A moral question...

Discussion in 'Google' started by ccoonen, Jan 22, 2009.

  1. #1
    So... I make the most money from the big G via Quantity vs. Quality regarding pages. I have always... and I MEAN ALWAYS made more money going the quantity route vs. quality route. I have built duplicate-able, unique pages that G can index and send me traffic - and focused on this route rather than the actual quality of the pages.

    I have tried the other approach... TRUST ME! I have many many content entities that I have spent countless hours making and promoting them but it always ends up that I will make more money with MANY vs. GOOD/Quantity vs. Quality.

    Now - the question... will this change, and is it wrong? It feels kinda wrong - going the duplication route with less quality + more index-able pages vs. less pages + better quality. It honestly doesn't feel correct but MONEY Talks! Your guys thoughts?
     
    ccoonen, Jan 22, 2009 IP
  2. 1-3-3-7

    1-3-3-7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    605
    Likes Received:
    17
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    #2
    I honestly think those lesser quality pages are proving to be "more profitable" as the users are more tempted to exit it via the ads.

    Think about it, if you searched for a recipe and you got that recipe on the page you clicked on. You've got what you wanted and most likely you'll stay on that page rather then venture elsewhere even if the ads seem to offer similar as you've already got what you wanted. Whereas when a page has a bunch of rewritten articles and low quality content, the user is like "what is the junk" and sees an ad, and says "hmm maybe that will answer my question" and thus you earn some $, but that's probably because the user didn't find much use in your page.

    I personally run sites that are aimed to either entertain or inform others, therefore I focus on quality content even if I don't profit much off it. But I consider it a hobby, not much of a business at this point. So as far as my standards go, quality > profitable crap.

    The Internet is a good resource, but if people just abuse it for money, it will go downhill and it annoys me when I search for something only to find some crappy MFA which often doesn't even contain a real article, just a bunch of gibberish. With that said, in your case I don't think you're really abusing the system but at the same time in the long run, if you focused a bit more on quality, it might make the web a bit better even if you pocket a few $ less.

    Just voicing my 2 cents.
     
    1-3-3-7, Jan 22, 2009 IP
    ccoonen likes this.
  3. ccoonen

    ccoonen Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,606
    Likes Received:
    71
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    160
    #3
    Very much appreciated! I was actually thinking about it last night and would if the real worked this way - like a plumber would do a crappy job (excuse the pun), but could get more houses plumbed? A janitor will clean terribly but cleaned more area and made more money. In these scenarios... it pays off at that moment but sooner or later you are going to get fired. So, maybe its not a question of morality... but a question of how long will they continue working when the content is fluff or MFA? They will get fired and stop working sometime me thinks :)
     
    ccoonen, Jan 23, 2009 IP
  4. FREE BET

    FREE BET Peon

    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    8
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    I think that in the future, when algorithms get more in tune with reality and the internet becomes more ïnteligent¨then quality will matter more, its never to early to start building quality as of now though, as it WILL count in the future
     
    FREE BET, Jan 23, 2009 IP
  5. rehash

    rehash Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,502
    Likes Received:
    30
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    150
    #5
    good poing FREE BET, it's only a matter of time until quality will reign
     
    rehash, Jan 24, 2009 IP
  6. lycos

    lycos Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,769
    Likes Received:
    176
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    185
    #6
    Sadly that's the current scenario that we are seeing right now. I would strike a balance and take the middle path to provide something that goes in between. Hopefully once G fine tunes their search engine, things will get better.
     
    lycos, Jan 24, 2009 IP
    dairyman likes this.
  7. dairyman

    dairyman Notable Member

    Messages:
    7,224
    Likes Received:
    274
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    #7
    Agreed. That is the stand that we have to take to survive in the fierce battle and have to wait till such time when google really rewards original and unique contents. But how long will it take to change the algo? :confused:
     
    dairyman, Jan 24, 2009 IP
    lycos likes this.
  8. Bompa

    Bompa Active Member

    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    20
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    58
    #8

    LOL

    There will always be pages in the SERPs with lesser quality content that
    provide good income. I admire ccoonen for bringing up a discussion that
    could spur flames and disrespect. He has the courage to win.

    Online marketing is about marketing, business, winning. It is NOT about
    morality. Sure, most of those pages are annoying, but so are the idiotic
    commercials that interrupt TV shows. It's all part of life.

    If you want to make the web better, that's fine, but don't push your
    ideals onto others. Save the web! haha! Why not just end hunger
    and poverty?

    If you want a successful business, you have to be willing to take risks.

    The competition is fierce. If you can't take it, stay home.

    :D

    and remember, you'll need lots of targeted incoming links.

    Bompa
     
    Bompa, Jan 24, 2009 IP
  9. asmodeus

    asmodeus Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,096
    Likes Received:
    102
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    250
    #9
    A friend of mine has a site that he rarely updates, has a bunch of crappy articles and half his links are broken, but the site does well because people click the ads to find what they are looking for. While I do admire people for wanting to create good quality content, it will also likely reduce your income, because as 1-3-3-7 said above, if the surfer finds the info he wants on your site, then why would he click one of your ads?

    It might be good if you were selling a product yourself, but not so good if you're providing information in the hopes of getting income from Adsense.
     
    asmodeus, Jan 24, 2009 IP
  10. bermuda

    bermuda Peon

    Messages:
    868
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #10
    Look the time and energy you have been spending over creating content shows that you do are thinking about working honestly and also preparing quality content pages anyway.

    That would be very different from the case in which some people might simply copy content pages from other sources without even editing a single word of them. Don't worry and keep writing because day by day you would be gaining knowledge on how to write better for people and the ads purposes.
     
    bermuda, Jan 25, 2009 IP
  11. freelistfool

    freelistfool Peon

    Messages:
    1,801
    Likes Received:
    101
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #11
    The risk of going with quantity over quality is at some point you'll trip one of Google's red flags. You'll have too many interlinked sites, too much duplicate content, too many back links from the same places pointing back to all the sites on your server, or whatever else the big G is looking for. Once this happens you'll get a manual review of your site(s) and you could wake up one morning with no traffic.

    Try to find a way to provide the information with some added value. When the day comes and someone from Google is reviewing your sites you want the person to quickly see that you add value to the internet.
     
    freelistfool, Jan 25, 2009 IP