+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Domain Revenue - Parked vs Posted?

  1. #1
    Trial Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Domain Revenue - Parked vs Posted?

    I have a domain parked at Sedo earning AdSense revenue. How much more would that revenue increase if I hosted the domain elsewhere and put up my own page (ignoring hosting cost)? in other words, what is Sedo's cut?

  2. #2
    Top Contributor grynge is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    2,719
    Blog Entries
    6
    Thanks
    1,534
    Thanked 1,783 Times in 944 Posts
    Rep Power
    60
    As far as I can tell from their site and financial reports they don't disclose their cut in the revenue.

    I would say your decision would be based on what kind of revenue they are paying you, if it covers the cost of hosting your own domain, and then placing googles adsense on it.
    And they thought me broken, that my tongue was coated lead, but I just couldn't make my words make sense to them, if you only listen with your ears ... I can't get in
    Non ducor, duco

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    58
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 26 Times in 18 Posts
    Rep Power
    6
    I think setting up your own parking page monetized by adsense is likely to be risky in terms of potential to lose your adsense account, although I have seen plenty of these set up by domainers in the past?

    Do you have just one domain or a portfolio? I've accounts at quite a few parking providers and currently mainly use bodis.com.
    Stephen.

  4. #4
    Established Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    264
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked 231 Times in 99 Posts
    Rep Power
    17
    I wouldn't bother unless it's something you really want to develop. I think the multiple minisite fantasy for domainers has pretty much proven itself to be a loser. Why?

    1- Sedo gets a better rate from Adsense than you will.
    2- As Brassneck said above, you risk losing your Adsense account with a bunch of thin sites.
    3- You also greatly risk having your domain de-indexed by Google.
    4- If you try to beat 2 and 3 by putting original content to have a not-so-thin site, it will cost you time and/or money. The domain may not earn enough to make that worthwhile.
    5- Parking, even if you do it yourself on your own pages, is seeing declining revenue year after year. Even the domainers with great portfolios (I'm not one of them) are seeing this trend. They are still making money, but the trend is inescapable.

    If you have good domains, a better place to focus would be on domain sales and/or full development of your best names. As for parking, try different providers, such as Internet Traffic or Voodoo, and see what happens.

  5. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fish For This Useful Post:

    crabfoot (16 July 2013), gzed (16 July 2013), Kay (15 July 2013), Peri2308 (17 July 2013)

  6. #5
    Top Contributor crabfoot is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    East Yorkshire
    Posts
    2,193
    Blog Entries
    8
    Thanks
    489
    Thanked 1,991 Times in 1,038 Posts
    Rep Power
    57
    While I agree with just about everything Mr Fish has to say, I want to make a couple of comments and add some historical perspective to the minisite era.

    I've come across comments from big-time domainers, saying that type-in traffic is the best you can get, because it takes no work to get it. So if you're not doing anything with a domain and it produces a revenue from being parked, you can be fairly certain that it is a good domain and is worth building out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fish View Post
    I think the multiple minisite fantasy for domainers has pretty much proven itself to be a loser.
    It is dead as a strategy - but it wasn't a fantasy. A brief history lesson, from my vague recollections of what happened:

    Sometime in 2008, there was a legal ruling by a US "fair trade" body that Gargle were favoring established sites to the extent that it was not possible for newcomers to compete fairly in the marketplace, and they were told to do something about it, in no uncertain terms.

    Soon after that, people started to discover that a new site would be pushed up the SERPs for its keywords, even if it was only five pages and not very good, and would hold its status for roughly 12 weeks. While it did that, it was possible for the site to make some money from Adsense. If it hadn't acquired enough kudos, it would be "dumped in the sandbox", and take a lot of effort to revive to its former position.

    That was how people explained what they saw happening.
    What I believe actually happened was that Gargyl had decided that giving a new site a boost was a way to appease the "fair trade" people. After 12 weeks, they re-rated the site, and if it had not grown profusely they attached a "standard" rating to it which condemned it to drop down the ratings - hence the "sandbox" was in reality a re-rating effect.

    Some people were able to get past the "sandbox period" by a combination strategy of adding content and links. Also, the "exact keyword" advantage was operating on links, so a keyword domain was a huge help to survival. After a while, Gargyl stopped boosting new domains, but there was a retrospective effect - old domains used with a new site could still get the new site boost for a while after Gargyl shut down on boosting new domains. That caused some confusion, with some people saying "it still works" and others saying "it's dead". Another thing that caused Gargyl some confusion was php-based affiliate sites with changing product displays. I had some of those which were correctly analysed by YahBing as having 4 pages, but Gargyl's spiders reported them as having over a thousand.

    When that minisite boom was going on, it made sense to build sites out rather than park them, but Gargyl has stamped on all the easy ways that existed to work up from a minisite.
    Nowadays, Gargyl gives a site a once-over rating as soon as it appears, and if it is a one-page or small site without pictures it rates it low and puts it way down where the sun don't shine - but it doesn't do that (yet) with parked sites, and it sometimes has trouble deciding what constitutes parking.

    So a minisite/one-page site on "standard rent" hosting gets a poor rating for starters, whereas that same site might be treated as "parked" if it is on reseller hosting. Because gargyl can't tell whether the site is "truly parked" or being independently hosted, the one pager could be given the benefit of the doubt, if gargyl can't decide the type of hosting it is on. So some people get away with putting sites up which are effectively home-grown parking, and others find that the one-page site bombs. You get conflicting info, and it depends on how Gargyl analyses the hosting.

    One thing I can say is that the statement Mr Cuttz made a while back about putting up a single page to give the spiders an idea of what the future site's subject matter will be about has been superseded by the B&W creature attacks. I'm not putting up anything less than 18 pages for starters, and I'm rating Mr Cuttz comments in the same bag as the guy down at the chip shop who swears he's Elvis.

