| 3:00 am on Apr 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The problem people are having is not one of merely geting indexed by google. The problem is that sites are not ranking as readily as they have in the past given a certain amount of link development and SEO. Ranking for non-competitive terms is still as easy as getting a link. I suppose a bit of subjectivity as to what is 'competitive'
More detail here: New Sites Sandboxed in Google [webmasterworld.com]
| 5:52 pm on Apr 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I suppose a bit of subjectivity as to what is 'competitive' |
John, very good point. Met a guy some days ago who told me: "I'm very good in search engines, I'm number 1 for mycompanybrand. It took me just 500 EUR, and you want to charge that on a **** basis?"
| 8:45 pm on Apr 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I've just today found a new site of mine in google. I "completed" it and placed a link from a relevant page from another site of mine about a week ago.
The problem is, I've looked up quite a few terms and the rankings are dismal (lost somewhere outside the first 100 for all but one very specific term I've tried so far).
| 9:29 pm on Apr 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
troels nybo nielsen,
No one is having any issues getting indexed. That happens almost instantly and it is as easy as, if not easier than ever. It's the fact that new sites (February on) don't rank or get any traffic form G at all that is the phenomena.
| 9:52 pm on Apr 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It takes time for new sites to start ranking, sites that are older seem to have better serps. Getting site indexed in google is very easy it only takes 2 weeks (just place a link on a PR 5 site) and when google gets the new page cache that has your link it, your site's index page will get spidered. Then in about 1 more week 2nd level pages will get spidered...So I think it just takes time for new sites to start getting decent serps just build link popularity.
| 10:14 pm on Apr 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|in google is very easy it only takes 2 weeks |
No, about a day.
|in about 1 more week 2nd level pages will get spidered |
No, about 48 hours.
|it just takes time for new sites to start getting decent |
Never seen it take this long.
| 10:23 pm on Apr 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
With a link from a good PR5 page I see things happen this way now:
1) New root page spidered same day as found on existing PR5 page. (A few hours after being found.)
2) New root page showing up in Google 2-3 days after first being spidered.
3) Interior pages spidered around three weeks after root page first spidered.
Timing probably depends on exactly how strong the PR5 page is, i.e. how close to a PR4 or a PR6.
| 10:24 pm on Apr 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I was going to contribute to this thread, however I concur 100% with the distinguished MFishy, and I defer to him.
| 11:00 pm on Apr 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have never seen it take this long to start ranking well either. I put up a site on March 1st and it got indexed and fully crawled very quickly. Also got in DMOZ about 2 weeks ago.
I get crawled everyday and have a PR4 but don't rank well in anything except for company name.
Definately very odd.
| 11:33 pm on Apr 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Nothing odd from my end...
Google is simply factoring in the aggressive tactic of slamming content into their index with "links already in place" ... this is not how web sites develop in an organic fashion...and depending on the industry sector you are competing in Google is simply dialing back and slowing down the acceptance of new content that represents attempts to manipulate the index...Seems logical and simple to me...
| 1:28 am on Apr 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|this is not how web sites develop in an organic fashion |
Charity that started about 6 months ago launched website at the end of January. Was linked to from dmoz/google directory and most other directories that allow non-profits. Also generated around 50 unsolicited links - some from PR7-8 pages. Doesn't show up for even the most obscure terms while the pages that link to it (older) do. This is how the web works. It is 100% organic. Every SE other than Google lists them on their appropriate terms as it is not a common cause for charity.
|depending on the industry sector you are competing in Google is simply dialing back |
Nope. We track 500 keywords/phrases in dozens of different areas and have not found a SINGLE case of a page from a site entering the top 10 if they were not allready in the top 100 in the past 7 weeks or so. In other words, no new sites have ranked in two months across 500 phrases.
I am sure there are exceptions, but unless you are studying a largish set of data, it's not really that interesting for this discussion - ya know the "MY site is ranking great and was put online yesterday because I am an expert seo" type posts :)
| 2:12 am on Apr 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
A good friend of mine got his site up and running in December and he still is not ranked well in Google. It's a clean site that's well optimize and extremely relevant to his industry (with a PR 7 and over 200 links). He's # 1 for his top terms on Yahoo (inktomi) but no love from the big G.
Anyone else having this much trouble?
| 3:07 am on Apr 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Heywood_J, Thanks for posting your experience. Yeah, I rank wonderfully in Yahoo, but nothing for Google. It's a real bummer because I have set up a site in the same industry before and have had great results with Google.
| 7:38 am on Apr 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Heywood - there does seem to be a problem with new sites ranking well for competitive and semi-competitive terms.
For example, a new site went up at the end of January, well optimised, now PR5 (good enough for the top 10). Still no decent ranking for competitive phrases.
| 7:53 am on Apr 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Just posting to agree with most of the above.
Site launched February - all(most) pages indexed, few referrals from G.
I get more visitors from Ask Jeeves for this site than Google.
| 7:55 am on Apr 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>In other words, no new sites have ranked in two months across 500 phrases.
Sure they have....I have several and some only 2 weeks old.
