You know, do A-Z, rinse repeat.

Once in a while check and update your rankings for all your sites in an excel file. You'll notice what sites need backlinking etc

noooooooooo... don't speak of link building

but it's good to hear they work... ok I'm off doing more testing

... any pointers re where I went wrong with my kw research or other?????

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1994260].message }}

- Stop Wasting Time & Money on Traffic!
- You Can't Improve What You Don't Measure
- Why You Should Create Separate Desktop and Mobile Google Adwords Campaigns

14 years ago

Originally Posted by unlimitedsubmissions

Define credibility and how Google would determine this.

Lack of PageRank/TrustRank.

I know the system works but I am saying it isn't the most efficient approach. As Peter has found with his slightly larger sight, the long tails alone from having a site full of content can be very rewarding.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1982523].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Fraggler

Lack of PageRank/TrustRank.

I know the system works but I am saying it isn't the most efficient approach. As Peter has found with his slightly larger sight, the long tails alone from having a site full of content can be very rewarding.

I'm thinking of doing another test, that's kind of in between... start of with 1-4 pages then instead of leaving it for good, drip 1 article once a month... see if that prevents "the slow death"...

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1994265].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by unlimitedsubmissions

Define credibility and how Google would determine this.

Look, it's just a matter of preference, there's no wrong or right way of doing it. Some people like to expand horizontally, some do it vertically.

I have tried both ways and have found micro niche sites to be the easier, more systematic approach.

Just because you have 10 pages of content with 500 words on each page, doesn't mean your site provides a better value to the user than the 1-pager site. Google do not read every single page put up on the web to compare "quality".

Exact Domain Name match helps a lot, I've outranked all the big sites just because of this, EZA, Amazon, Hubpages etc.

The OP was right, it's way harder to rank a website that happens to have a page about a KW than a site dedicated solely to the KW with exact domain name match.

I agree with this and that's why I want to do more testing with micro sites...

my assumptions are
1) value to visitor can be similar for both micros and bigs if done right,
however...
2) 100 micros will make a lot more income than 1 100 page site
3) effort (if automated) is far less for 100 micros vs 1 100 page site

so again it comes down to whether you can get a decent success rate with micros, because with big sites you're pretty much guaranteed some sort of success, even if proportionally lower

I will do big sites if i have to, but only if the micros don't work out for me

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1994257].message }}

Murderface

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Fraggler

I don't like the whole knock a site as quick as possible with the aim of targeting a single keyword because I think it is an inefficient approach. I think there is more potential in creating a proper site which is of real use to the end-user because it has a lot more potential for growth, diversification, and for it to be naturally promoted. It still needs the mechanics of keyword research though (if you want search engine traffic).

-I think Google would agree with you, too.

-M

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1978998].message }}

Senior Home Care San Diego

14 years ago

Originally Posted by unlimitedsubmissions

Real-use to user can be provided thru publishing quality content.

If you can pump these sites out as fast as possible thru the means of outsourcing, why not?

yes if the single site is of value to you and the visitor... I don't think there's any issue with duplicating the concept

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1978984].message }}

bocephus

14 years ago

Originally Posted by peter.h

Sites were all kicked off on March 16th.

Two options...

1. Learn a bit of patience. You might want to give your sites a touch more than 26 days to mature.

2. Call an attorney and sue Clickbump and Xfactor for not giving you the correct magic formula for instant wealth.

Honestly... I'm slowly developing a great product idea. It will be a book by a guy who hasn't even made $100 in IM but at least has the common sense to know that it will take time, work and patience to reach established goals.

Is there room in the Common Sense Coaching niche?

What if I posted a great article here about the perfect golf swing. I described it in 5 pages of excruciating detail... the grip, the backswing, how I hold my head, when I turn my hips... the whole enchilada. I tell you that I use this swing to either win or place in the money on almost every tournament I enter. I mean this is the perfect swing, and I'm giving it to you because I want you to do well with it.

If, a week later, someone posted the following:

Man... I just tried the "Bocephus Swing" and can't seem to hit anything straight. I read the book five times and am sure I have everything right. Hips, grip... yeah... everything. I can't even break 100. I've been working at this for like 2 weeks and it just isn't happening!

