| 7:23 am on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If it is not a uk domain (eg .co.uk), and it is not hosted in the UK, then it is NOT a 'page from the UK'
If the UK is your primary audience, transfer your content to .co.uk (is there a .net.uk?) and 301 (NOT 302) from .net, .com and all others to that domain.
Or get hosted in the UK (if you are super rich!).
| 7:41 am on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|If it is not a uk domain (eg .co.uk), and it is not hosted in the UK, then it is NOT a 'page from the UK' |
I don't know whether or not you're right in saying this but .net is not country dependent. NET is intended to be used by network providers but it is not linked to any particular country. In today's Worldwide market place if a search engine ties a site to a country just because it is hosted there then the search engine is clearly not doing its job.
Are you saying that the search engines are incapable of determining whether or not a site is from the UK by any means other than where it is hosted?
| 8:09 am on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| 9:32 am on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
A quick sample search using Google suggest that pages from the UK delivers predominately but not exclusively results for .co.uk websites on commercial and popular searches. For less popular or non-commercial searches it does not seem to be as clear.
| 11:11 am on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
There should be a location metatag eg <META name="geolocation" content="UK"> - that would sort out this problem.
| 1:56 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
There are two reliable methods for Google - one is the hosting adress, one is the suffix.
|Are you saying that the search engines are incapable of determining whether or not a site is from the UK by any means other than where it is hosted? |
If your page has neither, then I really don't understand why you think it is a page from the UK; it isn't.
It may be relevant to UK readers, and you can optimize it in that way. For most users, that will be enough.
But if a person chooses pages from the UK, that choice simply does not include a .net hosted outside the UK.
Why would you think otherwise?
| 3:33 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If a page links to or from other UK (.co.uk) sites, has English spelling, talks about £'s, has British place names etc etc then it would be reasonable for a person who doesn't know anything about search engine geolocation rules to hope that the page would appear in the UK results.
| 6:29 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
sounds to me like you are missing the difference between
Pages FOR the UK
Pages FROM then UK
Your page sounds like it is FOR the UK rather than FROM it
| 6:43 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|If a page links to or from other UK (.co.uk) sites, has English spelling, talks about £'s, has British place names etc etc then it would be reasonable for a person who doesn't know anything about search engine geolocation rules to hope that the page would appear in the UK results. |
It WILL appear in the UK results, just not in the "Pages from the UK results", simply because if it has NEITHER a .xx.uk suffix NOR a UK host, it isn't.
This really is not complicated; the solution is equally straightforward - get hosted in the UK, or get a .xx.uk suffix.
| 9:02 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The usual problem with UK hosting is that it tends to be more expensive and less featured (from my own experience) than hosting in the US. Therefore, it would be nice if there was a way of making the page "within the UK" without getting ripped off for hosting, if the company already has an established .com or .net domain name and doesn't want to go through all that 301 redirect business which seems somewhat risky. This is why I believe the meta tag I referred to previously would be a good idea and something for the search engines to think about.
Having said that, in the current example the hosting is in Denmark, so I doubt the cost issue is an argument in this instance. I don't think that Denmark is known for its bargain hosting deals, but perhaps Reseller would be able to put me straight on that one.
[edited by: Wibfision at 9:15 pm (utc) on July 15, 2006]
| 11:54 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Hindsight is too easy, I know - but the solution here - and in most similar cases - is to go for .co.uk from the planning stage. That allows you to shop around for the best hosting deal.
I can see the temptation to go for .com (though not .net!) - but the best way is to go for .co.uk and protect that with the .com 301'd to the the .co.uk
301s done right are not really a risk - except to the little green bar - and if the move will increase sales, the brief disruption to the serps is more than justified.
Personally, I think the current arrangement is just fine; I do not use 'pages from the UK' often at all - but when I do, I want and expect pages from the UK.
For regular users, I'm guesing that counts 100x
| 1:21 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I doubt regular users know that "within the UK" means a .co.uk domain (which may target Timbuktoo) or the site is physically hosted within the UK. When regular users select within the UK, they will be searching for sites that target the UK, IMHO.
| 3:31 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I doubt regular users know that "within the UK" ... |
The phrase Google uses is Pages from the UK, which is not capable of misinterpretation in that way.
In fact, Google is quite generous in allowing .co.uk (I know a couple of fine pages from Russia that benefit from that!).
Targetting the UK is different; nowt wrong with doing it - but a shame to become disoriented in the process ;)
| 10:03 am on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|The phrase Google uses is Pages from the UK, which is not capable of misinterpretation in that way. |
Not capable of misinterpretation? It would seem that a few of we search engine literate people cannot make up our minds so what does that tell you? ;)
|When regular users select within the UK, they will be searching for sites that target the UK, IMHO. |
That was my opinion too and I think that it is the logical approach but actually I now realise that Google does use the domain name and location of the host to determine their results. Here's what their website says ...
|When searching for pages from a specific country, keep in mind that our crawlers identify the country that corresponds to a site by factors such as the physical location at which the site is hosted, the site's IP address, and its domain restrict. |
| 10:20 am on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
site a: .co.uk hosted in germany does well on google.com / google.co.uk & "pages from the UK searches".
site b: .co.uk hosted in the UK does OK on google.com does well on google.co.uk and the same or better with "pages from the UK searches".
site c: .com hosted in the UK does OK on google.com does well on google.co.uk and the same or better with "pages from the UK searches".
whois the same for all.
does OK = 1st page
does well = top 5 (mainly 1,2,3)
One other interesting thing is the sites hosted in the UK do well on many other country specific google searches. eg .be, .de, .com.au, .ca though I host these sites in the UK as they are ONLY for a UK market.
