| 4:26 am on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Ok, so I've read every article on the internet about getting my site to show up on google. I've been careful not to spam or anything like that, and my site is quality & useful.
After a month of promoting I have a PR of 6. This has not helped me at all. If I type in ANY search term that is related to my site, my page does not exist on google. In fact, pages with PR 0 come up before my site. Even when I type in "MyDomainName" then a keyword, a re-direct CACHE page (exact clone) of my site comes up instead of the real thing. Has anyone else run into these problems?
| 7:03 am on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
if the site is new .. ie. a month or 2 old .. i say give it time.
| 9:12 pm on Apr 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Has anyone else run into these problems? |
Pratically everyone seems to be running into these types of problems lately. Why not sticky me your URL and I'll take a look at it for you.
| 10:00 pm on Apr 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|What could possibly be going on? |
Welcome to the club. Google threw out a lot of good sites with their spam filters (sorry, I mean "imaginary" filters).
The leading theories to overcome this problem involve a combination of adding semantically similar words to your pages, adding on-topic outgoing links to make your site appear to be a directory (I mean "authority" site), getting more quality incoming links from on-topic sites, and (possibly) reducing the keyword density of your pages including internal anchor text. Most of these suggestions are good advice in any case.
Whatever is keeping your site out of the SERPS - maybe it's a filter, maybe it's an algorithm that gives you minus 99999999 points if you have (or do not have) something - is still a mystery, and it is most likely a combination of elements.
What you described is very common in the new Google. It's frustrating to see 480 remotely relevant sites in the top 500 and to see your own highly relevant site booted from the SERPS. However, don't lose your sanity (yet). People's sites are starting to reappear, and some of those people are kind enough to share their experiences with the rest of us.
| 2:47 am on Apr 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|After a month of promoting |
Sites in google are taking at least 2-3 months to get any rankings now.
| 3:03 am on Apr 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The funny thing is everybody thinks their site is useful and should be in the top spot.
There are only so many top spots and many times the top players have been playing a lot longer than a few months.
In a very competitive field, a few months will not get you you a top spot. ( top 5)
It takes time and hard work!
| 3:21 am on Apr 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
To clarify, we are talking top 500 (anywhere in the SERPS), not just top 5.
Personally, although I may consider my site to be one of the most relevant for its keyword(s), I could deal with it being #100.
But to not be in the SERPS at all for any of its main keyphrases? When it used to be in the top 5 in Google, and still is in the top 5 in Yahoo & Co? And then looking at the (ir)relevance of hundreds of sites that are currently in the SERPS? That is what confounds me and other people who have posted similar observations. And that is what smells like a filter. With a collective effort, we may be able to discover something to help us understand what has happened.
| 5:11 am on Apr 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Doing well in allinanchor: could actually mean trouble. Do not use your key phrase more than four times in the body text.
| 5:53 am on Apr 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Quote: "The funny thing is everybody thinks their site is useful and should be in the top spot."
I know his site and can say that it is very unique to its keywords and content. In fact, I can't find a page related to its field that offer the same services/content. Well there is one, but it is actually a spam site that still shows up under google's current searches.
| 7:22 am on Apr 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have seen the same problem in one of my sites too. Site appears under all special searches, but does not appear anywhere in a normal search.
And I have seen something stranger. I have couple of pages that have been indexed, and shows up properly in cache. However, the site do not appear in the special searches (eg. title - widget expert in the back of beyond Now my special search allintitle:widget expert beyond does not show any results at all, even though the page exists in google cache!
I have tried to post this as a new thread, because I thought this was a google bug. However, it was not allowed.
Now i just wait and hope that this weirdness will end some day by itself.
| 7:23 am on Apr 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The site that is number #1 for the keyword/s, is also number one in allinanchor.
| 10:44 am on Apr 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Do not use your key phrase more than four times in the body text. |
Where did you get that idea from? Most informational sites (the ones that make up the majority of the Google index) don't optimize and repeat their keywords many times in a document because the document is about those keywords. It is not a sin to repeat your keywords more than four times and Google do not 'penalise' sites that do so. Many of my sites have a 20%-30% keyword density, not because I wanted it that high but you can't write a tutorial without mentioning what it's about.
| 10:53 am on Apr 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|everybody thinks their site is useful and should be in the top spot |
One of my sites doesn't deserve a top spot and is on page 3 - which is where it belongs.
My hobby site ranks very highly, but is actually rather specialist and technical - it shouldn't really be in the top ten, but it is.
My commerce site - it deserves to be in the top ten, because its a great site :) It *certainly* deserves to be above the odd Amazoogle page that floats to the top from time to time because they happen to sell a single item that is vaguely similar.
|Do not use your keyphrase more than... |
Don't listen to this - it's not merely a red herring, it's a crimson barracuda :)
Added: Does everything need to be spelt out for the unimaginative? It's a crimson barracuda - but don't overdo it - don't spam. Just don't feel that you can't use your keywords. Is that clear enough..? Can you imagine the publisher of a book telling you "Yes, go ahead with your work on 'Otter Baiting', just be careful not to mention 'Otter' more than x times or it will be banned from the shelves. Get the drift? Not yet? O.K., let's put it another way: if you submit your 'Otter Baiting' book with the title 'Otter, Otter, Otter, Otter, Otterly fed up with Otter Baiting', and then make the first page of your work consist of the word 'Otter' repeated over and over again, you're not going to be published in the first place. Do you get it yet? No? You still don't get it? Then Good heavens and Good luck!
