homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.128.190
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




msg:731689
 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

 

sonny




msg:731749
 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.

twist




msg:731750
 5:47 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

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

I am talking about link tags, not meta tags (maybe they do fall under the word meta tag, I just thought they were called link tags)

[w3.org...]

Authors may use the LINK element to provide a variety of information to search engines

Even if google never gives any credit to the Link tags, other search engines might someday or even today. If his goal is to be indexed by google then he shouldn't hold back any possible means of getting indexed, even if it means getting indexed by another search engine (which might like Link tags) first which might help him get indexed by google.

Powdork




msg:731751
 7:32 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

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?
If you are an seo working on someone else's site and you are being paid by the hour, adding these tags is very wise and I would do each page separately by hand.
steveb




msg:731752
 7:41 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

There is virtually no possibility the keyword tag used properly will do you harm. It can only do you (a little) good from any perspective, if used properly.

But in any case the keyword tag is 100% offtopic from this thread, so I apologize for following the pointless tangent.

mrMister




msg:731753
 10:41 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

But in any case the keyword tag is 100% offtopic from this thread

Not at all, you just haven't been following the thread properly.

Toecutter is having problems getting Google to list his site. There were a few problems with the formatting of his HTML. Including his incorrect usage of the META keywords tag.

I advised him to remove it, as it's wasn't doing any harm and could have been the cause of Google being unable to read his page.

(this is where you piped in; saying that he should keep meta keywords on the page because they are not used by Google)

FYI: Most of the site is now listed in Google. There is still a problem with one page. However after identifying another rogue piece of HTML, it should hopefully be properly indexed soon.

Lorel




msg:731754
 2:59 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

I saw a list recently of search engines that use keywords and those that don't. This should settle this debate but I can't find it right now. Someone could search for it using those words.

mrMister




msg:731755
 3:27 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

I saw a list recently of search engines that use keywords and those that don't. This should settle this debate

Not really it's irrelevant to the discussion. We're not talking about the ranking algo here.

The debate between me and steve is whether Google is likely to ignore the keywords when it comes to its bayesian spam analysis (assuming it actually uses bayesian spam analysis which is another debate entirely).

Steve says that it must ignore them.

I totally disagree. When you are using bayesian analysis to decide the likelihood of a web page being spam you need to take the whole page in to account.

Bear in mind that this issue is completely seperate from the ranking algo. Meta keywords are not one of the 100+ factors that Google takes in to account when ranking a page. However, if Google is using bayesian spam analysis, the "spaminess rating" will be one of these 100+ factors.

When performing bayesian spam analysis, you look at the page as a whole to decide the "spaminess rating", you don't exclude anything. Meta keywords, being part of the source of the page are as relevant as anything else. Therefore, indirectly, meta keywords play a small part in the spam analysis.

A bayesian spam analysier looks at the page and judges it's similarity to known spammy pages. It tries to emulate how a human would look at a site to decide if it is spam.

When it comes to spam analysis, you need to look at everything and exclude nothing.

DaveAtIFG




msg:731756
 3:40 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

The debate between me and steve is
it's irrelevant to the discussion
The thread title/topic is "How long does it take to get a new site into Google Now?" Addressing that question would be a simple courtesy to The Toecutter who started this thread.
Powdork




msg:731757
 5:19 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yesterday, a site:toecutter'sdomain.com search returned only the url listing of the homepage. Today, it brings up the entire site (I think), but the index is still a url only listing.
Toecutter, did you only change the robots tag or did you also write to Google?

claus




msg:731758
 5:52 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> How long does it take...

I published a brand new site in November 2004 with just a few pages, around four or so. I gave it 2-3 links (PR2-PR4 i think) from two different sites, and did nothing more than that to promote it.

It was indexed fairly quickly in Google, i didn't really keep an eye to it, but i'd say one or two weeks. Yahoo and MSN took far longer time. It didn't rank anywhere in Google for relevant queries (it targets pretty broad terms, so it's not really a surprise).

In fact, only this month i got my very first referral from a search engine. It was a three word query and a very relevant one at that. Yahoo was the search engine. After that i've had two referrals from Google -- both were searches for the domain name (which is not the site name and not a keyword).

