The first AdSense rejection was predictable. I'd launched three directory sites on Vercel and hadn't added custom domains immediately. Google won't approve a *.vercel.app site — the subdomain pattern can't carry a credible publisher identity and the policy requirement for a real contact address on the privacy page can't be met on a free subdomain.
Custom domains fixed that. I resubmitted.
Two weeks later: rejected again. This time for "valuable inventory," which is AdSense's way of saying the content doesn't meet the quality bar they need to place ads against. The reviewer flagged scaled content. Open Alternative To has 80 pages for 80 different paid tools. Even though Claude Haiku generates genuine editorial text for each one, the programmatic pattern triggered AdSense's classifier.
That second rejection forced me to actually run the economics I'd been deferring.
The asymmetry between affiliate and AdSense for a zero-traffic site
AdSense has an approval gate. Affiliate programs don't.
For a site in month one, that asymmetry is the entire decision. Display ad revenue on a brand-new site with essentially no traffic is effectively zero regardless of whether you're approved — there's nothing to monetize. The path to positive earnings requires: getting approved, building traffic, then earning CPM-based revenue at scale.
Affiliate revenue has no approval step. The first conversion earns commission the day the link is live. The earning curve is still terrible at low traffic, but the timeline starts earlier.
I've been deliberately honest in this series about not having numbers to report yet. The sites launched April 23, 2026; I'll publish month-one metrics in June. But the structural argument for pivoting now — before I have revenue data — is that the two monetization models have different minimum viable conditions. AdSense requires approval. Affiliate requires a user who clicks and buys.
Why I didn't pivot all three sites
Three sites, three different audiences:
| Site | Primary intent | Monetization strategy | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Top AI Tools | Discover and adopt AI tools | Affiliate (Amazon, SaaS programs) | Purchase intent — evaluating paid tools |
| Find Games Like | Find similar indie games | Affiliate (Steam, Humble Bundle) | Purchase intent — close to a buy decision |
| Open Alternative To | Replace paid software with open-source | AdSense (when approved) | Anti-purchase intent — display ads monetize page views |
The pivot logic turns on purchase intent. Someone browsing AI tools is probably evaluating whether to pay for a Pro plan. Someone looking for games similar to one they liked is close to a Steam purchase. Affiliate commissions trigger on exactly those decisions — the user was already considering the purchase.
The OSS alternatives audience is explicitly trying to not spend money. An affiliate link for "buy the paid version you were trying to avoid" is a misalignment. Display ads monetize the page view regardless of purchase intent, so AdSense is the structurally correct model for Open Alternative To — when the editorial quality clears approval.
This means ossfind stays on the quality-improvement track. I'm implementing a content quality gate that limits which pages are indexable, reducing the scaled-content signal that triggered the rejection. The target: resubmit with a smaller set of genuinely thick pages and the rest marked noindex.
The implementation: monetization mode as env var, not deletion
The cleanest part of this pivot was choosing not to delete the AdSense components. Deletion would make the decision permanent before I have revenue data. Instead I added a PUBLIC_MONETIZATION_MODE env var to the shared monetization package:
export type MonetizationMode = "adsense" | "affiliate";
export function getMonetization(): MonetizationConfig {
const mode: MonetizationMode =
process.env.PUBLIC_MONETIZATION_MODE === "adsense" ? "adsense" : "affiliate";
return {
mode,
enabled: {
// AdSense only renders when mode=adsense AND client ID is set.
// Default "affiliate" means env leftovers can't accidentally surface ads.
ads: mode === "adsense" && !!adsenseClient,
amazon: !!amazonTag,
},
};
}
The default is "affiliate". If I forget to set the env var on a new deployment, AdSense doesn't accidentally appear and damage my publisher account reputation. To re-enable AdSense on ossfind when the quality work is done, it's one env var change in the Cloudflare Pages dashboard.
This is the same "safe default" principle I apply elsewhere in the stack — the post-deploy JSON-LD audit ensures broken structured data can't reach Google undetected; the monetization default ensures AdSense can't appear on a site that hasn't been approved.
I also added affiliate disclosure pages to both pivoted sites. The FTC requires disclosure when affiliate links appear; Amazon Associates adds its own ToS requirement. Each site now has /affiliate-disclosure with a footer link. The copy renders from the shared shared/legal package using a privacyPolicy(site, { ads }) function that switches between AdSense and affiliate text based on the monetization config. One source of truth for both modes.
