More Smaller Sites Or less Larger Sites?

50 replies
What is better, Having lots of small sites or just a few larger sites?

I mean ...is it better to make a new site for every keyword?

a new page on the same site for every keyword?

a new post on the same site for every keyword?

or several keywords per post?

or several keywords per page?

Is it better to have many keywords per site and just build the site up covering lots of keywords to target or is it better to spread out the keywords so they fall into more targeted niche sites?

Anybody got any definite ideas on the theory of this?

What do you guys think?

THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN DOING:

I start with one main keyword per site and then slowly add more relevant keywords as new pages and new posts until each site totals approx 100,000 exact searches per month. I try to rank each keyword to the first page of google. This is what I have been doing but I think I have too many sites as I have not reached my target with any of them yet.

What do you guys think? Is that a good strategy?

Love to get your opinions on this?
#larger #sites #smaller
  • Profile picture of the author ARVolund
    I do something similar.

    Instead of starting with one may keyword though I start with a bunch of related long tails and work my way up, the main keyword would be the last one I target. If I can find about 10 of them then I give it a go and if I find more that is so much the better. I do not really have any hard number of exact searches per month target, I just look at the group before I start and if I think it is worth the time I will have to put into it I take a shot at the group.

    Something like this

    Initial group of 10+
    crazy red widgets
    slow red widgets
    fast blue widgets
    fast red widgets
    slow yellow widgets
    etc.

    Then I work on
    red widgets
    blue widgets
    yellow widgets

    Then last but not least
    widgets

    I like starting from the bottom because those long tails rank quicker which means the site is in the black pretty quickly. Also by the time I get to the main keyword there is a fairly large amount of related content and links supporting that main keyword. A lot of times it is already ranking on the first few pages. This makes it much easier to get it to the top half of the first page.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4237204].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author RedWaterDub
      Originally Posted by ARVolund View Post


      I like starting from the bottom because those long tails rank quicker which means the site is in the black pretty quickly. Also by the time I get to the main keyword there is a fairly large amount of related content and links supporting that main keyword. A lot of times it is already ranking on the first few pages. This makes it much easier to get it to the top half of the first page.

      Yep...your way is better than mine...it's the same but you work it from the other way around which is a great idea...

      however still haven't answered the site question?

      what I'm really getting at here is if it is better to have a big site say 100 or more pages or say 10 sites with 10 or so pages?

      The maths for the keywords could work out pretty much the same so which way is better?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4237261].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author cnite3174
        That way is the better way but I take that way and put it on steroids. I do my research and find long tail keywords that get good traffic and that will read correctly in my article. I then produce thousands of keyword combinations. Their all are well optimized and keyword targeted from page to page.

        I can also set the uniqueness of each page from page to page. Ex: 35%, 50% or whatever. What use to do this is not spinner software, it's a 1000 times better. So that way most of pages get indexed fast because of the unique content and other things in place.

        From that point, all I do is schedule backlinks out for the times I set into the future building links for the 2000+ pages.

        This comes out to good traffic. So you're going the right way but this is way more powerful and fast.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4237589].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ARVolund
    Well most of mine are probably less than 20 pages but I have a few 100+. I really leave the whole thing organic, depending on the niche/keywords. My only criteria for starting a site is if the projected income will be enough to give me an ROI on the time and energy it is going to take me to get the site where it needs to be. A lot of people have rules about a minimum a projected site must make etc. All I care about is the money vs work equation.

    I do not have any hard and fast rules other than making sure the ROI makes sense. Though I rarely go after single keywords like some do, I do find a nice one once in awhile that seems like it may be worth doing. Generally though I have had more success with groups of 10 or more to start.

