| 1:26 pm on Oct 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Hello! Welcome to WebmasterWorld.
A professional SEO company is well worth the price. If they are good, they will be able to make a big difference for you.
A good firm will have a track record of organic success. They won't promise you the world in two weeks, and they'll have good referrals.
You probably won't get anyone to tell bad stories about SEO companies here because that's not what we're here to do. There are some shady operations out there, but anyone with proven results should be able to help. Take a look through the commercial exchange and see if there is anyone looking for SEO work.
Oh, SEO is not cheap and if you opt for a cheap solution... you get what you pay for.
| 9:09 am on Nov 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yup. SEO companies are not cheap, and some may be cheap, but if their offered articles are crooked english... Well it's more likely to damage your business' reputation.
| 11:01 am on Nov 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
My comment is only about your quote from MSN. MSN/Live had almost all of my 300 pages indexed for nearly two years. Then in September they dumped them all except two (home page plus the most popular article), and now it's down to my home page. It's 100% original content and long original articles. There's no conceivable quality issue (dup content, scraping, etc). It's narrowly targeted content, so there is a potential issue how relevant most of it is to the "average" web surfer, but that's all. The pages are 100% valid HTML.
However, during the past year they discovered my site also had images, and they've continued to actively crawl and index those, all 255! So they apparently think it's an image site, or maybe that only the images are relevant. Or maybe they're rationing indexing space per site, allotting it to those parts of a site with highest relevance to the largest target audience.
I've seen many similar stories in the past 2 months from other people, in this forum and elsewhere, regarding dropping out of Live Search. My point is that MSN's proposed reasons (broken site) are simply not believable. Doing some SEO might or might not help you, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the lack of it is the most likely reason for your weird indexing status. You could do a whole bunch of SEO and wind up discovering that that wasn't the cause in the first place. I don't think anyone's figured out the cause, and I don't believe MSN's generic "catch-all" comment that implies they have some super-duper quality standards and you just aren't meeting them. The *history* of the quality of their search results isn't good evidence that they have ever had any super-duper methods.
The runup to the recent official launch (and apparently revamping) of Windows Live seems to have involved some big upheavals in their index, and you could just be seeing that.
While I was well indexed there, I had been using Live for site search, but switched to Google when it seemed clear I wasn't going to resurface in Live anytime soon.
On further pondering, the idea of a search engine company recommending a webmaster to SEO companies, the purpose of which is to better game the search engine's algorithm, is truly bizarre, IMO. That's the opposite of Google's advice, which is to forget all but the most basic SEO and just make a good website.
[edited by: SteveWh at 11:09 am (utc) on Nov. 14, 2007]
| 11:29 am on Nov 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|My site has not been in Live search for a while now |
I'm not sure I would worry too much if your site does well in Google. Do not try to rank in MSN/Live at the expense of Google traffic - you will be sorry. My experience has been very little traffic no matter how well you rank in MSN and I am talking about a lot of different domains with completely different subject matter. These are not "my" sites, but many clients that I still have access to their stats over the past several years.
Is it simply people do not use MSN/Live for searching? I certainly wish it wasn't so, but it seems Google is who you need to concentrate on.
Does anyone get even close to comparable traffic from MSN compared to Google (without being penalized from Google)? Most stats I see are at about 500-1000:1 ratio between the two.
| 1:40 pm on Nov 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Absolutely that is how I have been finding it. I have a number of different websites and I have never experienced large amounts of traffic from MSN. Personally I stick to concentrating on Google. I have several sites which are listed well in Google.
It seems to me that a good SEO company charges huge amounts of money, I couldnt actually judge how good they are because as I say I have never used them but I do however know people who have used cheaper SEO companys. And the results just are'nt worth it!
[edited by: engine at 2:05 pm (utc) on Nov. 14, 2007]
[edit reason] No urls, thanks. See TOS [webmasterworld.com] [/edit]
| 1:01 pm on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for all the replies.
i redesigned my site so I guess I have been sandboxed by Google.
I am not sure if I should just wait it out or do something about it
| 1:43 pm on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
wait it out...and make sure you are returning 404's if the pages are gone or 301 redirects if content has changed locations.
| 1:45 pm on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|i redesigned my site so I guess I have been sandboxed by Google. |
Explain the redesign to us. Was it just a graphical change or did all of the html change? If you were to compare new vs old, what were the major changes that took place behind the scenes, in the html?
|I am not sure if I should just wait it out or do something about it. |
Depends on what took place during your redesign. Also, I thought this was about not being listed in Live? So you also took a hit in Google in addition to Live? What about Yahoo!?
| 12:02 pm on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)|
We replaced the tables on the pages with tableless and floating columns using css and divs.
The whole layout changed
We got hit by Google and Yahoo but all our new pages are in their index now and traffic is barely what we used to have but we get a tiny bit from them, as for MSN we have no pages at all even though the MSNbot comes to our site to crawl
| 1:26 pm on Dec 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
hi MissDot, did you change any file names or website directory structure?
| 4:18 am on Dec 4, 2007 (gmt 0)|
we changed the the design of the pages and changed some file names
| 10:23 am on Dec 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
if you changed some file names -without doing any redirects - that may explain why part of your site is not showing up in some search engines.
| 11:02 am on Dec 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
There are some things that you can do for yourself before you decide to look for outside help.
Validate your code, both the markup [validator.w3.org] and the css [jigsaw.w3.org].
Check that your links work properly [validator.w3.org].
Fix any problems that you find. Why pay someone to do this when you can.
| 11:46 am on Dec 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I just did all that
I validated the pages, took me a while but got them great.
All links on my homepage are working fine.
I have quite a few rel=nofollow for so many external links on the page.
What i have observed.
Google cache has old pages, my home page is updated daily but as of today December 5, google has December 3 which is misleading to our visitors because when they come through google, the content is outdated and possibly removed.
I am also worried about internal linking,
you get to most of my pages by 2 clicks, they are not linked to the homepage because there a lot of them else my homepage will look like a link farm
I see robots come to my site and just go 1 link deep and leave how do I fix that
If I have a sitemap page linked on my homepage will it affect my site?
| 12:09 pm on Dec 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
If two clicks is as deep as your pages go, them it should not be a problem. A site map will not hurt.
Do a search on your domain looking for all the urls by using this in the search box Do all your pages come up?
| 6:49 pm on Dec 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|