homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.207.53
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 95 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 95 ( 1 [2] 3 4 > >     
How long does it take to get a new site into Google Now?
My new site is still not listed in six months!
The Toecutter

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 4:08 pm on Mar 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

I apologize if I am asking something that is common knowledge - I am not an SEO. I did search the archives for this answer but only found information on this topic from 2001 & 2002 and I think things have changed since then.

I know that in years past that we could get a new site listed into Google in about 60 to 90 days. However, I submitted my new 15 page business site into Google last September (6 months ago) and I am still not listed naturally, and consequently I am paying a fortune in AdWords.

Looking through my logs I see that Googlebot has been coming by monthly since November 2004.

QUESTION:
Has the time to become listed naturally in Google gotten significantly longer?

TIA,
John

 

mrMister

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 2:36 pm on Mar 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

Air bubble in brain - made change - forgot to upload. (good thing is Googlebot has not come by yet!)

You've also messed up your meta keywords tag. The second quote should be at the end of your keywords, not somewhere in the middle of them!

My advice is to remove the following tags competely...

<meta name="keywords"
<meta name="robots"

They give you no benefit in Google (or any other major search engine). Robots will visit your site by default unless you tell them not to. You don't have to specifically tell them to with a meta tag. leaving them there only increases the risk that the tags will get changed in error, preveting your site from appearing in the SERPS.

These days, the keywords tag can damage your ranking in major search engines, it doesn't help it at all. Any information that you've read that says it does is out of date now.

Also. Don't put lists of keywords in your Meta description tag. Put human readable text there! That tag isn't for the search engines (I don't know of any that give extra weight to those keywords). The text is for humans so make it a couple of real english sentences, not a list of keywords.

Powdork

WebmasterWorld Senior Member powdork us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 3:21 pm on Mar 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

Tim (of Yahoo) on 2/21/04.
yahoo Search uses the metakeywords tag. We did not use them at FAST or Altavista. It is important that you make the keywords and description different (targeted) on every page. Exactly what the page is about. ie. the right specificity. Having all the pages have the same keywords and description is not helpful to the SE.

Agreed about the robots tag though. I strictly use it when I am instructing the robot to do other than default.

The Toecutter

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 4:47 pm on Mar 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

You've also messed up your meta keywords tag. The second quote should be at the end of your keywords, not somewhere in the middle of them!

My advice is to remove the following tags competely...

<meta name="keywords"
<meta name="robots"

Thanks for those tips MrMister. This is really helping me stay on track. Googlebot did come by yesterday but I will modify these things asap.

John

gstewart

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 5:17 pm on Mar 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

These days, the keywords tag can damage your ranking in major search engines, it doesn't help it at all. Any information that you've read that says it does is out of date now.

I know the keywords tag doesn't help, but damage..?

mrMister

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 5:43 pm on Mar 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

I know the keywords tag doesn't help, but damage..?

If you have keywords in the meta keywords tag that aren't relevant to your site then some search engines may reduce your relevancy score a little.

Also, if you're in the "Google is using bayesian filtering now" camp, which i firmly am, it's reasonable to suggest that certain keyword structures in the meta keywords tag could damage your ranking.

It's best to be on the safe side and remove them altogether unless you have good reason to do otherwise.

sirkei

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 6:18 pm on Mar 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

It's best to be on the safe side and remove them altogether unless you have good reason to do otherwise.

I have few important serps listed in Yahoo! with my keyword description stacked with a list of keywords which are getting me a considerable amount of traffic. I do not totally agree with removing the whole meta tag as i still believe it helps sometimes.

Well, you do not need to stuff keywords but at least write a few lines for description and keywords. Others like ROBOT, content. resource-type, rating, revisit etc... can be ignored.

For me, description and keywords are of no harm to all.
just my 2 cents.

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 9:51 pm on Mar 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

"I know the keywords tag doesn't help, but damage..?"

It helps in Yahoo, and does no damage with Google since they ignore it. There is zero reason to not have it, although you should do as Tim said and have unique words on each page.

mrMister

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 10:28 pm on Mar 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google since they ignore it.

Not quite sure what you're saying here steve. Are you saying that Google doesn't use any bayesian filtering or are you saying that the keywords are stripped before being passed through the bayesian filter?