    I guess that is my long winded way of saying that it does not really matter to me either way. I do not force keywords together just to have more pages on a site so whatever it ends up with is just fine with me as long as it makes enough money to pay me for my time..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4237410].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Justin Lavoie
    Q: When you search for keywords in google KeywordTool , do you guys set it to "broad", "exact" or "phrase" to calculate how much searches there are for that keyword? Personaly I use exclusively the 'exact' term for my final decisions...is it a bit too extreme? When you say you want to get a combined research of 10'000 per site, which term do you use? I feel like I should not ignore the "phrase" one for some reason...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4239705].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author xXrenXx
      Originally Posted by wolfez View Post

      Q: When you search for keywords in google KeywordTool , do you guys set it to "broad", "exact" or "phrase" to calculate how much searches there are for that keyword? Personaly I use exclusively the 'exact' term for my final decisions...is it a bit too extreme? When you say you want to get a combined research of 10'000 per site, which term do you use? I feel like I should not ignore the "phrase" one for some reason...
      I personally use exact results exclusively too. This is simply because it's the 'whole truth and nothing but the truth'.

      If the keyword phrase "tennis balls" is shown to have 1000/month phrase match searches, those numbers also include searches like:

      "tennis balls shop"
      "cheap tennis balls online"
      "training tennis balls"
      "tennis balls"

      But in exact match, the numbers for "tennis balls" would be JUST for "tennis balls", which would give you a much clearer indication of whether you might get traffic from it or not.

      Hope that helped.



      Nasri
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4239820].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author RedWaterDub
      Originally Posted by wolfez View Post

      Q: When you say you want to get a combined research of 10'000 per site, which term do you use? I feel like I should not ignore the "phrase" one for some reason...

      I said a combination of 100,000 EXACT search per month. That is figure is a good one to aim for.

      Can anybody explain what cnite3174 was talking about with the uniqueness for each page a bit clearer?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4240505].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author jgant
        I used to think the many small site approach was a good strategy until one of my favorite websites was growing (I added content weekly) and I started noticing that new posts ranked well in the search engines very quickly.

        That's when I changed strategies and focused on one site. Yes, I know all my eggs are in 1 basket, but it's so much easier to rank well with a large site. I have about 350 posts, and the average post length is about 800 words.

        I've also discovered longer posts rank better.

        Now, I'm only speaking from my experience. I know many people do well with smaller sites (according to them). Had I focused on 1 site since I started, that site would have 800 posts at least.

        One large site means less time building backlinks and more time generating content. I can also spend time networking and guest blogging because I'm building a quality site where people will engage and link to.

        I target a keyword on pretty much every post (sometimes I write for the heck of it and don't bother with keywords). Unless I go after hyper-competitive keywords, my posts rank well quickly. The traffic trajectory is excellent since I started focusing on 1 site adding content almost daily (5 long posts each week now).

        If I started from scratch, I'd choose a broad topic in an area I love and set out to create a mammoth site. That's what I've been focusing on most of this year and I'm earning more per month than all months combined before shifting strategies.
        Signature
        How I hit $10,000+ per month very fast w/ 1 niche blog - Click Here to learn more (no opt-in).
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4241348].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Justin Lavoie
          jgant,

          1- how much time did it take you to build your mammoth site?
          2- what you mean is that if you like computers, build a site about computers with tons of sub pages for different keywords like "keyboards, monitors, etc.. ..right? Or you go a little bit deeper and less broad?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4241508].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author packerfan
            Originally Posted by wolfez View Post

            jgant,

            1- how much time did it take you to build your mammoth site?
            2- what you mean is that if you like computers, build a site about computers with tons of sub pages for different keywords like "keyboards, monitors, etc.. ..right? Or you go a little bit deeper and less broad?
            How about category Keyboards, posts "best wireless keyboards", "keyboard reviews", "apple keyboards", "mac compatible keyboards", "Imac Keyboard",

            You could also review individual keyboards, discuss how the keyboard is becoming less important, talk about why computers will always have keyboards, etc.
            Signature

            Nothing to see here

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4241540].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author RedWaterDub
          Originally Posted by jgant View Post


          I've also discovered longer posts rank better.


          I target a keyword on pretty much every post. The traffic trajectory is excellent since I started focusing on 1 site adding content almost daily (5 long posts each week now).
          .

          Yep...this is a good way to go. I will be trying this method...one keyword per post or page and building up one site.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4242125].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author svalegria
            ARVolund,
            Sounds interesting! Since you wait and do the main keyword last, what do you look for in the domain name? An EMD with the main keyword? What is on your main page?
            Dan
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4242265].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ARVolund
              Originally Posted by svalegria View Post

              ARVolund,
              Sounds interesting! Since you wait and do the main keyword last, what do you look for in the domain name? An EMD with the main keyword? What is on your main page?
              Dan
              I really do not worry about getting a EMD, if I find one fine but if not that is ok as well. I have always thought they were more than a little overrated. I have quite a few domains ranking very well without the keyword in the domain at all.

              As far as the mainpage goes that varies quite a bit from site to site. If we are talking about blogs then sometimes I just leave it to the posts sometimes I make a specific page the front page. Obviously I setup my static and shopping cart sites up quite a bit differently. I have a lot of ideas and test them out all the time, a lot of times I find out that great idea in my head sucks when I create the site but sometimes I find something that works pretty well.

              How you approach it also depends on the niche. I do a fair amount of craft type niches and I approach them a little differently than other niches. Those craft people love to spend money but they take a bit more of a "personal" touch to the site to work well.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4252009].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Troy Broussard
          Originally Posted by jgant View Post

          I used to think the many small site approach was a good strategy until one of my favorite websites was growing (I added content weekly) and I started noticing that new posts ranked well in the search engines very quickly.

          That's when I changed strategies and focused on one site. Yes, I know all my eggs are in 1 basket, but it's so much easier to rank well with a large site. I have about 350 posts, and the average post length is about 800 words.

          I've also discovered longer posts rank better.
          Well said.

          This is where Google is going and it should be pretty clear because they've been very candid about it. They want to see "authority" and the mini-site model is a dying breed at this point.

          The "all of your eggs in one basket" is a rational fear, but solve it in a different way. Instead of diversifying your sites and/or niches, diversify your traffic sources. Begin to branch out with paid traffic, for example, and insulate yourself from Google that way, not by trying to find a 100 niches.

          Ask yourself this, how many successful motorcycle mechanics decide to "diversify" and start working on small aircraft? It's silly. We live in a world of specialists, yet online most try to go the generalist approach to "diversify"...

          Do people have success that way? Sure. But it's getting much, much harder to make the mini-site model work. Google wants large, authoritative sites that are reliable and trustworthy - a static 10 page mini-site just doesn't meet those criteria.

          Most of the mini-site models are built around taking advantage of short-term tactics like EMD's (exact match domain names) which, while still effective, are also losing their charm.

          If instead of looking for short-term tactics and multiplying them across a 100 sites you instead focus on high quality and going wide and then deep within your niche, you'll be able to scale up your profits quicker and roll more of those profits into diversifying your traffic sources.

          It's much easier to take a $100 a month site and make it into a $1000 a month site than it is to find 9 other $100 a month sites.

          You also have the "scalability" of it to consider. If you have 100 sites, you can't effectively SEO them, for example. You will have to rely on some form of automated solution that will not yield terrific results or rely on short-term ranking algorithm loopholes (like EMD's current advantage). Many found this out the hard way when Panda came out, like a friend of mine that was doing $300 a day on Adsense mini-sites that quickly evaporated to about $25 a day almost overnight.

          However, others are still making $25k a month with Adsense and doing it with a handful of high quality authority sites instead and that model will continue to grow because it's based on "giving Google what it wants" and ultimately that is giving your readership what they want as well - quality and abundant information.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4242351].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author RedWaterDub
            Good post... Can't argue with that except maybe the all the eggs in one basket thing....But the basket has many handles holding it up I see...
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4242387].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Troy Broussard
              Originally Posted by RedWaterDub View Post

              Good post... Can't argue with that except maybe the all the eggs in one basket thing....But the basket has many handles holding it up I see...
              The thing is, if you are creating a large authority site, you're not doing anything that will expose risk to your rankings in the first place. Keep in mind that most mini-site models have been built around auto-blogging solutions or what Google refers to as "thin content" sites.

              So your "basket" is more exposed because you're really trying to take a "minimalist" approach to Internet Marketing. In other words, doing the absolute minimum to get the rankings, etc...

              But if you are building a larger high quality authority site, your risk (while never zero) is very, very low that you'll run into problems with Google.

              It will be easier and quicker to ramp up your income on the larger site and far more cost effective in terms of both time and money to support and maintain it. As you become more profitable, then start looking for other traffic sources to lessen your dependence on Google - paid traffic, advertising, etc...

