One big site or several little ones?

[slotplayer]

I think there is the consideration of having many small sites that a web person might/would tend to do things the way they learned and repeat it across all the sites, such as SEO'ing or back linking for example, only to end up having Miss Google come out with an update that dances on them.

 

[AussieDave]

only to end up having Miss Google come out with an update that dances on them.

The BIG single sites such as Latest Casino Bonuses, Ask Gamblers, Casino Listings, CasinoMeister, Gone Gambling etc etc all seem to maintained their traction. However those with multiple small sites have been on a roller coaster ride, when the Google animals marched into town. I'm also sure while the BIG sites get scraped, this action doesn't affect them in the way it does smaller sites. With G seeming to be searching for alternative language meta data links, these Big sites are likely accommodating that too.

There are so many more things you can do with a BIG single site, apposed to a group of small sites. Not to mention, I think committing ALL you time to one site, is much better, for the current playing field, than spreading your time and resources out over multiple sites.

In 2015 this is the course I'm taking.

 

[slotplayer]

The BIG single sites such as Latest Casino Bonuses, Ask Gamblers, Casino Listings, CasinoMeister, Gone Gambling etc etc all seem to maintained their traction. However those with multiple small sites have been on a roller coaster ride, when the Google animals marched into town. I'm also sure while the BIG sites get scraped, this action doesn't affect them in the way it does smaller sites. With G seeming to be searching for alternative language meta data links, these Big sites are likely accommodating that too.

There are so many more things you can do with a BIG single site, apposed to a group of small sites. Not to mention, I think committing ALL you time to one site, is much better, for the current playing field, than spreading your time and resources out over multiple sites.

In 2015 this is the course I'm taking.

imo, bigger is always better when it comes to the web.

 

[Giggity.]

So time consuming to keep updated though, unless you have a good worker or two

 

[CasinoKev]

It also depends how big your bigger site is. There is definitely a threshold where with enough authority and history, a big site becomes near impervious to algorithm changes. But if your "big" site isn't quite that established, I would argue a collection of smaller sites (with similar total traffic) might still be better.

 

[baldidiot]

Didn't LCB get a penalty last year? Vaguely remember a post on one of the forum about it. They've obviously shaken it now, but shows that even a 'big' site can be affected.

 

[Rick Perry]

Wow, amazing thread, it really depends. Like Guard Dog said, it depends on what type of person you are. If you are "do it youself" guy, or you like outsourcing and can keep track of everything.

But IMHO one or two big sites in slightly different niches and a few in low competitive niches you can outsource well..

 

[Vivi Fox]

Handling one site, has enough headaches.

There are so many things that need to be done

Day after day, after night.

And no matter how much is done

It is just never enough.

So, if you can devote enough

To succeeding with one site –

Why would you need another?

 

[AlexTu]

Handling one site, has enough headaches.

There are so many things that need to be done

Day after day, after night.

And no matter how much is done

It is just never enough.

So, if you can devote enough

To succeeding with one site –

Why would you need another?

little sites can be created for some specific purpose