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 11:21 pm on Mar 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm saying they ignore the tag, which says nothing about bayesian filtering or thermodynamics or anything else.

spaceylacie

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 11:49 pm on Mar 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

My pages added on or prior to December 15th 2004 have been indexed. My site's pretty established and has about 22,000 incoming links, although Google only shows about 300 in backwards links(online since 1999). I have a hobby site so I link to many "personal" pages that post free project instructions, etc.... Google doesn't seem to count reciprocal links from these sites. But, visitors like my site and I have over 20,000 newsletter subscribers(sent monthly). Site's doing well in SERP's.

mrMister

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 11:59 pm on Mar 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm saying they ignore the tag, which says nothing about bayesian filtering or thermodynamics or anything else.

It would go against all spam filtering convention if they were to ignore the keywords tag during bayesian analysis.

FWIW. I have a site for a competetive two word adult themed key phrase. Launched a month ago. Hitting the second page of yahoo and MSN without the need for meta tags of any kind.

Charlie

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 12:11 am on Mar 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think its time to realise that your not gonna get your site listed in google quickly

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 1:13 am on Mar 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

"It would go against all spam filtering convention if they were to ignore the keywords tag during bayesian analysis."

Well, that pretty obviously is not true. They've ignored the tag forever. There is zero reason they would not continue to ignore the tag regardless of anything else they do regarding anything else.

martingale

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 1:54 am on Mar 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

What is anytime soon? I have a site that has been online since December and is just now starting to pick up steam. I have a small number of high quality links from highly related sites to my site. I have pure original content (I am a professional writer; and I write and post a good well written feature length article every week).

So at the moment I am buried around page 9 of the results on google, but I am #1 or #2 on yahoo and msn for a variety of relevant terms. Googlebot visits me a couple of times a week.

I am apparently in the sandbox. Looking at the results, my site is higher quality than all of the sites above me up until about position #7 in the results, so I should at least be able to get onto the bottom of the first page eventually.

This is fine by me for now. My niche is seasonal. My high traffic time is January and February each year. My goal is to try and get myself onto the first result page in Google by December next year. If I can be the last result on the first result page by then I'll be satisfied, and then aim for better the year after.

Is that unreasonable?

martingale

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 1:56 am on Mar 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

Er, by December this year, December 2005. So, is it reasonable to expect to be out of the sandbox in 9 months, having been in it for 3 already?

sonny

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 3:58 am on Mar 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hey, you're #13 under "atlanta computer repair" on MSN. Show a lot of backlinks on there as well. That is not a highly competitive search term so you should be able to get good rankings pretty quickly.

mrMister

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 11:04 am on Mar 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hey, you're #13 under "[search phrase]" on MSN. Show a lot of backlinks on there as well. That is not a highly competitive search term so you should be able to get good rankings pretty quickly.

Wow he's on pasge two of MSN! The visitors should really be arriving in their droves now, LOL!

Sorry to spoil your party mate, but this is the Google forum and MSN hardly generates any traffic, even for number one position.

Has anyone got any ideas as to why he's not appearing on Google?

martingale

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 3:56 pm on Mar 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

Who is? I'm in a regional (canadian) niche, but my term is competitive in Canada.

twist

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 3:59 pm on Mar 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

Take it or leave it but here's my non professional opinion,

-- Declare a document type --

i.e. <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

I have no idea if googlebot cares about doctype or not but if I were a googlebot and I found a website where the author didn't even take enough time to put a simple doctype in so that browsers would know how to format the page, I might not take the time to index it.

-- To be on the safe side, give them more tags --

<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Script-Type" content="text/javascript" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-language" content="en-US" />
<meta name="copyright" content="{name} &copy; {years}" />
<meta name="Distribution" content="Global" />
<meta name="Keywords" content="{page specific keywords}" />
<meta name="Description" content="{page specific descriptions}" />

<link rel="StyleSheet" href="{stylesheet location}" type="text/css" />
<link rel="top" href="{home page address}" title="Home" />
<link rel="search" href="{search or index address}" title="Search" />
<link rel="help" href="{faq or help address}" title="FAQ" />
<link rel="author" href="{contact information address}" title="Contact" />
<link rel="copyright" href="{copyright/disclaimer address}" title="Copyright" />

-- Make a stylesheet and link to it --

Why have excess code unrelated to content on every page. Besides that, it allows you to create clean and easy to read code.