[edited by: SyntheticUpper at 11:44 am (utc) on April 16, 2004]
| 11:20 am on Apr 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Welcome to SE Spam!
| 8:00 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
so... 2 months to get any ranking? Can anyone else confirm this?
My site is ranked, just way below what my keywords, quality of site, and pagerank would suggest.
In fact many re-directs and links TO my site appear in the top 10 for some 3-word keyphrases, but my REAL site is completely off the charts.
If the 2-month thing is true, then how are the re-directs showing up?
| 8:10 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
And why are thinking that ranking well in an allin search should have anyting to do with your ranking in a general search?
Does google ever say this anywhere? If they have, I haven't seen it.
The only time I have ever seen it suggested that those searches have anything to do with the main results has been with posts like yours where people for some reason assumed that they did.
For all any of us know, they could just pull the first 1000 sites out of the index that meets that criteria, with no other ranking involved. After all, it is not a real world search that a user is likely to do, so why put the programmer and processor time into it.
| 8:35 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|For all any of us know, they could just pull the first 1000 sites out of the index that meets that criteria, with no other ranking involved. |
I agree with this, I've also thought that site:example.com searches don't really use the regular ranking algorithm. I tried seeing which of my own pages ranked the highest out of my own pages (if that makes sense) and the data became so confusing I had to assume that it was just random order.
| 6:03 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Ok, fine, I am convinced, allin: searches have NOTHING to do with the general results, though often the top sites are also in the general searches... I stand humbled in newbie-ness.
But... Ignoring that completely... No one has given me a satisfactory answer to this:
Why do RE-DIRECTS TO my site show up in TOP RANKING for many of my target keywords, when my REAL SITE is nowhere to be found? (Google is caching these re-directs as exact copies of my site.) Some are page rank 1 or 0, yet they still show up before my real site which is PR6. I have even asked those linking to me that all the re-direct links be removed, and I still am nowhere to be found. What is going on?
| 6:40 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My opinion is that your site is being 'filtered'/'doesn't meet the algorithm requirements' for your chosen keywords. If this is correct, it's a very complicated issue with lots of varying opinions on why this might be the case.
I can think of at least one site in a very similar situation with one big exception: it's been around for some time and *used* to rank very well for what would appear to be highly relevant keywords, but following the last few months of updates is nowhere for the really popular keywords (hasn't harmed traffic much, but that's a different story ;)).
As for why some people think allin: results have relevance, some time ago I occasionally used these to gauge how the general optimisation effort was going and IMO this was reflected much more in the general results. This is no longer the case, of course, but I think this is because of changes in the general algorithm and/or filtering rather than because they've always been useless.
In any case I think you have 2 choices - either hope that Google's algo changes to suit your site (and this does happen sometimes), or change your site to suit the algo ;)
| 9:03 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Reading this thread sounds all very familiar. My site ranked #3 for its keyword then after Florida/Brandy or whatever it dropped to #700. It was optimized but no spam. For the last months I tried a lot, changed title keyword-no keyword and description, H1-H4 tags, added links (went up from pr3 to pr5), removed all optimization and tried much more. But no movement up whatsoever.
Last week I decided to give up. I copied the contents of the site to another url/site and deleted it from the old one. Google already knew the site and in two days I ranked #350 for the new URL for the keyword. One day later 290.
Don't know but tells me something about the imaginary filters.
| 9:08 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
That tells me its something about the links to the site.
| 9:11 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
New url hasn't any links yet.
| 9:20 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I was talking about the old url, amybe something about the incoming links shot it down.
| 12:47 am on Apr 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"I am convinced, allin: searches have NOTHING to do with the general results"
Well don't be convinced of that. allin searches reveal a bit of information, that's all. Stop thinking in all or nothing terms.
| 4:45 am on Apr 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Why do RE-DIRECTS TO my site show up in TOP RANKING for many of my target keywords, when my REAL SITE is nowhere to be found? (Google is caching these re-directs as exact copies of my site.) Some are page rank 1 or 0, yet they still show up before my real site which is PR6. I have even asked those linking to me that all the re-direct links be removed, and I still am nowhere to be found. What is going on? |
Exact same situation here. My page is non-spam, very relevant, with links to it from decent pr sites using keyword phrase in anchor text.
For keyword phrase, competitor comes up #1.
Results 2-5 are pages with LINKS TO MY SITE, one of which redirects automatically! But MY web page is not listed... what gives?
| 2:17 pm on Apr 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Ok, now I have gotten rid of my re-direct links and guess what, now I get nothing at all. I give up on Google for now, Yahoo is still very worthwhile.
| 3:42 pm on Apr 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|