How New Sites Perform in Google 2018

[goodroi]

Just wanted to share the results of a new site I launched this year. This site has been a bit harder than previous experiences but I think that is caused more by this specific niche industry and less to Google tightening up (though things are much harder compared to 5 years ago). I also had a problem with Google giving horrifically misleading keyword data. Don't think it was intentional on their part, suspect it might be a sign that Google's AI fuzzy logic is more fuzz than logic. Going forward I'll be putting less emphasis on Google keyword data sources and prioritizing third party data. The new site has very few backlinks and they mostly come from social platforms. At this point, Google SEO is just a bonus. Our main focus is to develop a loyal following via social & email.

Launched the site and Google crawled it heavy for the first few days and regular revisits but no real rankings or traffic for the first month. Then it started to climb up the mountain. A strong trend line developed as we gained more impressions for more keywords. We are still gaining much more traffic via social channels but the Google trend line is on pace to overtake social.

We are probably going to spend at least the next six months focusing on social & email before we make Google search a top priority. Don't get me wrong. The new site is attractive to Google (fast loading, mobile friendly, keyword rich, good usability, easy to follow internal links, etc) but that wasn't to make Google happy. It was to deliver a professional resource that attracts loyal & returning users. For this project, we viewed social as the soft underbelly and so its being targeted first.

What has been your Google experience when launching new websites in 2018?

[tangor]

Social was first.

For the most part, standard fare. Quick early index, slow growth for 1-3 months, then steady (growing month on month). Two sites, no attempts to play to keywords, etc. Commonsense coding for users first ... search engines second. Both are doing as expected, then again, expectations were controlled from the outset.

The surprise was Bing did the same, but the traffic increase began week 3 of launch and has not looked back. Go figure.

Client happy. As she said: "I don't care where the traffic comes from, only that it is coming!"

Me? I got paid. :)

[aristotle]

Newer sites less than a year old haven't proven anything.

Older sites, say at least 10 years old, have been through some big shakeups, such as Panda and Penguin, and were able to survive while many other sites fell by the wayside. These old survivors have proven their staying power and shown the long-term commitment of their owners. They may have had some ups and downs along the way, but they've still in the game.

Newer sites, less than a year old, haven't been through any big shakeups in the search results. They haven't proven anything.

[keyplyr]

I've seen new sites take high spots in SERP and stay longer than the honeymoon, but not as much as previous years. Local search seems to be the most fertile ground for new sites in 2018.

There's other factors to pull traffic from SERP besides top ranking. Using Structured Data [developers.google.com] especially on business and product pages helps Google to include Rich Snippets [developers.google.com] in all SERP and is essential for Voice Search.

[bwnbwn]

Interesting topic.

I retired due to heart failure 2 years ago with a estimated life of 2-5. I have passed the 2. Yea.

I was approached by a company to develop a website in an industry I was heavily involved in for 10 years before I retired. So I approached a top notch programmer (involved with his work before) with the website and we met with several backers that can provide enormous content for the site to get a good kickstart.

To my surprise the builder/programmer wants to buy into the deal with his programming cost cut in half. I know what a programmer of his caliber charges, he sees the money as well.

I am excited to hopefully see this come to pass. This will be probably my last deal but I have sat along the sideline to long and it kinda gives me a reason to continue.

The build will be 600 hours and I will post the site for review when it is officially launched. I hope we can get the deal finalized in a month and the programmer can begin his work.

[aristotle]

we met with several backers that can provide enormous content for the site to get a good kickstart.

This statement puzzles me. "Backers" usually means financial backers. What are backers who supply enormous content. Do you mean that they will hire some experts on the subject to create original professional-level content?

[tangor]

@bwnbwn ... you go! There's life after heart and the beauty is you've been notified and can make better choices from here on out! (Wish my Dad had had that warning... sadly his was The Big One).

Having a slew of "legacy" websites from 1999-2003 which have paid off handsomely (diminishing amongst the clutter of noise ever since) my current experience with new sites is rather limited in that I don't take on that many projects these days (I'm approaching 70 at breakneck speed).

Over the last three years 8 projects were launched. Five are viable ... and would be natural since they had both content and PRODUCT at price points realistic and armed with sufficient Capital On Hand to Ride Out The First Twelve (12) Months). The remainder paid my time and effort EVEN THOUGH I COUNSELED THEM NOT TO DO THIS.

What the heck. I win, they lose. In the scheme of things there's now three more websites without a clue out there under-performing and gobbling up keyword resources and all that happy stuff. My work was turn key start up and I don't take calls from them since.