One last point, when i check my stats I find very few referrals whereby the searcher has used the "pages from the UK searches", perhaphs fewer than 1%.
| 12:39 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
For good or bad, as other posts have said, the situation with "pages from the UK" searches is very straightforward: you have to have either a .UK domain or a UK IP address. Despite Google's slightly vague words, I have not found any other factor that will get you included.
For "search the web" searches on google.co.uk, the situation is much more interesting. Google boosts the rankings of "UK orientated pages", but I am not sure of the factors it uses for this. For a time, our company site, which is a .com with a UK IP address, ranked worse on google.co.uk than on google.com. More recently, Google has recognised its "UK orientation" and it now ranks better on google.co.uk than on google.com. I still can't figure out the factor that made the difference. It did not seem to be content, backlinks, domain or IP address, so I'm not sure what that leaves!
| 12:43 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm sure that's right - most UK folk think of it as the "World Wide" web, and only go specific on special occasions.
Interestingly, it's very different in other countries - I am assured that many Australians, for example, opt for their 'pages from' search, and .com.au seems to be used by many whose UK equivalents would opt for .com
Any Aussies care to comment? :)
| 1:38 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
To get a .com.au you must be registerd company or trademark holder. org.au is also tightly controled. .com is often choosen for hobby, craft and small operaters to avoid the red tape, it is also cheaper, and shorter. US hosting packages are generous compared to local hosting.
I have one .com site hosted in US aimed at aussie market, as expected it doesnt rate in "pages from AU", am considering moving hosting onshore. Dont know proportion using "pages from AU" option, would have to move hosting to find out, expect serious aussie buyer may use it as product difficult to import, and without it local suppliers dont rank high.
| 2:05 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I expect you would find this tag of use
if it were ever to exist :-)
|<META name="geolocation" content="AU"> |
| 3:15 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
That's not needed - Google can read the URL suffix, and knows the actual geolocation by the server address.
Let's face it, if they brought in another tag for that, it would only be abused ;)
I suspect you are making "SEO Error #1" - forgetting that Google is there to serve searchers, not webmasters.
Once you've got past that, you'll do just fine :)
| 2:33 am on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|<META name="geolocation" content="AU"> |
Yes I would vote for that, or some enterprising US hosting service offering AU registered IP adresses
Disagree, seems little difference between choosing a META tag and choosing a hosting country, except cost.
If I call my local bank it may well be answered by an overseas call center, I dont particuarly care. The location of the bussiness is more important than that of the server.
.com.au is fine for a client with a registered bussiness but not others.
| 6:08 am on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The other piece of information Google has available to it is the physical address of the domain owner (if made public). However a quick test of my own site suggests that this isn't enough to get you into the country index.
Too bad, because this should be at least as strong an indicator as the other two factors, probably stronger.
| 7:54 am on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think the meta tags you are looking for already exist:
<META name="geo.position" content="51.1234;-2.1234">
<META name="geo.region" content="GB-MAN">
<META name="geo.placename" content="MAnchester">
(Latitude & Longitude above are incorrect, BTW!)
Unfortunately, I don't think Google pays them any attention
| 3:43 pm on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the info, Just Guessing. I didn't realise such Meta tags existed. Perhaps they will be used by search engines in time.
|Quick Black Fox|
| 2:27 pm on Jul 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
OK, kinda left this thread alone and didn't watch it.
So, concensus is that if I get a .net.uk domain and 301 to that from the original .net, then the site would appear in the "Pages FROM UK" SERPs?
I've 301'd a UK based, UK IP .co.uk domain in the meantime to my .net, but no results, nothing in the UK SERPs yet.
Are there other solutions?
Would getting my Danish host to allocate me with a UK IP help?
Will just getting a .net.uk domain and 301'ing everything there do the trick?
| 3:14 pm on Jul 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The "pages from the UK" thing seems to be part of the June 27th debacle. My site suddenly became a "page from the UK" on that date and I only rank on google.co.uk now.
|Quick Black Fox|
| 12:13 pm on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
fivehills, so what you are saying is that your site is in "Pages from UK" but it technically shouldn't?
Is it relevant to the UK?
I wish I were in your position... my .net domain hosted in Denmark is still not in "Pages from UK", even though company is UK based and it's very clear that it only services the UK, lots of IBLs from UK.
If a server is on a load balanced setup from some 3rd party ASP hosted service...can one get a UK based IP mapped to something like that... how would that affect the load balancing?