I don't know where this "new sites are being penalized by Google" thingy came from, but I simply don't see it. It is business as usual for me.
I look at 47 keyphrases combined with a tad under 78,000 US geographic locations. I don't see a problem, Google is indexing as per normal for the last 12 months.
The algo Google uses I question, but its ability to index and rank new sites I don't.
| 8:51 am on Apr 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Percentages - how competitive are these phrases? I would be interested to know.
|troels nybo nielsen|
| 8:52 am on Apr 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Sorry for having created a post that evidently was based on ignorance and thus runs the risk of confusing some readers. And thanks to those members who have helped clarify the problem.
I might add that at the same time two other domains went live. Though these two domains are new the websites on them are not. One domain is nowhere to be seen in the SERPs while the other one performed perfectly right from the start. I have a strong feeling that the difference is a matter of links and perhaps age.
The badly performing domain has very few incoming links and there are still some to its old address. And its a fairly new website. It went live in December on a subdomain.
The website on the well performing domain also migrated from a subdomain, but almost all the incoming links (about 1000) were changed to the new address within minutes of the website being moved. This website is a couple of years old.
I don't know if these experiences have any relevance to the discussion about new websites or if this is quite a different story.
| 9:19 am on Apr 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think what decaff is saying might be true after all.
I launched a site in a very competitive area early january. Since then I received amazing backlinks from authority sites because they also believe it is a very useful resource. The site has a PR6 now but almost no traffic from google. In fact I get about 10 times more traffic from teoma/ask jeeves.
Sofar google spidered and indexed about 4% of all pages and the spider is still very slow. While all static pages are generated from a database, it is not spam but it could be easily mistaken for that if looking at it from a spiders perspective.
It is a huge site though and I believe that might be the problem. Google thinks it is unnatural to launch a very big site from the start.
But I still believe in the longtime success. If more and more authority sites link to my site, google just has to recognize this eventually and rank my pages accordingly.
| 9:45 am on Apr 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>Percentages - how competitive are these phrases? I would be interested to know.
On average they generate about 1,000 Google referrals per day. "how competitive" is relative, 1,000 isn't a champion, but for a new site it is acceptable in my book.
Building traffic takes time, Google has indexed and ranked these sites as well as I expected. 2 Years ago I might have seen triple this traffic for a new site, but that is the current Google Algo at play, not the age of the sites.
| 10:45 am on Apr 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Sure they have....I have several and some only 2 weeks old. |
No. Guess you weren't in that set of 500 terms. Unless you snuck into our office, not sure how you can say this. :)
|I don't know where this "new sites are being penalized by Google" thingy came from, but I simply don't see it. |
Not sure about the word "penalized" but the findings came from actual research by many who follow thousands of domains and terms other than their "own", not one guy saying his couple of sites rank well. Doubt there would be a 200 post thread in supporters if "business was as usual".
| 8:44 am on Apr 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If y'all want to agree that Google is deliberately not indexing, or ranking new sites lower, than it previously did....Great! I assume it means you will be discouraged, and slow down development.....perfect!
Some of the folks here are my competitors.....if they want to hang up their boots for a while I couldn't be happier ;)
I remember seeing a 800+ post thread here on how Google was penalizing certain "money" keyphrases back in November '03......anyone still believe that today?
Volume of posts doesn't correlate to fact. It is like saying the USA is a democracy.....sorry, it isn't....it is a Republic :)
| 1:08 pm on Apr 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|No one is having any issues getting indexed. That happens almost instantly and it is as easy as, if not easier than ever. It's the fact that new sites (February on) don't rank or get any traffic form G at all that is the phenomena. |
I have been monitoring this thread since it started and noticed the same thing with a new site that I launched around 20 days back. It's got around 20% of its pages crawled by Google, but absolutely no traffic at all from Google. To check, I even tried using long combination of keywords which should show up pages from my site, but to no avail.
However, just a few minutes back I checked my live stats which showed me some hits from google and I entered those same keywords which earlier didn't show up my site in the Serps, and to my surprise my site showed up in the top listings just now.
Just a heads up to those observing the same phenomena. Check out the Serps again and verify whether you also see the change or not!
| 1:39 pm on Apr 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Volume of posts doesn't correlate to fact. |
No it doesn't. However, a large sample of actual research provides a heck of a lot more insight then someone a couple people saying that all is fine for their sites. The fact that many, many people are noticing this along with the fact that a few actually TRACK keywords, not just a handful of sites and have observed the same thing means a lot to some folks here. If it doesn't affect you that's cool. It also doesn't mean much to the webmasters that are experiencing the "quarantine".
Also, I doubt many aren't publishing sites due to this :)
| 4:18 pm on Apr 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I certainly am having a terrible time trying to get one of my new "test" sites indexed. I think it is probably being penalized as it is a site that consists of mostly affiliate links. I put up this site in late february (submitted it to google then too) and have yet to see a spider other than mediapartners for google ads. It is slightly depressing but also expected since I have no major links to it from any site with good page rank. I'm still playing the waiting (and hoping) game to see if this site can get indexed by google.