| This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 37 ( 1  ) || |
|Less than 1 year old and on front page?|
is it still possible?
| 3:26 pm on Sep 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I've launched many sites over the past few years, and up until about March-April 04 found it relatively easy to get a site on the first page for relatively competitive keywords. Since then, nothing.... Granted some site can be placed high, but only for very unusual searches. BTW.. from what I've seen the sandbox is very much real!
My question then - has anyone managed to acheive high placements on google for a site less than 1 year old? by this I mean a site with a domain name registered within the last year. If so, what did and didn't you do to achive this?
| 3:10 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
higher pagerank will most likely bring your site above your competitors, but mainly because your site is over 1 year old (roughly).
But for newer sites, Im not convinced this is always the case... and example:
A new site with lots of original content has been created and received lots of good links, it gains a pr of 6, great.... but my guess (and recent experience) has shown that an older site with pr of 1 can still out rank it.... and the new pr6 can be on page 100. This is a factor of the so called sandbox which I beleive is applied to almost all newer sites (and possible some pages on established sites, although I've not seen this personally).
Gaining backlinks for new sites is in my opinion still a very wise thing to do. There are many reasons - first it helps gain more regular SE bots, can help traffic and also boost ranking in non-google search engines (and google in the longer term), and finally there is always the chance google will change their algo and accept the backlinks the way they did in the distant past (pigs might fly)...
| 3:17 am on Oct 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
ratzmilk theory, that a site should wait at least an year in Google to have good SERP for competitive key words may be, indeed, true.
The question is: are the other major players (Yahoo and Msn) better?
My statistics (msg #:21) shows that at least for my site, Google still is the best.
| 3:31 am on Oct 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
We have a winner.
Onefiddle has sent me the details of a site he has found that was first registered in Nov 2004.
And it does indeed show on page 1 for what I would describe as very competitive keywords. I say competitive because the first half a dozen SERPS pages were full of adds.
The site sells it's own product and that appears to be it's only revenue stream. No Adsence or any other type of advertising on the site. No fake search engines. And I could not find any PPC adds for them.
Overall, a nice clean site, and a very simple site.
So yes, it is possible to get a website into Google in under 12 months. Still compared to Yahoo, which will have a site listed within just a few weeks, it is quite a difference.
If anyone would like the details of the site, you are welcome to message me and I'll forward the details to you.
Anyone wanna try for a site listed in under six months?
| 2:51 pm on Oct 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
ratzmilk, please sticky me the url details - I need to see this with my own eyes :)
| 11:02 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Promar was also kind enough to send me a site. Again, this site will only come up if you search for the site name explicitly. They advertise them selves as Editors and Writing consultants in Australia, yet if you search for writing consultants in Australia, they are no where to be seen, even if you search for the keywords in their Meta Tags. |
Also, the site is owned by a Website building company that has been around for many years and the site is an offshoot of the services offered by that company.
And they do pay for advertising as well. However, I doubt I would be employing them for any SEO, they haven't been to successful so far.
I thought I'd better reply on this.
Just wandering what your assumptions are based on?
The site mentioned above is in no way part of any other company and they never paid a cent for advertising. Furthermore, their SEO company never paid for advertising either.
The key phrase that I gave you as an example is in fact the site name, but is also a search term returning over 1,500,000 results.
If you already have made a decision for yourself it's hard to find an argument that you would consider valuable.
| 11:25 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|In language where there is only 1 adword in Google results for main keyphrase, it has been sandboxed for about 3 months and now it is #2. In language where there are over 15 adwords in Google reasults, it's still missing in action. |
But it may be not only the matter of competitiveness, but maybe even PageRank.
high competitiveness = broad search = Hilltop applies
low competitiveness = narrow search = Pagerank applies
| 11:33 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I registered a domain on Monday and one of the pages for a product ranks 2 and 3rd today. The term had only 13,100 results. I'm pretty convinced competitiveness is the main factor for the sandbox.
| This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 37 ( 1  ) |