What would you say? Duh... right? Did you ever stop to think that maybe Clickbump and Xfactor (besides the fact that they obviously didn't "invent" the methods they tout) have put in a bit more than 26 days doing what they do? That they have probably screwed up or failed in some other way on more sites than you have even created?

Maybe work at it for a year, then come back and report your statistics.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1979614].message }}

Kay King

14 years ago

There is no adsense method I've ever seen that promises fast results - so why do people keep expecting them?

Adsense is a long term method - not a quick fix. You can analyze your sites to death but it won't change the results. Build quality sites and give them time to mature.

The plus of adsense is that sites I built years ago earn money every month now with no effort from me. It may take a site months to produce reliable income and you can cause yourself problems by trying to manipulate results in google.

I had good results recently with a new site - but the domain is one I've had registered for years and that helped a lot. When you are launching a new site on a new domain, 3 weeks is nothing.

kay

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1979677].message }}

Marhelper

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

There is no adsense method I've ever seen that promises fast results - so why do people keep expecting them?

Adsense is a long term method - not a quick fix. You can analyze your sites to death but it won't change the results. Build quality sites and give them time to mature.

The plus of adsense is that sites I built years ago earn money every month now with no effort from me. It may take a site months to produce reliable income and you can cause yourself problems by trying to manipulate results in google.

I had good results recently with a new site - but the domain is one I've had registered for years and that helped a lot. When you are launching a new site on a new domain, 3 weeks is nothing.

kay

I think this speaks to the overwhelming majority of people that get involved in IM. So many want fast results and if they do not get them than they will start to panic.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1979834].message }}

Simon Haestoe

14 years ago

How the f*ck did you get the adsense ads to work using the x-factor method..? I've managed to make it work on blogs before, but not on a site. Do you use Xsitepro as well?

Everything works with them but the most important thing - showing up on my site.
If you remember how you did it, could you mention the steps - exactly how you did them? Can't even begin to say how much difference it would make..

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1980325].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Simon Haestoe

How the f*ck did you get the adsense ads to work using the x-factor method..? I've managed to make it work on blogs before, but not on a site. Do you use Xsitepro as well?

Everything works with them but the most important thing - showing up on my site.
If you remember how you did it, could you mention the steps - exactly how you did them? Can't even begin to say how much difference it would make..

I don't use xsite pro, I use a simple custom html site template. All you need to do is create an ad in the adsense admin, copy the code and paste inside the html code on your site where you want the ad to appear.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1982427].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

There is no adsense method I've ever seen that promises fast results - so why do people keep expecting them?

Adsense is a long term method - not a quick fix. You can analyze your sites to death but it won't change the results. Build quality sites and give them time to mature.

The plus of adsense is that sites I built years ago earn money every month now with no effort from me. It may take a site months to produce reliable income and you can cause yourself problems by trying to manipulate results in google.

I had good results recently with a new site - but the domain is one I've had registered for years and that helped a lot. When you are launching a new site on a new domain, 3 weeks is nothing.

kay

thanks for the input. I don't doubt, big sites will do well longterm.

Question is whether one can have good results with small sites too.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1982411].message }}

Kay King

14 years ago

My sites aren't all big sites - some are quite small. Point is - it takes time for domains and sites to mature. Due to the huge number of sites and blogs started every day and quickly abandoned, google gives little importance to new domains/sites.

Time is just not a factor you can manipulate but if you continue to build sites you will begin to see results....in time.

Everything works with them but the most important thing - showing up on my site.
If you remember how you did it, could you mention the steps - exactly how you did them? Can't even begin to say how much difference it would make..

You asked this question before - you are making a simple task hard. Your adsense is added with the click of a button in XSP. If you have set up your publisher ID in xsitepro (directions are in the manual - only takes a minute to do) - you need only position your cursor where you want the ad, right click and click on "adsense". Then configure the size/colors and click "OK" and it's added. I still use the first version of xsp as it suits me but I doubt xsp2 is much different when it comes to inserting adsense.

