Could you go over the picking a domain name more in detail?
Do you look for expired domain with a history of decent backlinks?
Do your domain have the main keyword in them?
Or do you target random expired domain with great backlinks history?
TIA
It depends, honestly.
Generally I look for the best domain possible and make a site in that niche.
For amazon sites, I find the best KW possible. Once I have the KW I either make an EMD or pick an aged domain in the niche with the best metrics possible (And back links).
Depending on if I pick an EMD or aged domain depends if I can find a great aged domain and how many KWs I have. I normally go with an Aged domain and make a mid sized site.
Hey lightningblitz you skipped my question on page two right before the shenanigans went down lol
Sorry! Found it and will answer:
"Do you set up a table for every "best (product)" keyword?
Reason why I asked because I have a site reaching 500 pages and each post reviews 3 products with a PROS/CONS on each of them.
-Amazon links are placed in the title of the products I'm reviewing
-CTA link
That's it, no table."
Unfortunately, yes.
Each page of mine reviews at least two products, and I do a single table including all products on the page.
If you look at 'hot' review sites in SERPs most have little content and a LOT of products in tables.
With a site that big I would add a table and some 'buy on amazon' links. My goal is to have a user click to Amazon. Unless I copy amazons site word for word I will never have a site that converts as well as Amazon. So I just want to get my affiliate code in the game and move on.
How many links per page on a review site would you deem safe? What if its about listing top 10s and all?
I shoot for 500 words per link. You can get away with a LOT more (I am testing more) but I never had a problem when I had a lot of content per aff link.
Some really great bits of information shared here. Just one question however (if you don't mind answering) - In the section titled "Bonus advice" you mention that good Web 2.0's are expensive to build. Having seen several interpretations and permutations of Web 2.0's in the marketplace and discussed in guides, it would be great to hear a little more about what you consider to be a good Web 2.0 set up. If anyone wants to answer for that matter I'd really appreciate the information.
I have at least one Web 2.0 thread.
I see three tiers of Web 2.0s.
Tier one is Web 2.0s that look like a money site. Contact us, about us, location and privacy pages. Possible email opt in. Lots of images. Videos embed. Custom widgets. Unique content ranking for very easy KWs. Every option changed (Theme, logo, header, etc)
Then you have tier two, or what SEOs call great. You get images in each article, content is niche specific, a few relevant articles on each, most stock options changed, potential for a logo. These also normally have privacy and about us pages.
Then you get tier three, or the 'basic' web 2.0. This is a generic theme, not all options changed, missing contact pages. Spun content (Although spun well). Most likely no images.
I always shoot for tier two or tier one Web 2.0s. It is more about longevity for the most part. If it looks like a real site it should never go down and may pick up links on its own.