3 Weeks Old Microniche Sites - Very Low Traffic Normal?

I am completely unaffiliated, but I highly recommend that guide for all MNS noobs.

I did read Adsense Flippers guide and as far as I know I followed everything they recommend. I think the fact that I am already ranking so high shows that I did my competition research well and as far as traffic, I mentioned the numbers. Adsense Flippers recommends exact search * CPC be over $10. All of them are definitely that.

I realize it may seem early to expect traffic so soon. But since I'm already ranking in the top 10 for my main keyword I thought maybe that means I should be getting more than that. Where will the additional traffic come from in a few weeks? Do a lot more long tail phrases start ranking? Of course if I can get my keywords up from #7 to #2 or #1 that would help. But I don't know that I can get them that high.

Most of the traffic only goes to the top 3 spots so it's not that abnormal considering your rankings

I just made a new website 1 week ago. It currently has 10 articles which are totals unique, perfect spelling, perfect grammar and over 600 words an article. The site gets 0 visits a day.

I have another similar website and it used to only get. Like 10 visits a day in the first month or two then jumped up to around 100 and kept going up.

Its normal for new sites to get barely any traffic.


Posted from Warrior Forum Reader for Android

New MNS site canot get much traffic from google first month or more, unless you have very good content and it goes viral, then you can get lots of traffic.

Hey OP!

Your sites made it to the top 10...sweet! You said the problem is they're getting a fairly low amount of traffic. Here are a few things we would take a look at:

1. Are you "really" ranked - This was already covered, but make sure you're ranked in the country where most of the local searches are coming from and that your results aren't personalized.

2. Is there a brand in your keywords? - You'll find that if the brand is in the top couple of results, those results will take the lion's share of the traffic. It's been shown that non-branded keywords tend to more variance on the CTR from the SERP.

3. Is your title/description compelling? - We've noticed really low CTR from the SERP when what is shown is not very compelling to potential visitors. Try to spruce that up and make it more attractive so that it stands out on the page.

4. Some sites just don't work out - Even with everything else "right"...sometimes the sites are just losers. Sometimes it's because they don't rank...but in other cases it might just be the actual niche. It could be that the keywords chosen were seasonal? Or maybe there was an incident or promotion in that niche recently that has gone away, as has the search volume?

I remember reading somewhere that you should keep your minimum local searches (exact) to more than 2,000.

if you had 2000 + that would double your searches!

I think the question has been answered. People don't look further down page 1 unless they didn't find what they were looking for in the first few spots. u analyze top 10 because they are the only comp, you are trying to beat them not hang out amongst them.

Around 42% of clicks go to first spot and it goes down from there. You've done good so far...get to banking

you shouldn't need a guide to tell you that the further down the page you are, the less clicks you'll get.

saying that, ive got a site built a month ago that is ranking 6th and is making $1 a day from approx 8 visits. although adsense is normally a traffic game.. there is still money to be made from highly targeted niche sites.

and lastly.. yes you can expect more long tail traffic over time, particularly if your post titles match a question someone is searching for.


Posted from Warrior Forum Reader for Android

This article explains why your getting such little traffic

The Value of Google Result Positioning | Chitika Insights

regards

Nigel

What backlinking strategy did you use?

As other have suggested most of the traffic goes to the first 3 spots. So you should try to get your site to top of the page.

Also. Don't forget 700 monthly estimated traffic, devided by 30 is only about 23. So, a keyword with an estimated 700 monthly search valume gets around 23 search a day. So, even if you were ranking number one and were getting about 50% of that traffic, you would end up with about 11-12 visitors a day.

So, as you can see, there would be not much left for those who rank on the bottom of the page.

I am not saying this to discourage you, I am just trying to help you understand it better. Of course, long tail- low completion keywords are easier to rank for, so by ranking for a lot of them, you can get a decent amount of traffic from the collective effort of all of these keywords bringing you a few visitors a day.

Good luck.

I'm still getting the same types of answers which don't answer my main question.

I GET that ranking 5 or 6 or something for a keyword with 700 or 800 exact local searches breaks down to the numbers people are saying from hits on that keyword alone.

What I DON'T GET is the seeming discrepancy between this fact and the advice I've received from pretty much every guru I've read. All the ones I've studied say if you find a keyword with 1000 Exact Local Searches and more than $1 CPC and the top 10 competition is generally not great, that's a WINNER. Go for it!

Yet when you do the math, it shouldn't be a winner, it seems, unless you get in the top 2 spots. Yet THEY DO NOT SAY THIS.

I have not read a single guru who says that their criteria is that it have 1000 exact local search, more than $1 CPC AND YOU MUST be able to reach the top 2 spots. Not one.

So my problem is not that I can't do math and understand traffic. My problem is I don't understand the apparent gap between the math and what's advised.

My own math told me what everyone here is saying. But I assumed the reason that everyone does top 10 competition research and still goes for keywords that may have a strong top 3 or 4 is that they think if they can get in the top 10 for that main keyword, they're bound to get good rankings on some other long tails too so that makes it worth it.

3 weeks in this is not the case for me. But I thought maybe that's just not enough time to see.

Hey OP,

We generally wait 3-4 months to see how the sites are working out and how effective they are. Some only take 4-6 weeks to start earning well and others take longer, but 3-4 months is a reasonable timeframe for most.

Still - A good portion of the "winners" we pick never pan out. (Not ranked as easily as we thought, don't have the traffic we thought they did, loss of advertisers, bad niche, poor CTR from the SERP, or other unknown reasons) We're playing the percentages...knowing that some of our sites will always be losers but, if we build enough of them, we have enough that are doing ok and a few that are killing it and we'll do well.

I can't say for sure as I don't watch any of our individual sites that closely to see what's going on in each use case or site-by-site. I tend to "group" them as those that are working and those that are not and we go from there.

I would say, anecdotally, that both can happen. In some instances, it may take a site 3 months to get to the first page of Google and same with the earnings. In other instances, we get a site to (let's say) #6 or #7 on Google and it's not earning well...but then a few months down the road it gets ranked for a keyword we weren't planning on which brings in a ton of organic traffic.

Let's say, for example, that I was trying to rank for "blue ski boots"...I may make the bottom of the first page in the first month or so and it's doing just so-so. Then...2 months down the road the site gets ranked for "ski boots" and it brings in a ton of traffic, clicks, etc.

I think its too early to tell anything about it,give it a few weeks.