You won't "view" the adsense on the page you are working on becuase it hasn't been published yet. But you will see a box show up on the page after you insert the adsense. That's it.

kay

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1982429].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

My sites aren't all big sites - some are quite small. Point is - it takes time for domains and sites to mature. Due to the huge number of sites and blogs started every day and quickly abandoned, google gives little importance to new domains/sites.

Time is just not a factor you can manipulate but if you continue to build sites you will begin to see results....in time.

kay

just the other day I read I read a post here on WF saying that new sites get an initial boost for a few weeks

so as usual there are conflicting views

but I think what you are saying is quite true, you need to give things time to evolve, will they stick, what is just the right amount of contet, linkbuilding or no link building, all questions that unfortunatly don't have a "set in stone" answer

so back to more testing... will work on attempting various approaches, hopefully it's just a matter of a little more content... I so dread having to do a lot of link building... I hope google won't make me do link building

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1994218].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by bocephus

Two options...

1. Learn a bit of patience. You might want to give your sites a touch more than 26 days to mature.

looks like I'll have to, but it seems I better be doing something in the meantime as well..

Originally Posted by bocephus

2. Call an attorney and sue Clickbump and Xfactor for not giving you the correct magic formula for instant wealth.

I wasn't complaining, I'm trying to get feedback on what I can improve...

Originally Posted by bocephus

Honestly... I'm slowly developing a great product idea. It will be a book by a guy who hasn't even made $100 in IM but at least has the common sense to know that it will take time, work and patience to reach established goals.

Is there room in the Common Sense Coaching niche?

What if I posted a great article here about the perfect golf swing. I described it in 5 pages of excruciating detail... the grip, the backswing, how I hold my head, when I turn my hips... the whole enchilada. I tell you that I use this swing to either win or place in the money on almost every tournament I enter. I mean this is the perfect swing, and I'm giving it to you because I want you to do well with it.

If, a week later, someone posted the following:

Man... I just tried the "Bocephus Swing" and can't seem to hit anything straight. I read the book five times and am sure I have everything right. Hips, grip... yeah... everything. I can't even break 100. I've been working at this for like 2 weeks and it just isn't happening!

What would you say? Duh... right? Did you ever stop to think that maybe Clickbump and Xfactor (besides the fact that they obviously didn't "invent" the methods they tout) have put in a bit more than 26 days doing what they do? That they have probably screwed up or failed in some other way on more sites than you have even created?

Maybe work at it for a year, then come back and report your statistics.

well, this is my very attempt to improve on possible mistakes I've made

whilst it's encouraging to read success stories (I do like them myself) I think there's also value at looking at where a beginner went wrong and giving productive feedback, which could help myself and others too

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1982401].message }}

Mrs S

14 years ago

Peter - I'm not sure you've said how you are driving traffic to these sites? If I were you I'd pick the one that made the most money and spend the next month submitting articles to build backlinks and drive visitors over.

It's early days to judge the success of the sites - you need to give them time to mature and just focus on driving traffic to them.

If it makes you feel any better I built 9 sites about 2 months ago and in that time they've made about $8 in total - that's what happens if you build sites and then move onto something else without pushing any traffic to them lol

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1982648].message }}

Rhythms

14 years ago

Hi Pete,

Looking at all these posts, I've come to the conclusion that it's not working for you and you should give up - er, how much do you want for those ten sites? lol. Because I'm a good guy and a fellow Aussie, I'll take them off your hands....

Rob....

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Rob Molloy

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1983484].message }}

Simon Haestoe 14 years ago

Yeah, I didn't say the adsense-thing wasn't visible. It is. There is a big box with the text "Google Adsense" in it. But there is no ad on the real page.

Edit: But thank you anyway Kay King. I wasn't clear about that.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1984934].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Rhythms

Hi Pete,

Looking at all these posts, I've come to the conclusion that it's not working for you and you should give up - er, how much do you want for those ten sites? lol. Because I'm a good guy and a fellow Aussie, I'll take them off your hands....

Rob....

thanks for the PM and value feedback

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1994360].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Mrs S

Peter - I'm not sure you've said how you are driving traffic to these sites? If I were you I'd pick the one that made the most money and spend the next month submitting articles to build backlinks and drive visitors over.

