| 10:09 pm on Apr 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
A lot of people are having problems with newish sites. How old is the site, how long has it been up?
| 10:24 pm on Apr 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>I have another with almost same layout but with different content and its doing ok.
It might be that google have put a hold on new sites for the moment or it might be that Google have detected the similarity of pedigree between your new site and your other site that is ranking and is filtering one to stop both being in their serps.
| 10:31 pm on Apr 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>so I just dont get it whats wrong with tha site.
Probably nothing. It's a question of what's wrong with Google which is probably everything. IMO
Google no longer cares for producing relevant results, so many very good sites get filtered out. Their results are non-sense and mostly non-relevant, expecially for commercial phrases. No need to even try for Google SEO as a result. Better to work on getting Yahoo or MSN. At least you will have a chance at getting in one of those without wasting months of your time. Make links to your new site from existing sites already in Yahoo or MSN and hope the spiders catch the new site. Once you are in Yahoo or MSN you won't get filtered out (currently) by anything like the greedy Google money word (aka, mom-and-pop) filter.
| 10:33 pm on Apr 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>It might be that google have put a hold on new sites for the moment or it might be that Google have detected the similarity of pedigree between your new site and your other site that is ranking and is filtering one to stop both being in their serps.
Or it might be that Google is run by <snip> that filter out good sites for the benefit of adwords.
[edited by: Marcia at 10:46 pm (utc) on April 17, 2004]
[edit reason] Edited out rudeness. [/edit]
| 10:38 pm on Apr 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have made 5 sites with same layout so people will easy understand the navigation, but all text, text links and images are different so I dont think Google will have anything against that and they are all on Google but just extreme bad and I know my seo, so thats not a problem.
The site that is doing well of those 5 is maybe 2 month older then the one that is doing bad, but the strange thing is the PR is 5, it got incomming links from other sites and most of the site is spidered and some are updated every 2 day if I change something, so Google must like it, but something is wrong, I find this problem interesting Im not that focused on money/earnings I just like the game.
So I thought it could be interesting to discuss it with you.
| 10:41 pm on Apr 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
ILuvSrchEngines, I know that Google focus alot on adwords/adsense and the results for products in regular search has very bad, but I dont think that is the case here, Googla has always loved my sites and it is also not getting that much from Yahoo, it could also be a glitch in my seo, sometimes when you have worked along time with websites there can come little mistakes with time.
| 10:44 pm on Apr 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>No need to even try for Google SEO as a result. Better to work on getting Yahoo or MSN.
No argument there, when we know enough to expect frequent algo changes it's shooting for a moving target so as far as Google is concerned, staying with the basics we're familiar with keeps us in perspective. Besides, Yahoo/MSN is far easier to optimize for with half a try. No sense not going for a diversity now that there's the opportunity.
>>Google no longer cares for producing relevant results,
Now that I take major exception to. There's none of us here who are "mind-readers" enough to know what "Google" cares for. There is no indication of any kind that they're any less committed to providing the highest quality search they can.
Besides, who is Google anyway? Is it one collective mind consisting of several hundred people's brain cells mystically converging, or is it Larry or Sergey or Sergey's mother - or the night watchman?
>>so many very good sites get filtered out.
Good as the sites may be, if they're getting filtered out there is something there that's tripping a filter. What those things are only they know, and we're left on our own to figure it out.
| 10:47 pm on Apr 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>So I thought it could be interesting to discuss it with you. zeus
Zeus, you may get a few replies of people who will tell you to do this or that, but no one really has a clue what the heck Google has done. The only thing you can be sure of is that there is a filter of some sort in place. And once the filter gets you there is nearly no way to get unfiltered, regardless of what people tell you.
There are maybe a handful of people who claim to have gotten unfiltered. But you will find that even those were tweaking at the same time Google was tweaking so they can not be sure of what they did or did not do to get unfiltered. They may have just been unfiltered by new code on Google's end. So, if you like to waste your time and possibly want to mess up your results in Yahoo or MSN, etc.. go ehead and spend the next year trying to please the Google filter.
| 10:50 pm on Apr 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If a filter lets you have a PR5, then it could be, but what filter, I must have done something to activate it and thats my mission, if I find out or other are figuring out about a filter that will help us understand Google better so whay not try.
| 10:52 pm on Apr 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have a 5-6 month old website in DMOZ that's been spidered numerous times, yet nothing from Google.
G is certainly taking "patience is a virtue" to a whole new level.
| 10:58 pm on Apr 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>G is certainly taking "patience is a virtue" to a whole new level.
I agree 100% with that statement and I am a little concerned to see people telling filtered site owners to be patient, and that they will get a position as long as they are patient, etc., as if they think there is some sort of penitence period built into the Google money word/mom-and pop filter.
| 11:33 pm on Apr 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
OK Marcia lets see:
9-12 the site had about a 1000-1100 uniques a day
and now its about 250-300 a day and not many of those are from Google, there are some keyword where I get hit from Google but maybe thats a low competion area.
There where no special update at that time and why sould you put a filter in after a update or does it just take some time to take efect.
P.s lets not forget it dossent get many from Yahoo eather, so there is still a possible seo mistake, which maybe comes with time.
| 11:57 pm on Apr 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
zeus, Google gives a new site an artificial boost for a short time. That sounds like what you are experiencing. PR 5 is not awful, but it's relative: if your competition have PR 6 and 7, as many long-promoted sites do, they're going to be able to outplace you without too much effort.
But it's only part of the picture (relevancy measures are important). So you can't just look at that one number in isolation, Google claims there are over a hundred factors involved. ("Doctor, I weigh 170 pounds. Now tell me, how long will I live?")