    Yknow, it might be worth looking back to see if we can find out what that fair trade organisation was, and petitioning them about gargyl stifling competition - again.
    Last edited by crabfoot; 16 July 2013 at 12:48 pm.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to crabfoot For This Useful Post:

    Fish (16 July 2013), Kay (16 July 2013)

  8. #6
    Dormant Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    100
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 91 Times in 50 Posts
    Rep Power
    7
    Crabfoot, I'm not sure I follow: are you saying that Google looks at hosting and favors domains w/ private nameservers compared to "standard rent" domains that are using the host's nameservers like ns100/ns101.hostgator.com? Absent my own evidence, I don't have anything to argue, but still, it doesn't quite make sense - I know plenty of buffoons that have VPS's and plenty of really good high-traffic sites that are on shared servers.

  9. #7
    Top Contributor crabfoot is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    East Yorkshire
    Posts
    2,193
    Blog Entries
    8
    Thanks
    489
    Thanked 1,991 Times in 1,038 Posts
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by gzed View Post
    Crabfoot, I'm not sure I follow: are you saying that Google looks at hosting and favors domains w/ private nameservers compared to "standard rent" domains that are using the host's nameservers like ns100/ns101.hostgator.com?
    Let's try this again -you've just about got the hang of it. It's not the nameservers - I think you need a private IP address for the hosting before it will work.

    I'm talking about DIY parking - where you put up a one-page site with Adsense (or similar) on the page.

    If you try doing this on simple hosting, or free hosting, Google will usually give the site a very poor rating as soon as it notices the site, based on the page content. Not only that, but if you inform them that the one-page site exists, they do the re-rating very quickly.

    I once did an accidental experiment with two very similar PR3 domains, putting a one page site on each (because Mr Cuttz suggested it) with the intent of building them out gradually. I linked one into my Analytics account and the PR dropped to 0 in less than 15 minutes. The other site lasted over a week at PR3, when Gargyl got around to noticing it and re-rated it.

    But Gargyl has some built in tolerance towards "formally parked" domains - it doesn't hit the PR etc immediately if a domain is parked for a while, as if it allows time for a site to be built. So you get the situation where domains on a formal parking scheme don't lose PR and don't get penalised for having duplicate content.

    Many of the pro domainers run their own parking. There's one who uses four built-up sites for hundreds/thousands of domains - type in any domain he has for sale and it will come up with one of those built-up sites in a frame. And yes, they run Adsense.

    If Gargyl can definitely say "this is a one page site, and not a parked site" they will rate it as such and shove it where the sun don't shine. Then you have to put in a lot of effort to get it up the ratings when you build it out.

    But if there is a chance that the site is parked, being on some extensive hosting where the owner might be a reseller, Gargyl will often treat that site as being parked, and be kinder towards its inherited kudos attributes, allowing it to retain PR etc.

    I'm sure Kay will not mind me mentioning that she has a few domains that are one page sites running Adsense on her private server, and she is able to effectively "run her own parking service".

    Quote Originally Posted by gzed View Post
    Absent my own evidence, I don't have anything to argue, but still, it doesn't quite make sense - I know plenty of buffoons that have VPS's and plenty of really good high-traffic sites that are on shared servers.
    The "good high-traffic sites that are on shared servers" are not relevant to this discussion - we're talking about whether you can do your own parking, and whether it will pay better than a parking service.

    The pragmatic truth as I see it is that it is possible, so perhaps the " buffoons that have VPS's" could get away with it.

    People I know, not just Kay, have found that a one-page site with Adsense will work, and pay better than using a parking service. But the common link to success is having a private server / reseller account, and it is no guarantee that the effect will work. Sometimes it doesn't, you have to try one and see.

    Whenever I've tried to do it using small time hosting, I couldn't get it to work, and it is hard to conduct experiments these days without it costing dearly. When I studied the subject, it was possible to pick up dropped domains with PR for the registration fee. Can't afford the ingredients these days.
    Last edited by crabfoot; 17 July 2013 at 4:17 am.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to crabfoot For This Useful Post:

    gzed (17 July 2013)

  11. #8
    Moderator Kay is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kent - the garden of England
    Posts
    6,166
    Blog Entries
    2
    Thanks
    4,297
    Thanked 3,342 Times in 2,133 Posts
    Rep Power
    95
    Whilst I enjoyed the flattery in crabfoot's post, perhaps I ought to set the record straight. I'm not as smart as his posting makes me out to be. I have a VPS because that's probably the cheapest way for us to run our sites. Some of them are quite large - britishexpat.com, for example. We have spare capacity on the server, so it makes sense just to stick the also-rans on there. Some of my domains simply redirect to one of the bigger players in the stable. Other times, I'll stick a one-pager up because it's better than having the domain lying idle. If I've had any success it's more by accident than design.

    One of my one-pagers is nothing more than a couple of paras saying, "this site is for sale". That one maintained a PR4 for a long time and people kept asking me how come my one-pager had a PR4. The honest answer is that I didn't have a clue, but sometimes I muttered some SEO mumbo jumbo in reply.

    I'm not sure if I still have AdSense on any of these "parked" domains any more - I would need to check. Even if I have, I can tell you that the amount of money they make from AS is so small that I've not noticed it.
    British Expat - helping people to live and work abroad since the year 2000.

    The joy of Internet delivery - the cartoon illustrating this will make you laugh!



+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. What's The Best Strategy For Buying A Parked Domain?...
    By Magnus in forum Domain Registration and Domaining
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11 December 2011, 1:32 am
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 18 February 2011, 4:53 pm

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts