The latest google algorithm change was designed to weed out "low quality content" and as such should have decreased the value of many manual backlinking sites.
Whenever plans like this rely on mathematical equations the desired effects are always variable.
I like to review my own data and so I had a quick look at my last 30,000 adsense impressions and had a look at which revenue sharing sites had performed the best.
I don't mind using these sites as a way to get my latests posts quickly indexed and my goal is for them to pay both my monthly hosting costs plus my domain name registration fees.
Note: I am including only basic, short length bookmarking sites used for backlinking. I am excluding article length sites that also backlink such as Hubpages.
The results:
#1: Best-reviewer.com : Accounted for 4.1% of revenue. Surprisingly strong performance, particularly from a site that is relatively new. Clicks tend to be of good value.
#2 Shetoldme.com : Made 0.75% of revenue. I haven't added anything new here for a while but existing posts are still sneaking into search results and bringing income.
#3: Excerptz.com : Accounted for 0.1% of income. Not a bad return considering I have only made 3 posts there. Probably worth more effort. Again a new site. Is there a bias against recognized 'content farms' by google?
No revenue:
Snipsly.com - Still good value for backlinking as it lets you choose your anchor text, lack of revenue not a real concern.
Xomba.com - no longer used as backlinks become no-follow after a short period of time.
Reference Score:
To put this in perspective, Hubpages accounted for 19.3% of revenue with around 100 hubs contributing. It took a massive hit initially with the Panda update but is beginning to bounce back.
My thoughts? - Like any change in the algorithm, some sites are more affected than others. Future changes are difficult to predict so diversification is important.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment