5 ms·

Why developers should build single-purpose websites

29 points by briancray 17y ago

noss 17y ago
Without openid or similar federated login a downside is that people are reluctant to register.
- briancray 17y ago
  true, although openid can be confusing for non-tech users. Google IDs are more accepted by the common crowd methinks
patio11 17y ago
The value of links split over a portfolio of single-purpose websites is questionable. SEO is a Winner Take Most game, in which having 1% more ranking ability (in general, links) than the next guy can result in you getting 50% more traffic, or more, because of how people click the highest positions in the SERP overwhelmingly more. In other words, there is an increasing marginal return on links pointed at the same domain. Thus, splitting your links over 5 or 50 or 500 properties tends to mean you rank for a LOT less than you would have had you "put your eggs in one basket", even if you get marginally more links in aggregate to the portfolio than you would have gotten to the single site. The only exception to this which jumps out at me is exact match domains, because they can rank with many, many less links than an identical page on non-exact match domain. (For those who are new to this concept: if your query is exactly [exact match domain], then exactmatchdomain{.com|.net|.org} and a few major country TLDs get an automatic and massive bonus in their rankability for that query and that query alone. My main domain has thousands of links, many from fairly authoritative sources like e.g. google.com. My mini-sites on exact match domains generally start with one link from my blog and outrank the main site within a week or two.)
- dasil003 17y ago
  The flaw in your thinking is twofold. First, all searches are not equal. Second, you do not necessarily need those marginal returns. Inbound links do not provide some generic amount of Google juice. Relevance is very important. If you have a focused page, not only will you probably attract more links, but those links will use more relevant search terms and Google will understand the page to be more relevant to the terms as well. Other inbound links for some other service will not have much value at all for the searches in question, and even when they do, are they the difference that pushes you into the top 5 positions? Of course, if multiple services make sense under one umbrella than by all means keep them in one domain or even one page. As usual with SEO, the foundation is first making sure that what you're doing makes sense from a user perspective.
enjo 17y ago
How is Twitter a Facebook killer? http://siteanalytics.compete.com/facebook.com+twitter.com/ http://siteanalytics.compete.com/facebook.com+twitter.com/
- briancray 17y ago
  Facebook is hitting majority adoption while Twitter is stealing the early adopters. They are simply in separate places on the adoption curve.
  - dasil003 17y ago
    Oprah and Larry King are not early adopters. Twitter is very much in the mainstream. Besides that I find this whole comparison ridiculous. The friend vs follower dichotomy pretty much puts the two services in different categories. In theory some third party service could overlay some Facebook-like functionality on top of Twitter, but will such an arrangement have the usability and critical mass that Facebook has? Will Twitter be compelling to regular people as it becomes more and more dominated by marketing? Is the 1% of Facebook functionality that Twitter provides compelling enough to get the masses to switch?
  - ryanwaggoner 17y ago
    False. Twitter has nothing on Facebook. Here's why: 1. Twitter has nothing to do with early adopters anymore...they were on freaking Oprah. 2. They've been around for 3.5 years, which is only a couple years less than Facebook, so it's not like they're this little upstart that's trying to unseat the ancient Facebook. 3. Facebook has way more retention and engagement / user. 4. Facebook does what Twitter does (status updates), and does it better, IMO. 5. My parents and aunts and uncles and grandparents all use Facebook. They find value in it, and it enriches their life. Twitter is useless to them. 6. Twitter now is mostly marketers and spammers, judging from the people trying to follow me. 7. Most people seem to talk on Twitter way more than they listen. Over time, this drives down engagement, which means that people have to talk louder and more often to get any attention. 8. Most importantly, Facebook has hundreds of millions in annual revenue, and is predicting cashflow positive in 2010. Twitter has yet to make a dollar (to my knowledge). EDIT: Added a few more points
cstefanovici 17y ago
I just built a simple, single-purpose one... it's powered by Twitter though and I hope people will use it. Let me know your thoughts everyone. Check it out: http://www.blibu.com http://www.blibu.com
tdavis 17y ago
Think pie. Think pie and space shuttles. Pie = Simple and delicious. Shuttles = Complex and metallic. Pie = Shuttle Killer. 'Nuff said. If you're not going to make any sense, you might as well go all the way.
- briancray 17y ago
  LOL. Although your comment provides no insightful value to this discussion, I will admit you're funny.
  - kl4m 17y ago
    Oh but it does
    - briancray 17y ago
      His analogy compares two completely unrelated things. Twitter and Facebook are both social media platforms for connecting, building networks, and sharing information.
      - apotheon 17y ago
        They serve different community niches, though. You seem to think that each must necessarily overlap the uses of the other so significantly that one of them has to fail for the other to succeed. The functionality of each is so distinct from the other, for the most part, that they're more likely to develop means of benefiting from the existence of the other than to have any chance of crushing the other. In fact, since Facebook already has rudimentary Twitter-like capabilities, I'd say Facebook is more likely to be a Twitter killer than the other way around, because the main attractions of Facebook are not the Twitter-like capabilities. . . . not that I'm particularly interested in either. For those who are, though, I can see how each has its own, separate, not necessarily competitive attraction.
rwolf 17y ago
The author mentions his project PXtoEM.com a little too often in this post.
- briancray 17y ago
  I'm only trying to draw from experience.
pkulak 17y ago
I've never seen a writeup end with a sentence that completely destroys the entire thesis.
- briancray 17y ago
  Hehe. You aren't alone in your thinking and enough people have shown great arguments against that statement. I've removed it in hopes that people focus on the article rather than the final statement =) Thanks for your feedback
  - RyanMcGreal 17y ago
    Suggestion: in the interests of transparency, add a notice specifying the change you made, and why. Right now there are comments on your article referencing a statement that no longer exists.
    - briancray 17y ago
      Thanks for the suggestion Ryan--you're right. article updated

29 points by briancray 17y ago

noss 17y ago

Without openid or similar federated login a downside is that people are reluctant to register.

briancray 17y ago
true, although openid can be confusing for non-tech users. Google IDs are more accepted by the common crowd methinks

patio11 17y ago

The value of links split over a portfolio of single-purpose websites is questionable. SEO is a Winner Take Most game, in which having 1% more ranking ability (in general, links) than the next guy can result in you getting 50% more traffic, or more, because of how people click the highest positions in the SERP overwhelmingly more. In other words, there is an increasing marginal return on links pointed at the same domain. Thus, splitting your links over 5 or 50 or 500 properties tends to mean you rank for a LOT less than you would have had you "put your eggs in one basket", even if you get marginally more links in aggregate to the portfolio than you would have gotten to the single site. The only exception to this which jumps out at me is exact match domains, because they can rank with many, many less links than an identical page on non-exact match domain. (For those who are new to this concept: if your query is exactly [exact match domain], then exactmatchdomain{.com|.net|.org} and a few major country TLDs get an automatic and massive bonus in their rankability for that query and that query alone. My main domain has thousands of links, many from fairly authoritative sources like e.g. google.com. My mini-sites on exact match domains generally start with one link from my blog and outrank the main site within a week or two.)

dasil003 17y ago
The flaw in your thinking is twofold. First, all searches are not equal. Second, you do not necessarily need those marginal returns. Inbound links do not provide some generic amount of Google juice. Relevance is very important. If you have a focused page, not only will you probably attract more links, but those links will use more relevant search terms and Google will understand the page to be more relevant to the terms as well. Other inbound links for some other service will not have much value at all for the searches in question, and even when they do, are they the difference that pushes you into the top 5 positions? Of course, if multiple services make sense under one umbrella than by all means keep them in one domain or even one page. As usual with SEO, the foundation is first making sure that what you're doing makes sense from a user perspective.

enjo 17y ago

How is Twitter a Facebook killer? http://siteanalytics.compete.com/facebook.com+twitter.com/ http://siteanalytics.compete.com/facebook.com+twitter.com/

briancray 17y ago
Facebook is hitting majority adoption while Twitter is stealing the early adopters. They are simply in separate places on the adoption curve.
- dasil003 17y ago
  Oprah and Larry King are not early adopters. Twitter is very much in the mainstream. Besides that I find this whole comparison ridiculous. The friend vs follower dichotomy pretty much puts the two services in different categories. In theory some third party service could overlay some Facebook-like functionality on top of Twitter, but will such an arrangement have the usability and critical mass that Facebook has? Will Twitter be compelling to regular people as it becomes more and more dominated by marketing? Is the 1% of Facebook functionality that Twitter provides compelling enough to get the masses to switch?
- ryanwaggoner 17y ago
  False. Twitter has nothing on Facebook. Here's why: 1. Twitter has nothing to do with early adopters anymore...they were on freaking Oprah. 2. They've been around for 3.5 years, which is only a couple years less than Facebook, so it's not like they're this little upstart that's trying to unseat the ancient Facebook. 3. Facebook has way more retention and engagement / user. 4. Facebook does what Twitter does (status updates), and does it better, IMO. 5. My parents and aunts and uncles and grandparents all use Facebook. They find value in it, and it enriches their life. Twitter is useless to them. 6. Twitter now is mostly marketers and spammers, judging from the people trying to follow me. 7. Most people seem to talk on Twitter way more than they listen. Over time, this drives down engagement, which means that people have to talk louder and more often to get any attention. 8. Most importantly, Facebook has hundreds of millions in annual revenue, and is predicting cashflow positive in 2010. Twitter has yet to make a dollar (to my knowledge). EDIT: Added a few more points

cstefanovici 17y ago

I just built a simple, single-purpose one... it's powered by Twitter though and I hope people will use it. Let me know your thoughts everyone. Check it out: http://www.blibu.com http://www.blibu.com

tdavis 17y ago

Think pie. Think pie and space shuttles. Pie = Simple and delicious. Shuttles = Complex and metallic. Pie = Shuttle Killer. 'Nuff said. If you're not going to make any sense, you might as well go all the way.

briancray 17y ago
LOL. Although your comment provides no insightful value to this discussion, I will admit you're funny.
- kl4m 17y ago
  Oh but it does
  - briancray 17y ago
    His analogy compares two completely unrelated things. Twitter and Facebook are both social media platforms for connecting, building networks, and sharing information.
    - apotheon 17y ago
      They serve different community niches, though. You seem to think that each must necessarily overlap the uses of the other so significantly that one of them has to fail for the other to succeed. The functionality of each is so distinct from the other, for the most part, that they're more likely to develop means of benefiting from the existence of the other than to have any chance of crushing the other. In fact, since Facebook already has rudimentary Twitter-like capabilities, I'd say Facebook is more likely to be a Twitter killer than the other way around, because the main attractions of Facebook are not the Twitter-like capabilities. . . . not that I'm particularly interested in either. For those who are, though, I can see how each has its own, separate, not necessarily competitive attraction.

rwolf 17y ago

The author mentions his project PXtoEM.com a little too often in this post.

briancray 17y ago
I'm only trying to draw from experience.

pkulak 17y ago

I've never seen a writeup end with a sentence that completely destroys the entire thesis.

briancray 17y ago
Hehe. You aren't alone in your thinking and enough people have shown great arguments against that statement. I've removed it in hopes that people focus on the article rather than the final statement =) Thanks for your feedback
- RyanMcGreal 17y ago
  Suggestion: in the interests of transparency, add a notice specifying the change you made, and why. Right now there are comments on your article referencing a statement that no longer exists.
  - briancray 17y ago
    Thanks for the suggestion Ryan--you're right. article updated