If there is a way I will avoid creating back links... I'd rather create more content then building back links, it's just a big task with so many different approaches...

I know I just might have to eventually, but I will avoid it like the plague

but funny you should mention this, about driving traffic... so far I've for the most part done without link building other than an initial push at the start for some of the sites

well, I have one other xfactor site (4 pages) that actually did give me a nice income last month... after 1.5 months it was sitting around 8 and I went ahead and did a s*nuke blast (social networks + article directories + social bookmarks + pinging)... and instead of gaining it dropped from the 1st to 2nd page.... and along with it the income is now only a fraction

still hoping it'll come back... but it does seem you either need to do the link building consistently or rather not at all

Originally Posted by Mrs S

It's early days to judge the success of the sites - you need to give them time to mature and just focus on driving traffic to them.

If it makes you feel any better I built 9 sites about 2 months ago and in that time they've made about $8 in total - that's what happens if you build sites and then move onto something else without pushing any traffic to them lol

are you still trying micros or bigger sites now?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1994333].message }}

topmbtshoes

14 years ago

Can you show your website?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1994275].message }}

WareTime

14 years ago

Originally Posted by peter.h

all sites unique 1 page content by hired copy writers

I think I found your main problem. You have way too much content. Cut that back to half a page at the max.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1994434].message }}

peter.h 14 years ago

Originally Posted by WareTime

I think I found your main problem. You have way too much content. Cut that back to half a page at the max.

Well it's one page not counting the the privacy, contact and sitemap pages... As for little content, this may well be true, however I am basing this on the "clickbump" method, which basically favors the 1 pager.. that's why I'm testing this... and was initially looking for feedback from others who had done the same
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1998685].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by peter.h

Sites were all kicked off on March 16th. Even though I did immediate forum posts, bookmarking, pining, stats site listings, etc they all got indexed about a week or more later (some several weeks), not within a day or two.

I suspect something is off about what you're doing here, most likely Googlebot isn't seeing your links. Typically I see a new site partially indexed within 24-48 hours and fully indexed with 3-5 days. These are sites with 50-200 pages of unique and/or blended content.

Originally Posted by peter.h

[*]Approx 3 weeks of adsense exposure for all but a couple of sites[*]all sites unique 1 page content by hired copy writers

The sites have only been up for about 3 weeks and, if I understand you correctly, only have one page of content.

First of all, you do need to give the sites time to mature and to help them do that seek out quality authority links. These don't have to be from super powerful sites but I do recommend PR2 or higher established sites.

Second, your content may not be well focused on the keywords. I've found this to be a common problem with outsourced articles and PLR articles. Often it requires some tweaking to get them to target better (aka buying) keywords and trigger higher paying Adsense ads.

Lastly, sites with more content will tend to do better. This isn't a hard and fast rule, I have a number of 1 pagers that are consistent $1 a day earners, however, I've gotten better results at 50+ pages.

Originally Posted by peter.h

[*]all keyword conducted according to clickbump's main rule of min. 3 PR0's in top 10, as you can see some have considerably more (couple of exceptions)

One problem you appear to be having is what I call "stat-itis". You're probably like me, sort of a numbers person. You need to let that side of you go and realize the real numbers to focus on are the number of sites/pages you build and the number of links to those sites. Sure, there are a few other factors to consider, such as quality of links and relevance of content, but if you begin by focusing on those two things, sites/pages create and links created, the rest will begin to fall into place as you gain experience.

Originally Posted by peter.h

[*]About 1 week ago this site was kicked into oblivion by the big G, penalty, sandbox, what ever you want to call it. I'm still hoping it's just google dance, but super low ranking has been consistent for a week now.

If you don't have good links your site will sink to it's natural level after a temporary new content boost. I'd guess that you don't have any solid links to this site.

I doubt that you got a manual review. "Made for Affiliate/Adsense" (MFA) sites that get a manual review, typically a 30 second or less visit to the index page, get deindexed entirely, meaning that if you type in site:yoursite.com into Google there are no results.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1994527].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

I suspect something is off about what you're doing here, most likely Googlebot isn't seeing your links. Typically I see a new site partially indexed within 24-48 hours and fully indexed with 3-5 days. These are sites with 50-200 pages of unique and/or blended content.

I'll have to double check that next time round, but at least they're not ranking in the top 1000 (using MS) for the first week or more... maybe the backlinks aren't strong enough

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

The sites have only been up for about 3 weeks and, if I understand you correctly, only have one page of content.

yes, 1 page + privacy, sitemap, contact as per clickbump method

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

First of all, you do need to give the sites time to mature and to help them do that seek out quality authority links. These don't have to be from super powerful sites but I do recommend PR2 or higher established sites.

in fact the clickbump method stipulates no backlinks... most of the time... having the site ranked just on the merits of it's keyword targeted approach, but I don't find a way to rank better than yes I'll have to do some backlinking

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

Second, your content may not be well focused on the keywords. I've found this to be a common problem with outsourced articles and PLR articles. Often it requires some tweaking to get them to target better (aka buying) keywords and trigger higher paying Adsense ads.

I've been thinking about this, been integrating related keywords via external keyword tool and g*gles related searches... but may also need some more "sales" keywords, is it just a matter of adding ex. "sales, discount, buy, etc type words... or is there a more specific strategy to it?

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

Lastly, sites with more content will tend to do better. This isn't a hard and fast rule, I have a number of 1 pagers that are consistent $1 a day earners, however, I've gotten better results at 50+ pages.

do these 50 pages make more than $50 a day? (even though you can't really see it that way I suppose, because a number of the 1 pagers will also fail, making no income at all...)... how about $25 a day?

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

One problem you appear to be having is what I call "stat-itis". You're probably like me, sort of a numbers person. You need to let that side of you go and realize the real numbers to focus on are the number of sites/pages you build and the number of links to those sites. Sure, there are a few other factors to consider, such as quality of links and relevance of content, but if you begin by focusing on those two things, sites/pages create and links created, the rest will begin to fall into place as you gain experience.

yes I am and I'm resisting the urge to over-analyze every day

... getting better though and do manage to take action as well... but yes very important for guys like us... and so I keep testing different things... I'm still fairly new, so I'm hoping I can reduce your 2 steps of content + blinks to just content... and hoping google sees the value in it... but if I don't see better results seen I guess I'll have to go the rute of blinks also

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

If you don't have good links your site will sink to it's natural level after a temporary new content boost. I'd guess that you don't have any solid links to this site.

*sniff*

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

I doubt that you got a manual review. "Made for Affiliate/Adsense" (MFA) sites that get a manual review, typically a 30 second or less visit to the index page, get deindexed entirely, meaning that if you type in site:yoursite.com into Google there are no results.

yes it's still sitting on 700+
So I should be looking to prolong visits to 30 secs+?
also what is an acceptable bounce rate... I assume G would be looking into that also?
and I assume they have a way of figuring this out wether you use Ganalytics or not? Would you recommend Ganalytics to monitor these things?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1998875].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by peter.h

in fact the clickbump method stipulates no backlinks... most of the time... having the site ranked just on the merits of it's keyword targeted approach, but I don't find a way to rank better than yes I'll have to do some backlinking

This is the main area where I disagree with the 'Clickbump' method. In my experience, links are essential.

Originally Posted by peter.h

I've been thinking about this, been integrating related keywords via external keyword tool and g*gles related searches... but may also need some more "sales" keywords, is it just a matter of adding ex. "sales, discount, buy, etc type words... or is there a more specific strategy to it?

I go over this in a lot of detail in some of the posts on my 'earn cash online' blog in my sig.

Originally Posted by peter.h

do these 50 pages make more than $50 a day? (even though you can't really see it that way I suppose, because a number of the 1 pagers will also fail, making no income at all...)... how about $25 a day?

No, but because the site gets more traffic since the long tail keyword targeting is more spread out they're more consistent earners. It does usually end up with just a few pages bringing in money but having more pages on the site means that I don't miss those opportunities. And, if you hit the right combinations, you can get a $25 a day or higher niche site.

Originally Posted by peter.h

I'm hoping I can reduce your 2 steps of content + blinks to just content... and hoping google sees the value in it...

