Adsense strategy question

I am new to adsense. I make a pittance. I see alot written on
adsense income all over the web and it is hard to seperate the wheat
from the chaff.

Is it better to have 1 site and write a lot of content on that site or
have 10 sites and write a little on those 10 sites. For example. If
I have one site making 1 dollar a day and I have a good amount of
content but still a baseline of 1 dollar a day; why not have 10 sites
where I would make 1 dollar a day or 10 dollars a day? Is this a
successful strategy? Do professional adsense bloggers run 10 to 20
sites or is it better to have just one? I think the former, its just
math.

Thank you.

<ryba234 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote...

Is it better to have 1 site and write a lot of content on that site or
have 10 sites and write a little on those 10 sites. For example. If
I have one site making 1 dollar a day and I have a good amount of
content but still a baseline of 1 dollar a day; why not have 10 sites
where I would make 1 dollar a day or 10 dollars a day?
... its just math.

If you have the same content on 10 sites, then you'll be sharing your
visitors among ten sites.
Why would you have any more visitors?

Plus you'll be producing less, as you waste time and money promoting ten
sites instead of one.

Plus Google will delist the nine new ones, once it clear that they are
simply copies cluttering up the web ...

If you think about what's best for your visitors (rather than how to
outsmart Google, as if no-one ever tried before), you'll end up with a
better site, and a more Google-friendly site.

There's one of you, while Google has oodles of bright chaps. Make Google
your enemy - or make Google your friend.

YOU do the math.
--

Andrew
http://www.seo2seo.com/
http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/
First things first - but not necessarily in that order.

The video that makes YouTube worthwhile:
Charlie The Unicorn - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5im0Ssyyus

Andrew thank you for thre reply.

Not the same content but 10 different themes. 10 themes and sites
with light content but all linked to each other or 1 theme and lots of
deep content. I am begining to think Pro adsense bloggers have about
10 sites each for a different target and this generates more income
than one site. I think blog pages rank in google searches but a lot
of blog traffic is independent from normal SEO google searches, rather
traffic comes from blogs pinging the blog community than serps.

The next question is why not create 50 blogs and for two weeks write
content day and night for these 50 blog sites and then after than an
article once a week and have a reasonable adsense income?

These are just ideas so please do not be too hard on me

<ryba234 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote ...

Not the same content but 10 different themes. 10 themes and sites
with light content but all linked to each other or 1 theme and lots of
deep content. I am begining to think Pro adsense bloggers have about
10 sites each for a different target and this generates more income
than one site. I think blog pages rank in google searches but a lot
of blog traffic is independent from normal SEO google searches, rather
traffic comes from blogs pinging the blog community than serps.
The next question is why not create 50 blogs and for two weeks write
content day and night for these 50 blog sites and then after than an
article once a week and have a reasonable adsense income?

If the content is on different topics, then different sites is fine, though
you are still having to market and SEO each one.

Be careful of linking all your sites together, as that may get you into
trouble; as a general policy, reciprocals and interlinking are not
recommended, and doing it in excess can be fatal.

If you want ten sites, then each needs to be populated with content and
marketed on its own merits, with appropriate quality links to match the
quality content.

Don't get too hung up on blogs; their links count for little, in 99.99999%
of cases.

Much better with all sites - blog or not - to build consistently, rather
than binge.

Finally, and most important, you talk about creating sites and banking the
proceeds, but you ignore that key bit in the middle - visitors. Unless you
have the skills and resources to build and maintain ten quality sites, then
you'll not get many visitors - or income.

You talk as if you are the only site owner out there, whereas it's a fairly
competitive world, and you are proposing to enter 10 competitions
simultaneously, having failed - by your own admission - to do well in one.

Not necessarily wise!
--

Andrew
http://www.seo2seo.com/
http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/
First things first - but not necessarily in that order.

The video that makes YouTube worthwhile:
Charlie The Unicorn - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5im0Ssyyus

"Andrew Heenan" <andrew3 (AT) heenan (DOT) net> wrote in
news:AH%nj.737$2Q4.348 (AT) newsfe2-gui (DOT) ntli.net:

ryba234 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote ...
Not the same content but 10 different themes. 10 themes and sites
with light content but all linked to each other or 1 theme and lots
of deep content. I am begining to think Pro adsense bloggers have
about 10 sites each for a different target and this generates more
income than one site. I think blog pages rank in google searches but
a lot of blog traffic is independent from normal SEO google searches,
rather traffic comes from blogs pinging the blog community than
serps. The next question is why not create 50 blogs and for two weeks
write content day and night for these 50 blog sites and then after
than an article once a week and have a reasonable adsense income?

If the content is on different topics, then different sites is fine,
though you are still having to market and SEO each one.

Be careful of linking all your sites together, as that may get you
into trouble; as a general policy, reciprocals and interlinking are
not recommended, and doing it in excess can be fatal.

I'd like clarification on this point.

Example, several other people and myself with a total of 47 blogs have
had a habit of each blog having links in the sidebars (sitewide) to each
of the other 46 in addition to links out to other (not in the group)
blogs.

