Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
Forum Moderators: open
I would like to hear from guys who are managing sites which were not affected with sandbox.
Do you host this new site(-s) on the same I.P (or on the same hosting) with your other sites if you have them?
I started a site about 4 months ago, new domain (non-expired). Google indexed in two weeks after launch. Im on the 2nd page for competing KWs. Last month, I added 7 more sites, linked out from first domain. All landing pages were indexed within one week, the following week, all domain pages were indexed. These are all on the same IP hosted box. Im getting lots of hits from Google and Yahoo.
I would put it a bit differently. We have sites...um, I mean page...that have not been badly hampered by this algo, but even our our sites that never felt much pain from it are affected in some ways. And we have other new ones that have not got past it....yet. :-)
The algo is there for all pages to get past, or not. But it's like running thru water.
IMO, the more tuned in one is to the changes that occured over the last year (Florida, Austin), the closer one is to getting new sites ranked sooner rather than later.
On some of my brand new websites, months ago, AdSense didn't understand the site right away.I uploaded the index page to a brand spanking new domain, when the ftp program said "done" I went directly to the page. Voila, Adsense was perfectly on target. Theoretically, this page could also be in the serps immediately too. yet Google seems hell bent on taking it to the other extreme. I wonder why they would do thi$?
OK, I guess it wasn't completely off topic.
Roll footage of a guy in a supermarket, pushing shopping cart to meat department, produce and dairy departments, inspecting the food.
"When you buy food, you want to make sure it's as fresh as possible."
Roll footage of guy closely inspecting "sell by" date on a package of meat, puts it in cart.
"After all, you wouldn't want to give your family anything that may have been on the shelf too long."
Roll footage of the guy inspecting, squeezing, and putting a head of lettuce in the cart.
"On an Internet search, you want to know about important new websites. Well, for about the last six months, Google has been quarantining most new websites...."
Roll footage of man lifting a jug of milk to his nose, sniffs near the cap, reacts badly to the odor.
"...and giving you the same old sites."
Roll footage of logo.
"We give you the fresh new websites, along with all those that have been on the shelf for a long time. Next search, try (insert name of competitor's search engine.)"
(Note: I make no copyright claim to this commercial advertisement, any search engine company is welcome to use it for free.)
They don't need to show new sites. They just need to focus on relavent content. If a new shop opens in a mall, that sells the same thing as one thats been there for years, I'd be more inclined to go tot he established site then the new bird.
There is probably a penalty on new websites and/or new links causing sites to become slower to rank highly for some/all search terms. This penalty may or may not apply to all keywords and may or may not, gradually or suddenly, lessen its penalising effect on those sites or links with time.
Thats about it!
Well bit of a major sports event going on;
search for "ryder cup latest " or even "rider cup latest" take a look at the top ranking site/s
Then take a look at a "main rival" search engine for the same thing. I think they really do need to show "new sites'at the very least new pages"
Ok widgets are different, but this gives a perfect example how poor g is right now, widgets - I'd like to see new widgets, some may be cheaper, some sites may be more user friendly etc etc
I think you have missed the point.
Please note that we do not manually assign keywords to sites, nor can webmasters submit a list of preferred keywords for which their sites will appear.
I never asked for either of these. I gave you a list of queries where your search engine comes up short. Do with it what you will but don't try to pass the blame.
Our crawler analyzes the content of webpages in our index to determine the search queries for which
they're most relevant.
So your crawler (not the algorithym?) found the content to be relevant while it was on example.com, but when it was moved to example2.com, it was no longer relevant?! Perhaps you could have someone that can understand my previous email read it and give a suitable response, instead of the canned 'blah, blah, try adwords' response.
In addition to our free web search results, we offer advertising on our site. Our AdWords program offers a fast and affordable way to promote your website to your target audience using keywords you select. Within minutes, your ad could appear on Google.
I tried. Signed up on Friday, emailed on Saturday asking why the ads still don't show up. Still have had no reply, nor do the ads show up. On Monday if I have not received a satisfactory response I will-
1. Drop Adsense altogether from all sites I control.
2. Demand my $5 Adwords activation fee back or chargeback the credit card. I know it's only $5, it will probably take $50 of my time to get it back. That alone should tell you something about how I feel about your currrent performance.
My Real Name
Interesting - implies that Google IS using a (finite) database of queries to assign relevence of a page at crawl time.
Powdork - do your example2.com pages have ToolBar PR - if so are they the same as your example1.com pages?
Powdork - do your example2.com pages have ToolBar PR - if so are they the same as your example1.com pages?Example2.com used to be a subdirectory of example1.com. The entire subdirectory was 301'd to the new domain, which was crawled completely within 2 weeks of the move. It was approx 3 weeks after the move that the pages from the subdirectory of example1 were removed from the index.
If they're going to use TSPR, they're going to need a lot more pages in the index in order to get it right -- maybe this is the reason for delay -- A tardy and hesitant attempt at taking a more involved view of the web?