THAT SAID, the five that were done with a specific goal AND a product worth something to CONSUMERS are doing well, found an up tick in both Bing and G, and know what to expect AND WHAT THEY NEED TO DO to continue that growth.

G is one side. One that needs be addressed. But as my old Granny used to say, don't put all your eggs in one basket!

[bwnbwn]

Aristotle backer isn't a good word I agree with your confusion. The group has some very highly placed people in the industry that are going to use their influence to generate content from companies within this industry to help launch the site. Really can't provide to much details, but when it is completed I will ask for a site review.

Back to reading what's up and moving and this thread caught my attention.


tangor thanks sorry for your loss.

[tangor]

@bwnbwn, keep us posted!

(Thanks, re: dad comment ... however, I am older now than he was when he passed--by 23 years--it was a very long time ago!)

[ByronM]

My experience? Miserable. I can't fathom why people would want to get into creating web properties today, to be honest. Just right when you do start getting traffic you start to see the theft of your content and now instead of writing/creating/marketing i'm working on DMCA takedown notices and watching traffic stay stagnant.

social marketing is a joke these days, everyone is changing algos and its just too much work for so little return.

The joy is hard to find unless you have a very specific hyper-niche that you can remain perpetually happy about regardless of income/traffic

some will be successful, it's a fun problem to work but from doing it 20 years ago and attempting it today, i just find it incomprehensibly overwhelming and markets overly manipulated.

Do I love creating? you bet!

[EditorialGuy]

I lauched a new site a few years ago, and it took a few months to show up and rank in the top page or two on Google's SERPs. (The same has been true of large sections that I've added to our existing 17-year-old site.)

On the brighter side, the new site has crept up steadily in the rankings and now does pretty well. Based on my admittedly limited experience with new(ish) sites, I'd say that you shouldn't expect great results for a year or two.

[tangor]

My general experience as well. Some sites (content) will rise faster than others. Ecommerce sites selling much the same as others on the web will not do as well (one more tree in the forest kind of thing). Given enough time, and the right content, new sites have just as much chance as any of the legacy sites which have been occupying top positions for years. In fact (from some of the commentary here at WW) that has been the case in recent years. The new guys are rising, the old sites are falling.

[RedBar]

It's a pointless question unless one is a well-funded start-up with, probably, Google backing, and only aiming at the USA market.

It's all been well-fixed and manipulated for years for the US and "western" economies, thankfully many countries, especially in Asia and Russia, haven't bought into this cartel!

[MrSavage]

A lot of new restaurants enter various markets each and every year. Each of those restaurants has backers who are equally excited. Nobody wants to point out a foolish investment let alone be part of one. Everyone is eager. Everyone is welcome to kill money in whatever way they see fit however. That's how Kevin from Shark Tank sees things. Stop killing money is sometimes what he advises people.

To answer the question of how new sites perform in Google 2018? How about worse than new sites in 2017. And the new sites in 2017 did worse than the sites in 2016. If you ignore the SERPS and the bigger picture then of course it's a fantastic investment of time, money and effort. At the end of it there would be no residual value. At least with a restaurant failure you can sell assets. A site? Sell off the air? The content that has been scraped?

Sorry to be negative. I hope we can speak based on how we feel and not be sensitive to apologists or people who talk about glory when they sport sites from yesteryear that have no bearing on what a site deals with by launching in 2018. #1 spot in 2018 is lower than 2017. #1 spot in 2019 will be lower than 2018. The only good news that could arise is a worthwhile search competitor but that's as far fetched as Blockbuster making a comeback by opening franchise stores across the country to rent music cds and movies to the people fearful of modern day technologies.

Aside from that, have a great day everyone!

[keyplyr]

It's a pointless question unless one is a well-funded start-up with, probably, Google backing

What exactly is "Google backing" RedBar?

Can you point to a webpage where a start-up would get Google backing?

[tangor]

Heh! Does venture capital count as g backing?

Everything works, if you throw enough money at it.

[tangor]

On a more realistic note, the conversation was new sites. Do we assume these are new sites by single entrepreneurs or well funded mega corps launching a site?

We probably have both as members a WW ... though I suspect the majority fall into the prior category rather than the latter. Knowing which "new site in 2018" aspect will change the discussion in a snap.

[aristotle]

Speaking of strong financial backing, lately I've been seeing more television commercials for promoting new websites. These are strictly online enterprises that are being promoted on television. It must take a considerable amount of money to produce these commercials and pay for the TV ad time.

[Broaster]

Is your website in Google news?

How often do you post articles a day?

Do you have backlinks or just posting organic and to social and hoping to gain organic links.