              I personally believe that people buy into the 100 x $100 mini site approach because it seems "easy" - just make a $100 and "wash, rinse, repeat" - but in practice it is harder than staying within one niche and not trying to game the system...
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4242411].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author RedWaterDub
                Originally Posted by Troy Broussard View Post


                I personally believe that people buy into the 100 x $100 mini site approach because it seems "easy" - just make a $100 and "wash, rinse, repeat" - but in practice it is harder than staying within one niche and not trying to game the system...
                I think you're right...You are a wise man. I started with the view of small sites seems easy as well but as time goes on and I learn more, I realize that what you are saying makes more sense all the time...

                That said..making all these small sites has given me a good education for what works and doesn't work as I have experimented with so many different niches and keywords and also different monetizing methods etc...it has given me a good grounding to start an authority site off on the right footing so that the site actually has a future...You see it was always easier to build small sites because I didn't need to worry so much if they didn't work out...just try another one...so what you say is indeed the best way to do things but you really do need to have a good overall understanding of internet marketing before you can tackle a big site that has a future..
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4242446].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author NateRivers
            Originally Posted by Troy Broussard View Post

            Well said.

            This is where Google is going and it should be pretty clear because they've been very candid about it. They want to see "authority" and the mini-site model is a dying breed at this point.

            The "all of your eggs in one basket" is a rational fear, but solve it in a different way. Instead of diversifying your sites and/or niches, diversify your traffic sources. Begin to branch out with paid traffic, for example, and insulate yourself from Google that way, not by trying to find a 100 niches.

            Ask yourself this, how many successful motorcycle mechanics decide to "diversify" and start working on small aircraft? It's silly. We live in a world of specialists, yet online most try to go the generalist approach to "diversify"...

            Do people have success that way? Sure. But it's getting much, much harder to make the mini-site model work. Google wants large, authoritative sites that are reliable and trustworthy - a static 10 page mini-site just doesn't meet those criteria.

            Most of the mini-site models are built around taking advantage of short-term tactics like EMD's (exact match domain names) which, while still effective, are also losing their charm.

            If instead of looking for short-term tactics and multiplying them across a 100 sites you instead focus on high quality and going wide and then deep within your niche, you'll be able to scale up your profits quicker and roll more of those profits into diversifying your traffic sources.

            It's much easier to take a $100 a month site and make it into a $1000 a month site than it is to find 9 other $100 a month sites.

            You also have the "scalability" of it to consider. If you have 100 sites, you can't effectively SEO them, for example. You will have to rely on some form of automated solution that will not yield terrific results or rely on short-term ranking algorithm loopholes (like EMD's current advantage). Many found this out the hard way when Panda came out, like a friend of mine that was doing $300 a day on Adsense mini-sites that quickly evaporated to about $25 a day almost overnight.

            However, others are still making $25k a month with Adsense and doing it with a handful of high quality authority sites instead and that model will continue to grow because it's based on "giving Google what it wants" and ultimately that is giving your readership what they want as well - quality and abundant information.
            I agree with this. Take your time and build authority sites organically- it will pay off much better in the long run.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4254371].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Lyanna
            Troy, thanks for the advice. I have the same thing as jgant, except mine is pretty small scale since I just started it. I fear that having just one moneymaker makes me too vulnerable if anything should happen to it.

            I'm making money with just one site and I abandoned all my other websites that aren't making money. I don't know how to diversify my traffic sources!

            Originally Posted by Troy Broussard View Post

            Well said.

            This is where Google is going and it should be pretty clear because they've been very candid about it. They want to see "authority" and the mini-site model is a dying breed at this point.

            The "all of your eggs in one basket" is a rational fear, but solve it in a different way. Instead of diversifying your sites and/or niches, diversify your traffic sources. Begin to branch out with paid traffic, for example, and insulate yourself from Google that way, not by trying to find a 100 niches.

            Ask yourself this, how many successful motorcycle mechanics decide to "diversify" and start working on small aircraft? It's silly. We live in a world of specialists, yet online most try to go the generalist approach to "diversify"...

            Do people have success that way? Sure. But it's getting much, much harder to make the mini-site model work. Google wants large, authoritative sites that are reliable and trustworthy - a static 10 page mini-site just doesn't meet those criteria.

