What’s the difference between a “one page guide” focused site vs an authority site?

built

built

//
BuSo Pro
Boot Camp
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
1,677
Likes
1,442
Degree
4
I’m just curious what your opinions are on having a “one page” website, and by that I mean something like https://goodui.org

Not exactly a one page website but a guide focused website. If I think about driving traffic to a site like this with traffic leaking it would be a lot easier than trying to drive traffic to a big website in my opinion. Mainly because it has a specific need/focus.

Of course I could just be thinking about authority sites wrong, because you could just as easily have a page on the site with the same type of content.

Do you really NEED a website with hundreds of pages or would having a smaller website with focused content be just as effective?
 
That page isn't a one-pager. But, I know what you mean. I see one-page sites used with small business sites all the time.

An "authority site" is named as such because it covers a topic comprehensively. It has nothing to do with the number of pages on the site. The only consistent trait is that the authority site will have everything you need to know about its main topic. If you're able to do that on a one-pager, then I guess you can call it an authority site.

The size and type of site carries little significance when it comes to driving traffic. It's the quality of the content on the landing page that determines whether or not traffic will stick around.
 
built said:
Do you really NEED a website with hundreds of pages
Click to expand...

No. Brian Dean’s Backlinko totals about 77 pages that include 3-4 dozen strong content pieces that are well researched. They take a while to write but they are therefore “easier” to traffic leak and get shared cause quality will beat quantity when the internet is flooded with millions of NEW garbage content pieces DAILY.

It’s an ocean of junk, when you are in a situation competing with millions of pages that want users’ attention quality is the only way to go.

That’s why in the long run spam, spun content, and outsourced engrish drivel for “word count” never made sense. There are people who are still confused as to how to create engagement and brand loyalty. I can write a 400 word content piece that has meat on the bone versus their “2000 word count piece” and I’ll make more money in the long run cause my end goal is to share useful information and their goal is to get a robot to index their content like it’s 2007, cause they are using an SEO gameplan from 2007.

The internet has changed in the last 10 years. The most visited sites like Instagram, Facebook, and popular ones are based on next generation content types - images, video, and tools to help users. Those sites do not have 2000 word guides on “xyz”. If you are still on a 2007 gameplan of “I need 2000 words with barely any images”... you are dead in the water. Always bet on the future, not the past.

“You roll with the future times, or the future times will roll over you.”
 
CCarter said:
No. Brian Dean’s Backlinko totals about 77 pages that include 3-4 dozen strong content pieces that are well researched. They take a while to write but they are therefore “easier” to traffic leak and get shared cause quality will beat quantity when the internet is flooded with millions of NEW garbage content pieces DAILY.

It’s an ocean of junk, when you are in a situation competing with millions of pages that want users’ attention quality is the only way to go.

That’s why in the long run spam, spun content, and outsourced engrish drivel for “word count” never made sense. There are people who are still confused as to how to create engagement and brand loyalty. I can write a 400 word content piece that has meat on the bone versus their “2000 word count piece” and I’ll make more money in the long run cause my end goal is to share useful information and their goal is to get a robot to index their content like it’s 2007, cause they are using an SEO gameplan from 2007.

The internet has changed in the last 10 years. The most visited sites like Instagram, Facebook, and popular ones are based on next generation content types - images, video, and tools to help users. Those sites do not have 2000 word guides on “xyz”. If you are still on a 2007 gameplan of “I need 2000 words with barely any images”... you are dead in the water. Always bet on the future, not the past.

“You roll with the future times, or the future times will roll over you.”
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm definitely still stuck in this "I need more words because it's higher quality" mindset, which is why I was thinking about these smaller sites.

Also sticking to "SEO guidelines" of how I've laid out my site has just ended up with me creating a mediocre brand. Same shit as everyone else, no personality.

So it's good to know that I can experiment with things and don't need to stick with what everyone is preaching.