Is this the kind of interlinking that you're saying is not recommended?
If so, what would you recommend?

Joe Fox <ny152 (AT) none (DOT) invalid> wrote:

Example, several other people and myself with a total of 47 blogs have
had a habit of each blog having links in the sidebars (sitewide) to each
of the other 46 in addition to links out to other (not in the group)
blogs.

Is this the kind of interlinking that you're saying is not recommended?
If so, what would you recommend?

I would only do that if there is a relation (other than friends). I have
linked from castleamber.com to johnbokma.com and vice versa. And for a
long time ca had a PR of 6 (still) and jb had one of 7 (currently 6, but
I'll be back (I hope)). One can say that there is a relation between those
two sites though, other than me.

--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/

"Joe Fox" <ny152 (AT) none (DOT) invalid> wrote ...

Example, several other people and myself with a total of 47 blogs have
had a habit of each blog having links in the sidebars (sitewide) to each
of the other 46 in addition to links out to other blogs.
Is this the kind of interlinking that you're saying is not recommended?
If so, what would you recommend?

It's very unwise.
If one or two of those blogs were also doing something silly, then the rest
of you could be penalised as being part of a 'bad neighborhood'.

At a certain level, interlinking becomes a bad neighborhood.

point is, you are clearly linking for SEO purposes; the links are not there
for your visitors, they are there for you.

SEs (especially Google) advise you to provide links to sites you recommend
and are appropriate for your visitors

It would be an amazing coincidence if this love fest really meant that all
46 blogs genuinely recommended all 46 blogs!

Links are important, but linking *policy* is important too. Any co-operation
is a risk. In this case, a sizable one, as the pattern could be spotted
using a Sinclair ZX, let alone Google.

I'd withdraw gracefully from the link farm, and build links that are
appropriate and helpful to your site. Start with Quality blog directories.
--

Andrew
http://www.seo2seo.com/
http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/
First things first - but not necessarily in that order.

The video that makes YouTube worthwhile:
Charlie The Unicorn - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5im0Ssyyus

"Andrew Heenan" <andrew3 (AT) heenan (DOT) net> wrote

"Joe Fox" <ny152 (AT) none (DOT) invalid> wrote ...
Example, several other people and myself with a total of 47 blogs have
had a habit of each blog having links in the sidebars (sitewide) to each
of the other 46 in addition to links out to other blogs.
Is this the kind of interlinking that you're saying is not recommended?
If so, what would you recommend?

It's very unwise.
If one or two of those blogs were also doing something silly, then the
rest of you could be penalised as being part of a 'bad neighborhood'.

Yes, something could happen like that.

At a certain level, interlinking becomes a bad neighborhood.

I haven't seen this too much. It is only common sense that friends link with
friends. This happens all the time interlinking is still ok.

point is, you are clearly linking for SEO purposes; the links are not
there for your visitors, they are there for you.

Why would you say that. Maybe they are just friends linking with each other
just because of that.

SEs (especially Google) advise you to provide links to sites you recommend
and are appropriate for your visitors

If you feel that shopping at Wal-mart is better than JCPenny so you post a
link to Wal-mart cause you like them and you recommend them. This isn't a
good link out though if it doesn't related to your site but you are
following guidelines.

It would be an amazing coincidence if this love fest really meant that all
46 blogs genuinely recommended all 46 blogs!

Well the way some blogs work they can roll different random blogs links,
cause this is how it is set up. If they are friends yes they would recommend
them and post the link. Blogs for the most part is people chatting about
their day and other things in general. When blogs link together it is
linking people together for social reasoning most of the time. True people
are using blogs for different reasons and these ones should be penalized
cause they are not using them like they were intended. Probably why many of
them never get PR and indexed.

Links are important, but linking *policy* is important too. Any
co-operation is a risk. In this case, a sizable one, as the pattern could
be spotted using a Sinclair ZX, let alone Google.

At times maybe. I link many of my sites together. Why? Cause they are mine
and I can. My sites are related in a sense and also different enough to have
different sites. I have not been penalised for linking them together but
kind of praised as I have many top SERPs with my sites.

I'd withdraw gracefully from the link farm, and build links that are
appropriate and helpful to your site. Start with Quality blog directories.

Directories are no longer the way to go except for the real quality ones.
Directories are bad cause it intermixes everything known to man and well
pretty darn close to a link farm IMO. Plain and simple Google also knows
that people submit their sites to directories just for the link. The best
way to link is related sites not on a link page as it is harder to get these
type links and Google knows this.

Stacey
--
Jezsta Web Productions
SEO Tips - Website Design - Marketing
http://jezsta.com/

"Jezsta Web Productions" <use-our-email-form (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote

"Andrew Heenan" <andrew3 (AT) heenan (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:Hfioj.5929$HV6.1046 (AT) newsfe4-win (DOT) ntli.net...
"Joe Fox" <ny152 (AT) none (DOT) invalid> wrote ...
Example, several other people and myself with a total of 47 blogs have
had a habit of each blog having links in the sidebars (sitewide) to each
of the other 46 in addition to links out to other blogs.
Is this the kind of interlinking that you're saying is not recommended?
If so, what would you recommend?

It's very unwise.
If one or two of those blogs were also doing something silly, then the
rest of you could be penalised as being part of a 'bad neighborhood'.

Yes, something could happen like that.

At a certain level, interlinking becomes a bad neighborhood.

I haven't seen this too much. It is only common sense that friends link
with friends. This happens all the time interlinking is still ok.

point is, you are clearly linking for SEO purposes; the links are not
there for your visitors, they are there for you.

Why would you say that. Maybe they are just friends linking with each
other just because of that.

SEs (especially Google) advise you to provide links to sites you
recommend and are appropriate for your visitors

If you feel that shopping at Wal-mart is better than JCPenny so you post a
link to Wal-mart cause you like them and you recommend them. This isn't a
good link out though if it doesn't related to your site but you are
following guidelines.

It would be an amazing coincidence if this love fest really meant that
all 46 blogs genuinely recommended all 46 blogs!

Well the way some blogs work they can roll different random blogs links,
cause this is how it is set up. If they are friends yes they would
recommend them and post the link. Blogs for the most part is people
chatting about their day and other things in general. When blogs link
together it is linking people together for social reasoning most of the
time. True people are using blogs for different reasons and these ones
should be penalized cause they are not using them like they were intended.
Probably why many of them never get PR and indexed.

Links are important, but linking *policy* is important too. Any
co-operation is a risk. In this case, a sizable one, as the pattern could
be spotted using a Sinclair ZX, let alone Google.

At times maybe. I link many of my sites together. Why? Cause they are mine
and I can. My sites are related in a sense and also different enough to
have different sites. I have not been penalised for linking them together
but kind of praised as I have many top SERPs with my sites.

I'd withdraw gracefully from the link farm, and build links that are
appropriate and helpful to your site. Start with Quality blog
directories.

Directories are no longer the way to go except for the real quality ones.
Directories are bad cause it intermixes everything known to man and well
pretty darn close to a link farm IMO. Plain and simple Google also knows
that people submit their sites to directories just for the link. The best
way to link is related sites not on a link page as it is harder to get
these type links and Google knows this.

Stacey

We know what Andrew thinks about directories (

--
T.J.
http://www.uksmallbusinessdirectory.co.uk

"Jezsta Web Productions" <use-our-email-form (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote in
news:fnsp3f$94u$00$1 (AT) news (DOT) t-online.com:

"Andrew Heenan" <andrew3 (AT) heenan (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:Hfioj.5929$HV6.1046 (AT) newsfe4-win (DOT) ntli.net...
"Joe Fox" <ny152 (AT) none (DOT) invalid> wrote ...
Example, several other people and myself with a total of 47 blogs
have had a habit of each blog having links in the sidebars
(sitewide) to each of the other 46 in addition to links out to other
blogs. Is this the kind of interlinking that you're saying is not
recommended? If so, what would you recommend?

It's very unwise.
If one or two of those blogs were also doing something silly, then
the rest of you could be penalised as being part of a 'bad
neighborhood'.

Yes, something could happen like that.

At a certain level, interlinking becomes a bad neighborhood.

I haven't seen this too much. It is only common sense that friends
link with friends. This happens all the time interlinking is still ok.

That's pretty much the reason that everybody is linked together, we're
associated and even though our blogs are not all related content wise, we
give each other links because we all want to help each other out. I
don't have to tell this group that getting good quality inbound links
that you don't have to reciprocate is NOT easy, so we're taking links
anywhere we can get 'em.... heck, I'm even glad to see links coming from
scraper sites

point is, you are clearly linking for SEO purposes; the links are not
there for your visitors, they are there for you.

Why would you say that. Maybe they are just friends linking with each
other just because of that.

It's pretty much both reasons.

snip

Links are important, but linking *policy* is important too. Any
co-operation is a risk. In this case, a sizable one, as the pattern
could be spotted using a Sinclair ZX, let alone Google.

Everybody has linking policies of a sort and that means that MOST of the
outbound links on these sites have rel="nofollow" on them. The
interlinks and sites that are either recommended or that just deserve the
link juice get "do-follow" links.

At times maybe. I link many of my sites together. Why? Cause they are
mine and I can. My sites are related in a sense and also different
enough to have different sites. I have not been penalised for linking
them together but kind of praised as I have many top SERPs with my
sites.

I'd withdraw gracefully from the link farm, and build links that are
appropriate and helpful to your site. Start with Quality blog
directories.

Directories are no longer the way to go except for the real quality
ones. Directories are bad cause it intermixes everything known to man
and well pretty darn close to a link farm IMO. Plain and simple Google
also knows that people submit their sites to directories just for the
link. The best way to link is related sites not on a link page as it
is harder to get these type links and Google knows this.

Stacey

Directories are a pain in the arse. It takes time to locate good ones,
more time to enter each site / page you want listed and then most of them
that I've seen either want a reciprocal link (which I refuse to do most
of the time) or they want to be paid (which I don't do either)