One user here at DigitalPoint has an idea like this : I will build many small niche websites with ~100 pages. I live in poor country and I could pay someone write articles for 200$ monthly. He can also submit to directories manual and post few articles at article directories. Minisite like that will achieve some traffic, probably won't much but consensus is that it would earn 2-100$ monthly with AdSense. If that minisite get PR1+ he might sell few links using text-link-ads and improve his earnings. He is thinking to build many of such small websites. But, those minisites will never become authorities, since they will never probably have quality links. Probably it will be small trashy websites. Matt Cutts discourage people having many websites (50+). Non-authority websites cannot have good ranking in SE. But, I have one authority website. At it, I've recently added a page about "keyword1 keyword2". No keywords in URL, only in title and H1. Guess what - the page is among top 10 of 824,000 results. The website gets ~3 visitors daily though those keywords. With such an minisite it cannot be accomplished. So, my conclusion is that building empire of small websites isn't an good idea. It is better idea to build one bigger website which might become authorities. The only problem of my authority website is its niche - I cannot find an idea how I can add more content in that niche, and to use content outside it niche is probably not the smartest idea (dangerous). So, when building website - build big website which might become authority and better choose broader niche for future extensions. Comments?
I own one authority website, plus one website in my genre, plus a third site which gets lost in the broad field of credit card sites. In addition I manage 7 blogs and two message boards. Go with what interests you and you'll find success. Your passion for what you do should motivate you, not what Google says or does. Sometimes one site performs very well while another one languishes. I don't try to micro manage everything because so much is out of one's control. Would I build a bunch of micro websites? No, simply because I have no interest in maintaining all of them. Mix them up to cover a variety of subjects too and you'll weather all the changes that come your way.
I'm wtih MattKNC here. I have one authority site and a grouping of smaller sites. yes, the authority site brings in 90% of the money. I'm hoping another small site becomes an authority. (Amusingly actually another one of the "mini sites" is an authority itself but it's a very small field! so it doesn't get lost but there's not much traffic to get, either.) Do what's fun so that when you don't get paid, you don't drop everything and miss out on the next boom. I was offered a big sum of cash in the days of falling revenues, pre-Adsense, and was tempted, but I didn't sell. I made it all back and then quite a bit. (Not millions or anything, but enough to go full time.) I might have sold for a song when ads were $0.25/1,000 impressions - including popups! - if I didn't care, and now ads are, well, higher.
I just dont understand how some people can have hundreds of sites....I still dont get it... Might as well I use the time/energy/money of making many small sites and channel into further developing my main big site...I'm sure there's always something to do.
How do you classify a site as an "authority" site? Top 10 of 800K results, and you get 3 visitors a day?! I agree though, I think the reign of the PPC scraped empires is drawing to an end thanks to better tracking and various measures from Google. I would always go for a bigger, more content rich site that provides real value and has stickiness over 100 or more junk MFAs.
I agree that building mini-sites isn't a good idea. It is not worth the effort. You might even earn more from one site if you spend all the effort that you were going to spend building mini-sites on 1 site.
The thing with niches is you can't get too specific. That's where people have their downfalls. Either that or they pick niches that no one else is interested in. As for mini-sites, they take a lot of work to make them successful. A lot of promoting and backlinks, but it's definitely do-able. I personally like to have both. At least one authoritative site and some mini-sites. There's almost always a way you can network them as well so they can feed each other traffic. You just have to know what to do with them. Have an outline before you even start to make sure they'll be profitable and worth your time.
I know my opinion may not be valued much yet since im fairly new here, but you cannot say a SMALL site will not rank good with SE's. Thats just a comment that should be left to a 10 year old JUST finding the internet. Small sites can rank well, and fast. I have seen it (and done it) many times. Just keep the site within the google TOS and you will have no problem gaining in the niche, and growing to a #1-3 spot (I have done this many times). Granted, your site might only make $1.00 per day but think about how many times this can be duplicated (1 dollar per day X 100 sites = 100 dollars per day, and so on). So, its honestly all in the webmanagers opinion on which they should do. My opinion - dont put all your eggs in one basket. let them grow in different areas (big sites, small sites, blogs, ect.)
This discussion has raised a question in my mind: has anyone seen a ny statistics (maybe from Network Solutions or ICANN?) as to how many websites the avergae webmaster owns?
The scraper sites have adversely impacted the internet in many ways. As webmasters, our income is diminished by the proliferation of "me too" sites. As internet surfers, it is harder to find legitimate information online. I blame Google for some of it though. Their zeal to expand AdSense makes them the quick buck but that moves has watered down the internet.
That is definitely an interesting take. I had never considered things that way before, but that's a really good point. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
You can have 3 large sites and then you can have 300 smaller sites. The chances are that if you spend the same amount of time on the 3 large sites as you do the 300 smaller sites then there is more of a chance that you will earn much more money with the 3 larger sites. Why is this? Well, with a larger site, you have more time to update it, you have more time to advertise it, you have a higher chance of gaining good quality backlinks, you have more time working with your stats and visitors, you have a higher chance of getting more and better advertisers, etc....
If we consider PR as an measure of website authority (even if it isn't the best), my point is that it is better to have one PR5 website than three PR3. Or 10 PR0 websites. Off course, one should concentrate on ROI not on PR.
This is a good point. Some webmasters encourage to have many mini sites targetting to low competitive keywords to gether small amount of tagrgetted traffic to each of these sites. Other webmasters say build one or two authority sites than lots of mini sites which can't be updated regularly. My question is, how many of us can really build an authority site? (I mean authority site in the eyes of google)
Authority sites are not made overnight. That is the problem. Most folks don't want to put in the time to develop a site for YEARS to turn it into an authority site. They want to see results in weeks or months. And Bangkok Baby is right... not everyone is capable of building an authority site. It takes a bit of luck sometimes...
Good question, I've decided to submit something like it as a new thread : http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=212719 .
IF you have too many sites its hassle with promotions and such. Concentrate on one site for now, and full effor there, will really help you suceed
Not really, if the website don't have quality no matter how much you concentrate on that site, it might be difficult for it to grow and to become authority.