I should add that this site has no technical flaws of any kind - everything is exactly as it should be and it's very spider friendly. User friendly and friendly to people with disabilities and the elderly as well, even. (Friendly to cats and dogs might be to stretch it)

[edited by: claus at 6:04 pm (utc) on Mar. 17, 2005]

BigUns




msg:731759
 5:53 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Confirming Powdork - Toecutter, you are now listed, except the root page is URL only - perhaps because googlebot grabbed it with the bad robots tag, although there are other possibilities. Congratulations so far.

The next priority IMO is to get rid of the 5 H1 tags on the root page. As a general rule, if you use H1 header, use one per page, and make it meaningful for users and the bots. Multiple H2 headers are OK.

Assuming that your original "not listed problem" is now solved, you just need some good SEO to get good rankings.

Powdork




msg:731760
 6:29 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

The link command still brings up nothing on Google. Yahoo shows some 13 external backlinks but only two related and those are from a scraper. Getcha some quality backlinks.

twist




msg:731761
 6:51 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

To help you to get a better understanding of how to use the H1-H6 tags you simply need to run it through the W3C Validator [validator.w3.org] and check the "Outline" box.

P.S. I just ran your site toe and you will get a lot of errors but just scroll past them all to see your outline. You may or may not choose to fix the errors but I imagine that is something that is going to take considerable time unlike fixing your Header tag problem which should only take a few minutes.

BigUns




msg:731762
 7:37 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

To toecutter: Following up on Powdork's comment - back on March 6, sonny indicated s/he had put up a link to you and now Powdork says Yahoo shows two related links to you. So, get the H1 problem fixed, and then get PROACTIVE with the googlebot - entice it to visit your root page VIA a link to you:
1) Get a free Google Toolbar* and configure it correctly.
2) Go to the pages that link to you and click those links to your root page. There is a definite tendency for the googlebot to "shadow" you around the web. In a few days possibly, assuming all goes well, your root page may be fully indexed as opposed to URL only. Good Luck!

*Don't get obsessed with the Toolbar "green stripe" PR. As a Google rep once allegedly said - its typically 2-3 months out of date and is there for "entertainment purposes" only.

mrMister




msg:731763
 8:14 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

BigUns, there's a problem with his homepage. I've informed him about it. google has crawled the rest of his site.

It doesn't matter how well he lures Googlebot, it isn't going to index his site until he gets the homepage problem fixed.

The reason the site wasn't getting indexed in Google was because everyone was linking to his homepage (which is broken). I put a link to one of his subpages and the rest of the site got crawled and indexed soon after.

mrMister




msg:731764
 8:19 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

The thread title/topic is "How long does it take to get a new site into Google Now?" Addressing that question would be a simple courtesy to The Toecutter who started this thread.

With all respect, I was following the discussion and responding to questions made. Where misleading statements have been made, I've corretced them. If you read the thread from start to finish, you will see that.

As for being corteous to toecutter, I've done more for his site than anyone else on this thread. I've made sure his site was indexed by Google and I've told him what the problem is with his homepage.

Some people's half hearted attempts to help him out by linking to his homepage highlight the lack of real SEO expertise that some people here have.

Powdork




msg:731765
 8:42 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

As for being corteous to toecutter, I've done more for his site than anyone else on this thread. I've made sure his site was indexed by Google and I've told him what the problem is with his homepage.
You must have missed message 21, where BigUns pointed out the problem on the home page that would have caused a site not to be indexed.
mrMister




msg:731766
 9:05 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

You must have missed message 21, where BigUns pointed out the problem on the home page that would have caused a site not to be indexed.

No I saw that. I'm doubtful that was an actual problem with the indexing. Unless the exact string "noindex" appears, googlebot should ignore it. Although, you're right, it needed fixing and it was fixed a while ago. Let's just say it wasn't the only problem.

Powdork




msg:731767
 11:20 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

It was the ONLY problem that would hinder indexing. The keywords tag, or any spamminess of that sort, would only affect ranking. None of the other things you mentioned would affect indexing, only ranking.
Unless the exact string "noindex" appears, googlebot should ignore it.
When Google receives an undiscernible robots directive via robots.txt or the meta tag it does the responsible thing and does not index the page (in my experience, anyway). If your robots.txt file has incorrect syntax or formatting, or returns something other than 200 or 404, that will also keep you from being indexed.
T_Rex




msg:731768
 7:10 am on Mar 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Answering the original question of this thread, I have been closely watching a webcontent that was PR5 in mid-july / 04. I did the gratis work for it and then gave the content to someone else who put it on a new domain in July. My domain got populated with new content not keyworded for the old content. Nonetheless the gratis content was DOA clear though December for all of it's own terms. It just now is starting to get high SERP for some, but not all of it's terms. The old URL still outscores it. Talk about INERTIA! It is now a PR4 and still recovering 8 months later. I'd say more than 8 months.

robotsdobetter




msg:731769
 10:14 pm on Mar 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

If your robots.txt file has incorrect syntax or formatting, or returns something other than 200 or 404, that will also keep you from being indexed

That's not true, I had a site that had the incorrect syntax and Google still spidered it.

Powdork




msg:731770
 11:38 pm on Mar 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Okay.. There are some syntax errors or some headers you can return that could cause Googlebot to choose not to index you according to it's particular set of instructions.

mrMister




msg:731771
 8:30 am on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

None of the other things you mentioned would affect indexing, only ranking.

How would you know what I mentioned? Have you been reading toecutter's sticky mail?

claus




msg:731772
 2:21 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

So, "How long does it take to get a new site into Google Now?"

(as the saying goes: "I've shown you mine...")

drumerboy




msg:731773
 6:15 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

It does not matter how manny links you have to get google to pick you up. I have sites with no outer links and they got picked up in a couple days.
Make sure your site is google friendly. No more that 20 keywords and make your title short.Same with discription and make sure your discription is friendly to your content.
I have one site the google pics up on one page and nonw of the others so you never know. Mind you its the first site I ever built so I got better later on with the new sites. You can check out the site at christiansandmusic . com
hope this helps :)

The Toecutter




msg:731774
 2:05 pm on Mar 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yesterday, a site:toecutter'sdomain.com search returned only the url listing of the homepage. Today, it brings up the entire site (I think), but the index is still a url only listing.
Toecutter, did you only change the robots tag or did you also write to Google?

I deleted robots tag, deleted KW tags, and made it a little less spammy. About the same time it appeared in DMOZ but I did not write to Google.

The Toecutter




msg:731775
 2:09 pm on Mar 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

The next priority IMO is to get rid of the 5 H1 tags on the root page. As a general rule, if you use H1 header, use one per page, and make it meaningful for users and the bots. Multiple H2 headers are OK.

Assuming that your original "not listed problem" is now solved, you just need some good SEO to get good rankings.

Dumped 4 of the 5 H1 tags and cleaned up text a little. Now I am going to spend some time researching seo techniques in an effort to improve ranking.

TC

claus




msg:731776
 6:38 pm on Mar 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

While i appreciate that Toecutter is getting his/her problems solved by the very helpful members here, i still think this thread is totally off-topic.

The thread headline is actually a very interesting one - not so much the indexing, but rather the ranking (the "listing"). I've made a controlled experiment in this regard and shared it above. Now, should i start a new thread with the same subject?

Any opinions?

Powdork




msg:731777
 10:49 pm on Mar 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

My sites of 9 1/2 and 8 months are not ranking yet although younger sites did make it in with allegra.

Michael Weir




msg:731778
 3:34 pm on Mar 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

Interesting thread. :)

Always nice to read other webmasters' opinions on google and SEO.

I launched a brand new site last week, in which the brand new domain name had been purchased a couple weeks prior. The site was found and spidered by google bot and indexed (very deeply of course) within a week, and I had zero incoming links to that site at the time. But yeah, it's easy to point google to your site, but damn hard to get decent positioning depending on your competition.

Anyways, I disagree with the statement that having meta keywords can hurt your site. I have a hard time NOT adding meta keywords out of habit. I don't think they will help nor hinder, however you never know if SE's will start using them again, and it's not exactly a difficult thing to add to your pages.

Toecutter - good luck with your site. Just keep adding fresh content, work on getting some good incoming links (think quality, not quantity, but sometimes you have to go with a bit of quantity), and vary up the anchor text for those incoming links. Also, one way links to your site are ideal, but know that you WILL have to reciprocate most of the time - even the most mediocre webmasters are starting to learn about link popularity and won't give up a free link. Other than those things, play fair, keep your SEO clean, and be patient.

MW

George Cooper




msg:731779
 1:01 am on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

so the sandbox isn't in effect anymore?

My site has been indexed since the beginning of January after launching at the end of December (took about 10 days), but I'm still PR0 and rank poorly for all search terms on Google, whereas I rank very high (#1 on many key terms) on Yahoo and MSN.

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