Unfortunately, Google's algorithms don't know that much about content, especially the quality of it. The only thing they'll determine is how the content relates statistically to keyword terms. They'll rank a page primarily based on links. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't have decent content on your Adsense sites, just not to depend upon it for ranking purposes.

Originally Posted by peter.h

also what is an acceptable bounce rate... I assume G would be looking into that also?

There is some debate over this but I don't think they track it for ranking purposes since its an unreliable measure due to variations in browsing habits, site types and so forth. For example, a site like Digg or other social bookmarking sites will have high bounce rates but that's really their purpose, to direct people to other sites they're interested in. It can be a valuable stat for sales/squeeze pages and ecommerce sites but for affiliate/Adsense sites you'll be expecting a bounce rate of 80% or higher.

I don't use Google Analytics that much myself. I prefer to use Statcounter or other, internal, stats programs for my niche sites. I only use Analytics with sites that have a direct business relationship with Google, those where I use either Adwords or Adsense.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1999623].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

This is the main area where I disagree with the 'Clickbump' method. In my experience, links are essential.

so far I've seen a lot of sites jump to high positions with no backlinking the question of course is whether there is any longterm staying power

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

I go over this in a lot of detail in some of the posts on my 'earn cash online' blog in my sig.

I'll be off visiting your blog then

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

No, but because the site gets more traffic since the long tail keyword targeting is more spread out they're more consistent earners. It does usually end up with just a few pages bringing in money but having more pages on the site means that I don't miss those opportunities. And, if you hit the right combinations, you can get a $25 a day or higher niche site.

I have no doubt they'd be more consistent earners, rather than the hit and miss of micros (1pagers at least)... best to test both ways and decide a few months down the track... I suspect that having some big sites in the mix will also lesson the chance of a G ban of sorts... even with hundreds of sites they'd show up on top and give you more credibility

How many pages do you typically start out with? I suppose you add more pages later one. So how many pages do you generally end up with? Or do you keep building indefinitely?

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

Unfortunately, Google's algorithms don't know that much about content, especially the quality of it. The only thing they'll determine is how the content relates statistically to keyword terms. They'll rank a page primarily based on links. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't have decent content on your Adsense sites, just not to depend upon it for ranking purposes.

yes blinks make total sense from Gs perspective
however I've read that numerous have had success without them though and initial rankings seem to support this... again time will tell if they have staying power... but you definitely want to have a backup plan

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

There is some debate over this but I don't think they track it for ranking purposes since its an unreliable measure due to variations in browsing habits, site types and so forth. For example, a site like Digg or other social bookmarking sites will have high bounce rates but that's really their purpose, to direct people to other sites they're interested in. It can be a valuable stat for sales/squeeze pages and ecommerce sites but for affiliate/Adsense sites you'll be expecting a bounce rate of 80% or higher.

yes I'm getting those sorts of figures and hopefully google sees it the same way as what you're saying

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

I don't use Google Analytics that much myself. I prefer to use Statcounter or other, internal, stats programs for my niche sites. I only use Analytics with sites that have a direct business relationship with Google, those where I use either Adwords or Adsense.

yes I've started using statcounter as well for some sites... if you're using adsense though there no point in not GAnalytics? Since they'd have all the info via the Adsense code anyway?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2001087].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by peter.h

so far I've seen a lot of sites jump to high positions with no backlinking the question of course is whether there is any longterm staying power

Unless the competition is virtually non-existent, there won't be any long term staying power. You'll drop like a rock once the new content bonus wears off in most cases. You can churn and burn sites this way though if you don't mind launching 10 or more new domains a week although that can get expensive, especially if you outsource a lot of work like content and site creation.

Originally Posted by peter.h

How many pages do you typically start out with? I suppose you add more pages later one. So how many pages do you generally end up with? Or do you keep building indefinitely?

For static sites, usually between 50-200 pages with no further planned additions. For WordPress blogs I drip feed, 10 posts to start and keep building new posts. For ecommerce sites I've done for clients, usually 1000+ product and info pages with ongoing additions and removals.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2001104].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

Unless the competition is virtually non-existent, there won't be any long term staying power. You'll drop like a rock once the new content bonus wears off in most cases. You can churn and burn sites this way though if you don't mind launching 10 or more new domains a week although that can get expensive, especially if you outsource a lot of work like content and site creation.

ok I have started some blinking for a couple sites, I just thought I better start testing this now, since it'll take time to see results either way, but also monitor short and longterm effects compared with those that don't get blinking

I'm doing articles, social bookmarks, rss feeds aggregators and pining?
Do I have to do forums and high pr profiles as well? Does one method stand out?