            Most of the mini-site models are built around taking advantage of short-term tactics like EMD's (exact match domain names) which, while still effective, are also losing their charm.

            If instead of looking for short-term tactics and multiplying them across a 100 sites you instead focus on high quality and going wide and then deep within your niche, you'll be able to scale up your profits quicker and roll more of those profits into diversifying your traffic sources.

            It's much easier to take a $100 a month site and make it into a $1000 a month site than it is to find 9 other $100 a month sites.

            You also have the "scalability" of it to consider. If you have 100 sites, you can't effectively SEO them, for example. You will have to rely on some form of automated solution that will not yield terrific results or rely on short-term ranking algorithm loopholes (like EMD's current advantage). Many found this out the hard way when Panda came out, like a friend of mine that was doing $300 a day on Adsense mini-sites that quickly evaporated to about $25 a day almost overnight.

            However, others are still making $25k a month with Adsense and doing it with a handful of high quality authority sites instead and that model will continue to grow because it's based on "giving Google what it wants" and ultimately that is giving your readership what they want as well - quality and abundant information.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4255371].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author O0o0O
    You would probably want to make a new site for every different keyword. For similar long tail keywords, you might want to bundle them together in separate web pages on a bit of a larger site.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4241561].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TheKeys
    I think it all depends. Some people have more success having like 10 or 20 sites making $10 per site.. while another spends all their time working on one big project. It all depends!!!
    Signature

    Help fund a trip to California
    Please donate to help fund my trip to California.
    Please share or tweet this
    http://goo.gl/VidCzJ

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4242277].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Vlad Romanov
    It also depends on what way you plan to monetize the site.. Like amazon review websites are small, so people who target amazon products tend to have more small sites. Clickbank products can be integrated very well into an IM authority site, so it all really depends on what you decide on doing. In my opinion pick what you want to monetize first... If I did that when I started I wouldn't be stuck with adsense on one of my first sites...

    Just my personal info.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4242326].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Amrutg
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4244021].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Apollo-Articles
    Tends to depend on the niche. Google prefers larger sites (which logistically are easier to deal with) but obviously this should be built up from a small site.

    Sam
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4252017].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ~kev~
    If you have 1 large site, that is all your going to be able to take care of.

    I run a forum that has over 55,000 members, and I run a blog - between those 2 sites, I have no free time to take care of any other projects. I would like to open another site, but I just do not have the time
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4252569].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author xXrenXx
      Originally Posted by ~kev~ View Post

      If you have 1 large site, that is all your going to be able to take care of.

      I run a forum that has over 55,000 members, and I run a blog - between those 2 sites, I have no free time to take care of any other projects. I would like to open another site, but I just do not have the time
      Forgive me if I'm asking a stupid question, but is it possible to outsource that work?



      Nasri
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4252594].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ~kev~
        Originally Posted by xXrenXx View Post

        Forgive me if I'm asking a stupid question, but is it possible to outsource that work?

        Nasri
        I could probably buy some articles, but I also run a video blog on youtube. To outsource my content I would need people who are into outdoors activities like hiking, camping, fishing, hunting,,,, stuff like that.

        The last article I posted on my blog was over 2,000 words, had an 11 minute video I uploaded to youtube just for the article, and several images. To outsource that out would probably cost a small fortune.

        Lets say that I wanted an article + video about fishing. How much would someone charge me to spend all day on their boat, videoing, taking pictures, edit the video, watermark the images, then write an article. Just uploading the video in HD to youtube took 2 1/2 hours.

        If your creating quality and original content, all your going to have time for is 1 or 2 sites.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4252638].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author xXrenXx
          Originally Posted by ~kev~ View Post

          I could probably buy some articles, but I also run a video blog on youtube. To outsource my content I would need people who are into outdoors activities like hiking, camping, fishing, hunting,,,, stuff like that.

          The last article I posted on my blog was over 2,000 words, had an 11 minute video I uploaded to youtube just for the article, and several images. To outsource that out would probably cost a small fortune.

          Lets say that I wanted an article + video about fishing. How much would someone charge me to spend all day on their boat, videoing, taking pictures, edit the video, watermark the images, then write an article. Just uploading the video in HD to youtube took 2 1/2 hours.