-- Drop the unnecesary javascript if not all the javascript --

Adds no content but plenty of fluff. I don't know whether or not their is a penalty for having a lot of fluff with little content but I am sure there is no penalty for having lots of content and little fluff.

-- Where's the headers? --

Googleguy is not personally looking over your site, its a computer. Talk to the computer through your code. For example, your <h1> tag contains the word "Welcome!". So now you have firmly established that your sites main theme and content is based on the word "Welcome". Not very descriptive. Think more along these lines,

<h1>Business or website name</h1>
<h2>A description of the current page</h2>
<h3>Section title or header</h3>
<h4>Content under section</h4>
... so on and so forth

Does google care about header tags? I don't know. Can they hurt? No. Can they possible help? Maybe.

-- More ideas --

Most all of these ideas come from w3c. Try making your site compliant with some sort of standard and along the way you will probably pick up tips on the little things. In the worse case scenerio you end up with a cleaner nicer looking future proof site that still doesn't get indexed. I don't know what standards the DMOZ has for websites but maybe some of these might at least get you listed there which in turn might help you with google.

mrMister

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 4:45 pm on Mar 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

"It would go against all spam filtering convention if they were to ignore the keywords tag during bayesian analysis."

Well, that pretty obviously is not true. They've ignored the tag forever. There is zero reason they would not continue to ignore the tag regardless of anything else they do regarding anything else.

What's obvious is that you haven't got a clue how bayesian analysis works.

mrMister

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 4:48 pm on Mar 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

To be on the safe side, give them more tags

What makes you think that is "safe"?

Later on you talk about removing unnecessary "fluff" however here you're talking about deliberately adding unnecessary "fluff"!

I have no idea

'Nuff said! ;-)

Seriously though, I agree with most of your points, Sticking to good HTML guidelines is only going to improve your site. Not just on the search engines, but for visitors as well.

twist

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 6:15 pm on Mar 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

Later on you talk about removing unnecessary "fluff" however here you're talking about deliberately adding unnecessary "fluff"!

I was referring to these tags when I said to be on the safe side,

<link rel="top" href="{home page address}" title="Home" />
<link rel="search" href="{search or index address}" title="Search" />
<link rel="help" href="{faq or help address}" title="FAQ" />
<link rel="author" href="{contact information address}" title="Contact" />
<link rel="copyright" href="{copyright/disclaimer address}" title="Copyright" />

These, as far as I know, have no use in standard IE or firefox (yet) but if you enable the Navigation bar in Opera you will see how useful these tags can be (I think mozilla also can use these tags but not as well as Opera does). The idea would be great in a future standardization of websites making navigation much easier for visitors to your site.

They for sure are not just fluff tags and I doubt any search engine would consider them that, unlike the overuse of javascript or underuse of css. There is even a slight chance that some search engines may give a little credit to sights that use them and every little bit can help.

excess code unrelated to content

Javascript is unrelated to content just like html. Meta and Link tags are directly related to the content.

I have no idea

If anybody on WW did know exactly how google (and other search engines) worked they would be a very rich person and I would doubt they would share that information with anybody. So, i'll go as far as to say nobody knows because that person that did know would be smart enough not to go around telling everybody he did.

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 12:22 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

"What's obvious is that you haven't got a clue how bayesian analysis works."

No, what's clear is you have no idea about it, and just like to just say it, but what in heaven's name does this have to do with anything?

Bayesian analyses is irrelevant to whether Google uses the keyword tag or not. It's bizarre that you keep mentioning it.

To spell it out more bluntly, either Google uses the keyword tag or they don't. If they did use it, of course they could include that in a bayesian analysis. Triple duh. But if they don't pay attention to the tag, then they don't pay attention to the tag. Sheesh.

mrMister

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 1:30 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

These, as far as I know, have no use in standard IE or firefox (yet) [snip]

Please accept my apologies, for some reason, I thought we were talking about search engines!

mrMister

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 1:35 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

To spell it out more bluntly, either Google uses the keyword tag or they don't

So it's totally impossible that they would ignore it for their standard ranking but make use of it when rating the liklihood of it being spam?