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

For static sites, usually between 50-200 pages with no further planned additions.

good heavens... that'll surely break the bank... and take 6 months to recoup your investment? or do you not outsource this?... is there some other cost-efficient way of creating that much content?

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

For WordPress blogs I drip feed, 10 posts to start and keep building new posts.

that looks more feasable... would it generally be like 1 new article a week or month?

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

For ecommerce sites I've done for clients, usually 1000+ product and info pages with ongoing additions and removals.

I suppose you'd have some content already or smallish duplicate descriptions

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2001172].message }}

Simon Haestoe

14 years ago

"is there some other cost-efficient way of creating that much content?" <--- dude....... you can write 100 pages in a week without a problem. A lot of work, lots of hours, but no problem. Do it smart - every post doesn't have reinvent the wheel. Just do it.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2001212].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Simon Haestoe

"is there some other cost-efficient way of creating that much content?" <--- dude....... you can write 100 pages in a week without a problem. A lot of work, lots of hours, but no problem. Do it smart - every post doesn't have reinvent the wheel. Just do it.

I don't know I don't have a prob writing in general, but golly me that's sounds like running a marathon bare feet at the age of 101

ok I seriously have to get this dragon naturally speaking thingy installed now

the main reason though is that if you start writing everything yourself, then it's not really "automated" right?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2003866].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by peter.h

I'm doing articles, social bookmarks, rss feeds aggregators and pining?
Do I have to do forums and high pr profiles as well? Does one method stand out?

My suggested path is to develop your own network of supporting sites where you have full or strong partial control. This might include niche related forums, social bookmarking/networking sites, article directories, blogs and so forth. These could be operated entirely by you or in a partnership with other people who're trustworthy and have complimentary goals. It may take some time to develop it fully but overly depending on other peoples' sites will cause you problems at some point.

Originally Posted by peter.h

good heavens... that'll surely break the bank... and take 6 months to recoup your investment? or do you not outsource this?... is there some other cost-efficient way of creating that much content?

There are a number of ways to create content quickly at all but the highest quality points, but, for most sites, you won't be writing the next War and Peace anyway.

Originally Posted by peter.h

I suppose you'd have some content already or smallish duplicate descriptions

Let's just say that $100K+ per site will buy a lot of content creation and programmer time.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2001460].message }}

14 years ago

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

My suggested path is to develop your own network of supporting sites where you have full or strong partial control. This might include niche related forums, social bookmarking/networking sites, article directories, blogs and so forth. These could be operated entirely by you or in a partnership with other people who're trustworthy and have complimentary goals. It may take some time to develop it fully but overly depending on other peoples' sites will cause you problems at some point.

actually this could tie in well...
the basic question is build links or build content?
well if you're just building content you're building real-estate, which is kind of what you describe above. So you still have plenty of network links, but aren't wasting time blinking when you could be building content

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

There are a number of ways to create content quickly at all but the highest quality points, but, for most sites, you won't be writing the next War and Peace anyway.

still unique content?... this point I have to research further

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

Let's just say that $100K+ per site will buy a lot of content creation and programmer time.

you know if you're busy, I'd happily take one of these off your hands

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2003893].message }}

bgmacaw 14 years ago

Originally Posted by peter.h

still unique content?... this point I have to research further

It can be unique, PLR or syndicated content or a blend of them.

Originally Posted by peter.h

you know if you're busy, I'd happily take one of these off your hands

They don't belong to me but to corporate clients that I've done contract/consulting work for.
- Thanks
Signature
Product Reviews | Earn Online Cash | Free HTML Templates
Free WordPress Themes: Boring Memo | Dateless Mini-Site | Info Magazine | 100 Twenty-Ten Niche Headers
Discount Templates, Graphics and Scripts: Templates for Website
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2004025].message }}