What you need to be asking is: (1) How can I improve page rank? (Which is easy: get more inbound links; improve your intrasite navigation; make sure Google can follow your links) and (2) What can I do to improve page relevancy? (Which is harder.)
| 12:03 am on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
the boost thing I have never heard about that, but I know about PR and so on, I do have a page with 28.000 unique visits a day in the same category, it just if I look at the site it must do pretty ok in Google and Yahoo but it dossent and that messes up my long experience in webdesign/seo, but it also makes it interesting, like I said Im not that interested in the money but more in the Game.
| 12:21 am on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>I do have a page with 28.000 unique visits a day in the same category
Just out of curiosity zeus, is it hosted same place, same IP number, same whois? And is there linking between the new site and the old or mutual links in common?
| 12:25 am on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Marcia: Just out of curiosity zeus, is it hosted same place, same IP number, same whois? And is there linking between the new site and the old or mutual links in common?
Hosted same place - YES
Same IP - NO
Same Whois - YES
Linking between - Yes 5 links from the big site out of 1500 pages and there is about 5 links from the other sites also.
I have never realy found out what cross linking was, but I dont think thats it.
Hmm the site thats in trouble do have about 10 navigation links, to 10 internal main pages, but the 4-5 of them link to another domain name but in same category, like there is snow weateher, rain weather and sunny weather and so on but some of those category links point to some of my other sites, with other domain.
P.s I have to go now, we can talk tomorrow
| 12:55 am on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If you are game put a googlebot noindex on your ranking site and then I wouldn't mind betting the other one starts scoring.
This will show that its a same site filter.
If anyone calls me a fool or a crackpot I won't try to defend myself:)
| 12:57 am on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So what are we saying? You might have to go out and find a new hosting provider every time you build a site for someone?
So, a website building company should not host web sites on it's own IP block or infrastructure it should instead find another web company to build a site on. Then give your customer the info for the other web hosting company. Login, password monthly bill all go to new company. lalala
Google on acid. Just say no...
| 1:01 am on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Having a similar disappointing time with new sites in Google - anything since Jan is really struggling to get noticed while older sites' referrals from Google are down but they still rank well.
It looks like what used to happen with Freshbot bringing in new sites quickly has gone and it's back to the bad old times when you had to wait several months before you really got anywhere. The same with Yahoo - just seems to take a while to get properly indexed and Yahoo! Slurp doesn't seem to be in any big hurry to get round to new sites.
I don't believe that any of my sites that aren't doing well have tripped a Google penalty. I think they're just sufferring from either Directory-itis in some cases (eg. travel) and not being well enough established yet in others. I'm sure if I wait it out things will get sorted. Eventually...
Unfortunately you tell that to a client and it just sounds like a feeble excuse.
| 1:40 am on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Zeus.... and others.
There is a 6 page thread running in the members area where nearly every post is about new sites that get spidered, allocated PR and then.... nothing! Its not confined to newbies, some of the more experienced members are seeing the same thing.
The majority opinion is that Google has put a quarantine period on new sites.... but there is no formal communication on this and it remains purely conjecture and guesswork.
Another point of view that has been raised is that if Site A and Site B are about the same/similar topic, have the same or very similar set of inbound link partners, share the same IP address and/or are obviously part of one family/network...then one will be filtered out.
Again... its purely speculation.
| 3:28 am on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It is not speculation that new sites are getting NO rankings across the board. This is happening to everyone.
It is very clear that there is some newness filter, tweak, algorithm or something based on the newness of the site.
Getting NO referrals AT ALL is not normal. People have been putting up 1,000+ page sites with great links and great content and getting nothing. People are putting up 50,000 page database generated sites and getting nothing.
That just isn't possible unless there is some site wide block.
It isn't about hosting, class-cs, two of your sites looking the same, or anything like that. It is based on your site being new (or something similar that gives the same appearance, something that is occurring because the site is new)
| 3:36 am on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>This is happening to everyone.
On the contrary.i have a new site that scores very well in google serps.Its been live for 6 weeks and ranked high for competitive words immediately.
| 3:41 am on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"This is happening to everyone."
Uh, no. Better find a more competitive niche. It may be happening on a widespread basis, I don't know about that, but is certainly is not happening to everyone. In a niche where literally hundreds of full sites of pure garbage go up every week, lots of them are ranking very well right away.
| 4:25 am on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yes but do they ranked? I think there are very few, if any, examples of the following: new site goes live 1 month ago and it spidered. Today it has the same rankings or better.
The jump in to good rankings has not changed. It is that you now disappear for a time after the good rankings at first.
| 5:49 am on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>It is that you now disappear for a time after the good rankings at first.
No again in my experience.
| 6:10 am on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
We too have sites that went up, got traffic fast and kept it. Others that went into quarantine for a few months before starting to show up. Whatever it is, it's not a universal thing.
| 6:41 am on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So what are the distinguishing characteristics of those that go into quarantine and those who dont?
| 6:46 am on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Up until now we have had a algo change every couple of weeks which reset all the rankings PR etc. I suspect what we are seeing is a programming issue such as fragmentation of the index across multipul datacenters, which in turn causes new sites to be booted. I suspect we will have a "update" coming soon before it becomes to noticable.
| 7:50 am on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
In spite of what we do *know* and figure out, there's obviously something going on that we haven't the slightest notion of. And I really think it's time for the crepe-hangers to go silent and stop spreading their whiney, negative words of gloom and doom around like a dark shroud.
[edited by: Marcia at 7:54 am (utc) on April 18, 2004]
| This 52 message thread spans 2 pages: 52 (  2 ) > > |