So the same applies to META description does it?

They either use it or they don't?

So they must use it for ranking as well as providing a description.

You are quite clearly talking out of an orifice that was not designed for speech.

twist

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 1:54 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Please accept my apologies, for some reason, I thought we were talking about search engines!

Since nobody actually knows the exact formula on what search engines count as valuable or invaluable, and even if they did it I imagine they are constantly changing.

Looking at it from a logical standpoint, someone types a search word(s) into google, yahoo, msn or whatever. The search engine has to decide what order to return 200,000+ results on that search word, for example. The question is why some sites rank higher and to a lesser extent why some sites seem undeemable to even be indexed.

In order to try and bring more significant results to the top of the searches I imagine their must be some type of point system, like google pagerank, that they all use. Lets say your site is pretty much tied in points with 500 other sites out of the 200,000 returned results. To break away from the pack you add the Link tags. Lets say that in order of trying to bring quality sites to the top, google (or another search) gives 1 point for using the soon to be standard Link tags. Now you just seperated yourself from the other 500 other sites and outrank them in the results.

It may or may not be true today but could very well be true tommorow. Considering how little effort goes into adding these tags it seems reasonable to add them on the off chance that it could help your ranking or getting indexed in the DMOZ. At any rate, no damage will come from using these tags so there is no reason not to use them.

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 2:29 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

"So it's totally impossible that they would ignore it for their standard ranking but make use of it when rating the liklihood of it being spam?"

Impossible, no. Extremely unlikely, obviously. Using it for one thing, but not using it in any other way for anything else would be stupid. Either it is worth paying attention to or it isn't.

Google has not used the keywords tag for anything for years. There is zero evidence that Google now uses the keywords tag. Google says they don't use the keyword tag. If you want to believe they have changed their policies, go ahead. But deal with it that other people aren't going to agree with you.

mrMister

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 2:34 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google says they don't use the keyword tag

The only time I've heard that said was when they were referring to their ranking algos.

there is every reason to use keyword tags for their spam filtering algos.

mrMister

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 2:49 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

no damage will come from using these tags

You seem very certain on that! I thought you said nobody knows what search engines count as valuable? ;-)


Back to the point at hand as this thread has got messy and some people obviously haven't been reading the whole thing.

One thing seems widely undisputed and that is that Google does not use the meta keywords tag in their ranking algo.

What that means is that these tags Google tags do not benefit your ranking in google

Now, we have to be clear on this, "not giving benefit" is not the same as "not doing harm".

Now is it feasable that the keywords tags could do your site harm?

Well, possibly. If bayesian filtering is being used by Google, they will almost certainly be using bayesan analysis on the whole page. Human editing of the input variables of bayesian analysis is almost always detrimental to the effectivness of the analysis. The bayesian analysis will determine for itself what is useful, there is no need for outside input.

This is fact. One person has been disputing this and I have no idea why. Anyone who disputes this clearly does not know much about bayesian analysis.

So if (and this is a big if) Google uses bayesian analysis then it would be reasonable to assume that using meta keywords could do some harm to your site's ranking. On its own it's unlikely to be a lot of harm.

Now the question is this,

Knowing that it is very unlikely that any benefit is given to meta keywords tags, and also knowing that there is a possibility that they could do your site harm, is it wise to include these tags?

Stefan

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 3:17 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Use the description tag as it was meant to be used; a brief, accurate description of what the page is about. It's good for Y, at least.

If you want to use the KW tag, cool, but if you load it down with spam, maybe it will raise a flag at some point, (maybe not). It won't help having it there, that's for sure.

You could invent a whole bunch of meta tags, and stuff them with spam too, but don't be surprised if it all comes back to bite you on the ass some day.

it seems reasonable to add them on the off chance that it could help your ranking or getting indexed in the DMOZ

No, man. DMOZ Editors don't care about meta tags, trust me.

sonny

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 28387 posted 4:48 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

I would change the title tags some. Looks like a heaping, helping of keywords with no separation.

This 95 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 95 ( 1 [2] 3 4 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved