I’ve been reading a lot about mini-sites, one-page sites, and large sites, and have not yet found a definitive answer.
Some SEO specialists are adamant that the larger your site’s footprint (i.e. the more pages you have) the better you’ll rank in Google. On the other hand, I rank darn high for some keywords with one or two three-page sites too.
I also have, quite by accident, a large site I made as a demo site a year ago that has 27,000 pages indexed in Google and an index PR of 5, secondary pages all have a PR of 4, and most of the directory is PR3. In spite of the large pagecount and decent PR, the site doesn’t get great SE rankings or a whole lot of traffic because it’s never been SE optimized.
(Incidentally, I keep telling myself I should do something with that site, but because it isn’t about a topic that interests me at all, I never get around to it. So… should I sell it? Is it worth anything? How would I even find out?)
Getting back to the footprint thing, this thread seems to indicate a bigger footprint = better SERP. Yet, it could also be interpreted as Fresh Content=Better SERPs.
But you don’t really get fresh content without growing your footprint, in most cases, so maybe they’re interchangeable.
Anybody have a definitive answer?
EDIT: Someone emailed to ask, and I guess it would help to value the site… I get about 100 unique visitors a day to it, and it does have ads, but it’s only getting a 2.0 ctr or so. Clicks bring between 15 and 25 cents a piece.