          If your creating quality and original content, all your going to have time for is 1 or 2 sites.
          Well man all I can say is I'm sure your subscribers love your stuff then. It's obvious you're extremely passionate about what you do. Hope it's goin well fer ya. Thanks for the insight. =)


          Nasri
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4252700].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Troy Broussard
          Originally Posted by ~kev~ View Post

          If your creating quality and original content, all your going to have time for is 1 or 2 sites.
          I don't really agree with that. I think that it's partly a function of your particular niche. Yes quality sites take more work, but in many niches you can automate and outsource a good portion of it.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4256023].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ~kev~
            Originally Posted by Troy Broussard View Post

            Yes quality sites take more work, but in many niches you can automate and outsource a good portion of it.
            In a lot of niches the work could probably be outsourced, but some can't.

            Besides my main blog, I do video blogging on youtube. A lot of times I will create a video and take pictures for an article I am writing. Lets say that I wanted to do an article about fishing on a river. I would have to outsource to someone that can write the article, owns a boat or has access to a river, can film and edit videos, takes good pictures,,,,,.

            Last weekend I spent 3 days on a local river fishing, filming videos and taking pictures for an article. Either I could "try" to outsource that, or I could do it myself. If I am going to be fishing anyway, why not do it myself.

            If the website is about stuff that you do on a regular basis, its going to be easy to find content. I do not see a reason to outsource stuff that I am going to be doing anyway.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4260272].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Troy Broussard
              Originally Posted by ~kev~ View Post

              In a lot of niches the work could probably be outsourced, but some can't.

              Besides my main blog, I do video blogging on youtube. A lot of times I will create a video and take pictures for an article I am writing. Lets say that I wanted to do an article about fishing on a river. I would have to outsource to someone that can write the article, owns a boat or has access to a river, can film and edit videos, takes good pictures,,,,,.

              Last weekend I spent 3 days on a local river fishing, filming videos and taking pictures for an article. Either I could "try" to outsource that, or I could do it myself. If I am going to be fishing anyway, why not do it myself.

              If the website is about stuff that you do on a regular basis, its going to be easy to find content. I do not see a reason to outsource stuff that I am going to be doing anyway.
              Hi ~kev~,

              Yeah, I get ya man... and I think your site and niche is cool and you're creating a huge value for your users. I was just pointing out that most sites and niches don't require the level of personal attention that yours does, that's all...

              I wasn't suggesting or implying that YOU outsource anything.

              Take care and keep those cool vid's coming...
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4260351].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Tom Ryan
                I like to do some of each. Usually I'll start out with a smaller site in a niche, just to test out the waters. If the traffic seems to come pretty easy in the niche, I'll either scale up that site, or just build a new larger presence within that niche.
                Signature


                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4260390].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ~kev~
                Originally Posted by Troy Broussard View Post

                I wasn't suggesting or implying that YOU outsource anything.

                Take care and keep those cool vid's coming...
                Thank you.

                I see a lot of people that want to create as much "text" content as possible, and for those types of people, outsourcing would probably work.

                Personally, I think there are several different types of bloggers:

                People that want to outsource everything
                People that want to put as little effort as possible
                People that want to get rich quick
                People that want to put out some effort, as long as the effort is not too much
                People that are willing to go that extra mile

                Site owners are not going to build and authority site unless their in the extra mile group.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4260395].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author outlandishmagpie
    For what it's worth I use sniper sites. That is sites targeted at one specific product. This invariably limits the amount of pages I can add to the site while still being relevant.

    Once one was working I set up a new sniper site targeting a direct competitor product using the original site as a template. I then linked the sites using suitable anchor text. If that worked I repeated the process.

    Now I must say Google Panda hasn't affected any of my results, which may be because I wrote the content myself. But it does look like this model is on the way out.

    So, what I propose to do is set up a site targeting a group of products, that is say about 20 pages in all and get each page ranked. If that works OK I can see the possibility of repeating the above process with these type of sites.

    And I would never complete the linking into a link wheel. The complete link wheels used to work like magic but not now.

    As for what is better, a large site or a small one I can only say the above has worked for me. But it looks like I'm going to have to amend that.
    Signature

    Being outlandish and a magpie at the same time is difficult, but I try.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4253754].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JamesGw
    I do a combination of both. Why not?

    Ill expand: I think it's good to have a bunch of smaller sites because, unless you're trying to game the system, they supply a modest, but mostly stable source of income. You can get them up quickly and they can start returning a profit just as quickly. Large sites are good because once you have them doing well, ranking for a particular keyword becomes easier. If it's a good site, it'll also benefit from Panda. The one thing I don't like about large sites is that they demand a lot of your attention.

    The other thing you'll want to consider is that you probably won't be making a fortune on small websites. If you get lucky and do really well with a small site, you might start pulling $200/day. The odds of you getting lucky over and over are pretty low, so you'll be capped at at about that. If you get lucky with an authority site, you could start pulling in millions if it's done right.

    That said, I like to do both because it keeps me busy and my portfolio diverse.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4254075].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jcruz
    From what it looks like, google is starting to aim towards quality, not quantity. The old sniper sites of the past don't seem to rank as well as they used too. Having a site with just two pages, is playing on thin ice. Besides i'm in this for the long term investment.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4254733].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ~kev~
      Originally Posted by jcruz View Post

      From what it looks like, google is starting to aim towards quality, not quantity.
      Back maybe 6 or 8 months ago there was a thread here on the warriorforum about google penalizing squeeze sites. I think it was googles way of delisting single page sites that had no real content.

      Fastward 6 or 8 months to today, google seems to be expanding its penalty past squeeze sites to include sites with very little content.

      From the very start google has always been about the overall quality of the site, and not how many junk pages a site has. Maybe the search engine is finally getting things right.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4254811].message }}
  • When starting a new site, I do some keyword research and usually determine 5-7 medium/high competition keywords that I would like to target.

    Then I find a domain that has at least one or 2 of these keywords in it and preferably a .com

    After that, it's all about creating unique content, or a unique product or service to offer built around those keyphrases.

    I have found that if you only concentrate on 5-7 keywords or phrases in the beginning, you will achieve rankings for these faster, and as time progresses, you will also begin to see your site ranking for a lot of long tail search phrases that involve the keywords you were initially targeting as well.

    To answer your question, I think that fewer, bigger websites with unique content and a unique product or service are the way to go over creating mass mini or irrelevant websites.
    Signature
    **Join Our Affiliate Program at Survival Wristbands - Earn 35% on Every Sale! - Evergreen Survival Niche!**
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4254947].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steve L
    Originally Posted by RedWaterDub View Post

    What is better, Having lots of small sites or just a few larger sites?

    I mean ...is it better to make a new site for every keyword?

    a new page on the same site for every keyword?

    a new post on the same site for every keyword?

    or several keywords per post?

    or several keywords per page?

    Is it better to have many keywords per site and just build the site up covering lots of keywords to target or is it better to spread out the keywords so they fall into more targeted niche sites?

    Anybody got any definite ideas on the theory of this?

    What do you guys think?

    THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN DOING:

    I start with one main keyword per site and then slowly add more relevant keywords as new pages and new posts until each site totals approx 100,000 exact searches per month. I try to rank each keyword to the first page of google. This is what I have been doing but I think I have too many sites as I have not reached my target with any of them yet.

    What do you guys think? Is that a good strategy?

    Love to get your opinions on this?
    You can make money both ways, but the idea of managing 100's of sites is a deal breaker for me.

    If the site is to be a "content" site, then I would create one site per market... but if the site is to promote specific product, then you may have several sites for several products covering topics in a single market.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4255406].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JToneyUK
    Interesting topic this, as a newbie I was all for the micro niche mini-sites targetting several closely related keyword or products. Seems as though this isn't so much the way to go other than maybe earning a small passive income from it.

    While I see the reasoning behind managing a large site, it would take full time hours dedicated to it solely. Unless you have a product to offer there seems little reward.

    I may go for the "mid range" site which is informative, nichey and has regularly updated information.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4255957].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Troy Broussard
      Originally Posted by JToneyUK View Post

      While I see the reasoning behind managing a large site, it would take full time hours dedicated to it solely. Unless you have a product to offer there seems little reward.
      The reward is traffic and rankings. It is getting very difficult to get rankings and traffic on smaller low authority micro sites, so unless you're sending paid traffic to them or have another traffic source, you need to take that into account.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4256034].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TracyZ
        Great information! I have an authority site in a finance niche that ranks well for my keywords. Search engines seem to like the original content (for now) but the problem is there is so much information it is hard for the reader to really focus in on what they are looking for. I was going to try a niche down approach and take some of the longer tail keywords related to my products and build mini sites just around that specific topic. Now I'm wondering if it will be worth the effort but still going to try it as an experiment!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4256174].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author celente
    THere is no right or wrong here, go with both. Sometimes smaller sites win, but with biggers sites, you have more pages to take up virtual real estate john reese said once. And that can get you big traffic in the short term and long term.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4256144].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GeekChick
    I've toyed with small sites over the past couple years. I never had much success. I learned IM with the "authority site" model, and my first site now has close to 200 pages and earns for me every day... not as much as I'd like it to, yet, because I'm still learning how to write sales copy and market effectively to my list.

    I will continue to build authority sites from now on. I think it's feasible to manage more than 1 or 2 depending on your chosen format. I know some people who have 5-10 large sites; once they get to a certain level of content and rankings, the work level drops significantly. (They built them one at a time.) If you run a blog and a forum, as one of the previous posters does, and you reach a high level of traffic in your forum and tons of comments, it's definitely hard to scale. I build "static" sites (though I'm now building on Wordpress) which means I'm not under the gun to create new content every single day, moderate an active forum, or other very time-consuming activities. I do add content regularly, and answer visitor emails, and have some interactive parts of my site that I participate in.

    Great content and marketing only great products, that's my choice.

    Best,
    Kim
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4256311].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JulioGarabot
    If you have the cash is better to outsource, because your time is money. And there are ways to outsource that don't cost you much if you know what you are doing.
    Signature
    123 Happy
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4263498].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lyanna
    I like the idea of mid-range, like having a blog on a targeted niche with updates every week but not like a big authority website with thousands of posts and 10 updates a day.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4283331].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Troy Broussard
      Originally Posted by Lyanna View Post

      I like the idea of mid-range, like having a blog on a targeted niche with updates every week but not like a big authority website with thousands of posts and 10 updates a day.
      Keep in mind, authority, like most other factors is affected by your niche. You don't necessarily have to have thousands of posts or 10 updates a day to be an authority site in your niche or sub-niche. It may only take 100 posts and 1 post a week - it's all relevant to your niche - and like anything, will require specific niche related competitive research.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4285292].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Lyanna
        Originally Posted by Troy Broussard View Post

        Keep in mind, authority, like most other factors is affected by your niche. You don't necessarily have to have thousands of posts or 10 updates a day to be an authority site in your niche or sub-niche. It may only take 100 posts and 1 post a week - it's all relevant to your niche - and like anything, will require specific niche related competitive research.
        Yes, I agree. I think there is room for both big, mid-sized and small websites.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4292203].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author eresources
        Remember when they said a hyphen in a domain name wasn't
        a good idea...

        Remember all the times Google penalized websites...

        Remember before Adsense began...

        Remember when there was no talk about long tail keywords...

        Remember when there were no article spinners...

        Remember when there was no PLR...

        Remember when you could get paid to surf...

        Personally, I've always liked to have just 1 website.
        It's a lot easier to maintain, I have more time to
        advertise and update it as needed.

        Don't do something or not do something just because you
        read something about it somewhere. You won't know if
        it's going to work for you if you don't try it.


        Audra
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4315098].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author retsek
    I don't look at it as large or small. Instead I have a number. If a site doesn't make $500 a month profit, then I sell it and move on.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4283533].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jennifermartinez
    Instead of focusing on many smaller sites, I suggest that you focus only on few larger sites. You must categories keywords as 1- primary, 2- secondary and 3 - tertiary. Ensure that you use primary keyword across the web site and use different secondary and tertiary keywords in different pages. Do note that the keywords are relevant to the content. You can get a better idea by studying websites of big companies like Apple, Microsoft and Sony etc
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4314789].message }}

Trending Topics