Thanks @CCarter + @stackcash
 
Google is telling you the content length it wants to see via the articles that are currently ranking for your target keyword. It literally can only be one of two things:
  1. The SERP is already filled with SEO optimized content...so you need to match and exceed the quality of what is currently working.
  2. The SERP is filled with little to no competition and you just need to follow best practices in order to dominate.
The existing content on the SERP is your baseline. It tells you how long the content should be. And, if it's a SERP with zero competition...you can just create an article that comprehensively covers the main keyword /topic and should be able to rank easily. If not, it's up to you as a marketer to test, tweak, and adjust until you get it right.
 
User behavior over anything else. How come I jump in ahead of several much older sites with my two new authority sites?

The topics are largely the same, as in maybe 80% the same. The writing however is not the same. I try to find the emotional triggers, many competitors just ramble like it's a report for some old school business. I want my visitors do right-click open "About Us", then go to front page, then read some more, then click an affiliate link. For this purpose, I also make sure to have nice images, I add my own, make small explanatory graphics in PS, add Youtube videos other people made (I plan to make my own). Google rewards it is my intuition.
 
I've talked about those true one-page sites, and started pointing some out in this thread: Great Linkbait in the Wild. In my mind, these exist solely because they're easy to talk about and point a link at, that you can then give yourself a footer link or move the whole thing to an inner page on a big site once you've tapped out the potential, and add internal links where you want the juice to go.

What I think about sites like GoodUI.org is that they're perfect for businesses with one core audience and one core product. You tell the user everything there is to know about what they need, except how to do it. By doing this, you come off as an expert. Then you offer to do it for them for the price. I think it's a fantastic way of promoting this kind of business.

I also agree with your statement that there's no reason you can't do this on a big site with 100 other pages. I've built one such page so far. I really need to do another but it's a huge ordeal.

The real question is why have a "one-pager" (or one main feature) versus an authority site with a couple thousand pages. I'd be thinking about things like:
  • What's my product?
  • What's my marketing angle?
  • Do I care about SEO?
  • Will I be all paid traffic?
  • Am I going to be pushing on social media?
  • Will my traffic sources match the intent of my content?
  • What's required for a conversion?
  • What's the monetary value of a conversion?
  • How many conversions do I need for success?
It's always back to basics and creating a funnel that starts off-site and leads to your site and towards the conversion.

The only reason to have a ton of pages is to hyper-optimize on a boatload of keywords so you can get that on-going passive search engine traffic. If you aren't worried about SEO on that scale, there's no reason to scale content to the moon.

However, if you aren't worried about SEO, you better have money for paid traffic or be ready to grind out marketing like it's your day job, because your income will completely depend on it.

A conversion for an authority site might be filling out a CPA form, clicking an advertisement, buying something on Amazon, etc. It's all low-value stuff and they have to play the SEO numbers game for it to work out. Maybe they eventually build their own product and shift into PPC and all that too.

But something like GoodUI.org doesn't need that many converting visitors. One conversion is probably worth somewhere in the middle to upper 5 figure range or even in the 6 figures, and they might be negotiating on-going work afterwards or even a commission on the increase in revenue they bring.

"What am I selling, who am I selling it to, where do I find these people, how much is a sale worth?"

That will determine your on-site and off-site marketing.
 
There's always a fine balance with these sites. They take a ton of information and strip all the fat so it's only 100% gold nuggets. That's the main value, is that it's condensed for the user, just add water.

But I see that in listicles too. I see it in videos too. But it never attracts the attention and links that these well formatted pages do.

What really sets any of those apart from an infographic? Most of them are infographics that have been chopped up so the text can reflow and be responsive. Otherwise they're glorified infographics.

What really sets these apart? Is it because they're a "new" kind of content, and does that mean the internet users will eventually get dulled to them?

I find them to be more annoying to read than a normal post. I like that they visually break up the content with the graphics and styled headers and stuff, but it's way slower to take in and digest. It just looks fancy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back