What affiliate programs I'm actually using
For Top AI Tools:
- Amazon Associates — primarily for AI-adjacent hardware (GPUs for local inference, books on practical ML) and tools that have physical product lines. Not every AI tool maps to an Amazon purchase, so this is supplementary coverage.
- Direct SaaS programs — a handful of tools in the directory offer 20-30% recurring commission through their own partner programs. I'm applying to these individually. Slower to set up but higher per-conversion yield than Amazon.
For Find Games Like:
- Humble Bundle Partner — covers Steam purchases through the Humble store. The commission on game sales is modest but consistent with audience behavior on a discovery site.
- itch.io — no formal affiliate program. I link directly with no commission. Dropping itch games from the site to avoid the zero-commission awkwardness would be the wrong call; the indie-game audience expects to see itch alongside Steam.
I'm not using broad affiliate networks (CJ Affiliate, ShareASale) yet. At near-zero traffic, the compliance overhead isn't worth the incremental coverage. I'll add them when the sites hit meaningful monthly traffic volume — I'll know that threshold when I see it.
The falsifiable bet
By November 2026 — six months from launch — affiliate revenue on Top AI Tools and Find Games Like combined will exceed my estimate of what AdSense would have earned if approved on both sites.
My AdSense estimate is: display ad CPM on a new directory site (low traffic tier) × page views ≈ single-digit dollars per month per site in the early phase. Affiliate target: one to two conversions per month at modest commission values per conversion ≈ comparable range, with no approval delay.
The ranges overlap at low traffic. I'm not betting affiliate earns dramatically more. I'm betting it earns at least as much as AdSense would have, faster, without the approval lag and quality-work costs.
What would change my mind:
- ossfind gets AdSense approved and earns substantially more per month than the other two sites combined via affiliate — that would signal the approval path has better unit economics than I modeled
- A SaaS affiliate program rejects my application or adds compliance requirements that would distort editorial recommendations (I won't link to something I wouldn't recommend regardless of commission)
- Traffic doesn't materialize on either site by month six — in which case the AI Overviews bet failed at a more fundamental level than the monetization question
The update I'll actually publish
I said in the initial architecture post that I'd publish real numbers at 30 and 60 days. That post is due in late May 2026 for the first set.
The metrics will include affiliate clicks and conversions broken down by site, AdSense quality-work progress on ossfind (measured by curated page count), and any Search Console signals worth sharing. I won't rationalize zero conversions as "still early" past month two. If the affiliate model isn't showing any signal by July, I'll say so and revisit.
The honest current state: affiliate earnings are $0 and AdSense is not running on any of the three sites. That's the baseline. Everything else is probability estimates based on the structural arguments above.
FAQ
Can affiliate programs earn anything at very low traffic?
Technically yes, but it's rounding error until you reach a few hundred monthly visitors from high-intent queries. At low single-digit monthly conversion rates, you need consistent traffic before the commission math produces anything worth reporting. This is why month-one data won't be meaningful — the same is true for AdSense. Both models need traffic.
Why not run both AdSense and affiliate on the same site?
AdSense policy allows affiliate links alongside display ads. But I'd rather keep ossfind as a clean AdSense application without the affiliate complexity for the reviewer to evaluate. Cleaner separation; easier to debug which factor drove any future rejection.
Can you switch back to AdSense on the pivoted sites later?
Yes. The implementation is one env var change. I specifically chose this pattern so no decision is permanent until the revenue data says it should be. If ossfind earns well under AdSense and the affiliate hypothesis turns out wrong, reversing either pivot is a ten-second config change.
Why keep ossfind on the AdSense track after two rejections?
The rejections were site-level, not account-level. The publisher account is in good standing. And the structural reason remains: the OSS-alternatives audience isn't buying — they're avoiding buying. Affiliate commission requires a purchase. Display ads monetize the visit. AdSense is the right model for that site if I can get the editorial quality to pass.
When do you expect to resubmit ossfind?
After I get the curated page count above 30. Currently at 18. Each nightly ETL run that generates real Claude Haiku content moves more entries across the threshold. I'm not setting a calendar date — I'll resubmit when the data supports it.
Related: Why I'm betting on AI-curated directories when Google AI Overviews answer the same queries
Part of an ongoing 6-month experiment running three AI-curated directory sites. The technical claims here are real; this article was AI-assisted.
Top comments (0)