| SitePoint Sponsor |
Im in the same boat.Originally Posted by spyross
divvies.com
#1 on Clusty
#1 on Yahoo
not listed on Google
not listed on MSN
Site has been running for about 6 months now
I am completely lost as to why google hasnt indexed this.
You can even search Allergen-free snacks on yahoo and it is listed (i think third), so the it is a relevent site.
RichTestani
-------------------------------
http://www.junkdepot.com
http://www.rareoopdvds.com | The Movie Poster Site
well these days more and more people are finding ways to make the search engine think that the content on the page is something different than what it actually is...
they are doing this so they can show ADS that represent a certain market... not necessarily their own.
Restaurant Takeout & Delivery Menus : Over 4500 Menus Online
Athletic Recruiting & Community for High School Athletes!
Well, this was quite the interesting read. It seems, though, that no one has yet to provide a better solution. People keep pointing to Yahoo, but I've found for what I need that Yahoo doesn't always work. Google has worked very well for me as a user. As was said previously, I find what I need. 90% of the time it's on the first page. Now for an imperfect science like searching the web, that's pretty remarkable.
You can't expect everything to be perfect. I find Google just works better for me. Maybe it has to do with the fact that I don't type "Web Design" and expect SitePoint to pop up out of the millions of other websites concerning Web Design. I'll type something more relevant, like "Web Development Forum", which brought me here. And while you, the webmaster, might have a web development forum, which, in your eyes, is more "relevant" this suits my needs very well. So how then is Google broken?
Google's job is to give the user what they are searching for. It is not to feed users your website. Often times, if your website doesn't show up early on, it's because there are other websites that fulfill the criteria as well. And, of course, links are relevant for any website, no? How else do search engines find your website? If I'm not finding what I'm looking for, then I provide a more detailed search term, which enables me to find what I'm searching for. Since Google isn't failing the user, it's not failing.
Great original post Ampalian.
It is truly frightening to think of the amount of 'wasted' time effort and money spent on 'Search Engine Optimisation' that could have been spent on far more worthwhile things (e.g. content optimisation for users).
What a fundamentaly unsound concept 'SEO' is. It is either filling a functionality gap that SE's should be doing, or it is trying to cheat - neither are fundamentaly sound.
But I am optimistic that it will eventually get better as the truth will always out eventually - and things get put right. Very often this happens when a big dominant player loses motivation, vision, sense of what is really right - and then falls in a big way to some young upstart who has a better clarity of vision.
Jack.
Beautifully put Jack. The argument got a bit clouded on the way but your post sums up what I was trying to say perfectly.
Malc
While I understand the sentiment, I think a lot of this is misplaced and misguided.
Can you please explain to me how these "far more worthwhile things" are better, and how we quantify this statement? It is just that there is no evidence off erred to support either statement (that SEO is a waste or, indeed, that there are better options), in addition to deciding how we judge this.It is truly frightening to think of the amount of 'wasted' time effort and money spent on 'Search Engine Optimisation' that could have been spent on far more worthwhile things (e.g. content optimisation for users).
I worked for a company that, making only SEO changes, had an ROI of 1,000 to 1 for SEO. By that I mean that for every dollar spent on SEO, they made $1,00 extra in sales. So for, say, a fictitious $3,000 spend, they made an additional $3,000,000 in sales. Is that wasted money, time or effort?
Perhaps you could point me to some research that backs up your proposition that there are "far more worthwhile things" than SEO, including what "content optimisation" is, and how it can generate a similar positive ROI.
What a wonderful phrase "fundamental unsound" is.What a fundamentally unsound concept 'SEO' is. It is either filling a functionality gap that SE's should be doing, or it is trying to cheat - neither are fundamentally sound.
IMHO, SEO is like any marketing game, most of which are also probably "fundamentally unsound" to the uninitiated. Look at PR (public Relations) "You will get journalists to talk about my business and that helps me how?? Can you guarantee me any press? None? Not Any? What use are you then?".
If you go back to the very first post and replace the word "Google" with:
1. PR or
2. Marketing, the criticisms are probably just as valid.
And the word webmaster (a very poor phrase IMHO) with business (what a webmaster really is), a lot of the criticisms seem valid.
Example:
"So webmasters around the world invest enormous man hours and resources into making their widget site Google friendly."
becomes
"So business owners around the world invest enormous man hours and resources into making their widget business marketing friendly."
Making a web site a valid marketing tool, which is what most set out to be, requires getting lots of factors right. It constantly amazes me that people who advocate issues like being cross browser compatible, or standards compliance or having a site that validates think SEO isn't a part of the deal when it comes to building an effective web site. Why not? Do you think if I renamed SEO Search compliance it would get a better following? I am going to start doing that anyway.
I am even more shocked because, of all those elements I just listed, SEO is by far the least time consuming and easiest to implement. Additionally, SEO is by far the most important for the majority of online business models, particular those that the audience of this fine forum are likely to launch. I mean no traffic, no sales. Unless you can spend vast am mounts of money to get traffic, or have a brilliant viral strategy or the greatest product ever, SEO is where it is at.
To add some perspective and food for thought, last year a fight broke out between SEOs and the design fraternity over an SEM conference and some statements made at the conference. http://compooter.org/article/68/craptastic-SES-2004/ was the blog in question, and http://compooter.org/article/68/crap...-2004/#c000076 was hands down the best comment made by either side.
I will quote just one small part of that comment:
Does that sound like an issue the design fraternity should be ignoring? Does it sound incredibly convoluted or difficult? Is it any more so than documenting and remembering the various cross browser CSS quirks?
IMHO a lot of the criticism of SEO, or marketing or PR, is that it originates with people who do not understand the role the tool plays. SEO isn't a cure all. It won't, in and of itself, make you a cent. You need to get a lot of things right, from cross browser compatibility to good visual appeal, excellent copywriting that converts and, yes, SEO before a business reaches its full potential.
To claim SEO is "'wasted' time effort and money" shows me that people don't understand SEO, not that SEO isn't effective. Hopefully, I can help dispel that myth, at least in part, and shed some light on SEO, to help people understand why SEO, or as I prefer to call it Search Engine Marketing (SEM) should be a vital element of any effective marketing campaign that chooses to use a web site as its medium.
My $0.02.
Last edited by projectphp; Feb 17, 2005 at 05:43. Reason: spellign ;)
Internet Marketing Australia - QUISQUE COMOEDUM EST
Very Well Said !!! Claps ...
Google is not only discouraging the seo , working days and nights to increase their visitblity on the targeted keywords but also increasing some kind of monopoly on internet marketing ..
Becuase website prior having large backlinkes are still on top ranking for years on the targeted keyword and gaining traffic ..
there is no chance for new professionals can do better than existing ones becuase simply on google it will take years and Months for increasing backlinkes ...
In One Year I think Google updates for 3-4 times the PR and Backlinkes tht's very rigid ...
Other hand if I take my example one of my website getting traffic from Msn for having more than 1000 Links and the same website having hardly 100 Links on Google ...
Now Google People Must have to think about it becuase , users are also bored with same old results on their desired keywords ...
Well money talks and I'm listening.I worked for a company that, making only SEO changes, had an ROI of 1,000 to 1 for SEO. By that I mean that for every dollar spent on SEO, they made $1,00 extra in sales. So for, say, a fictitious $3,000 spend, they made an additional $3,000,000 in sales. Is that wasted money, time or effort?
I bet there's no SEM company that will work for 10% commission on sales that they deliver? or am I wrong?
Malc
Fundamentally unsound because ...
SEO is only required because SE's are somewhat less than perfect at their jobs.
SE's want to identify the best sites for their users.
Webmasters want to create the best sites for their users.
So the user experience is best served by both excelling at their respective jobs.
I searched Google for a small town called Much Wenlock the other day, the content returned from one of the highest ranking pages went a bit like this:
Much Wenlock is a nice place .... If you come to Much Wenlock you will see ... Do you want a hotel in Much Wenlock or near to Much Wenlock, or would you like a Much Wenlock restaurant or a Much Wenlock pub ... more in Much Wenlock, Much Wenlock, Much Wenlock ...
(not the exact words - but you know the sort of thing.
Optimised for the SE, not for the user.
Hey, I have spent a massive amount of timing doing SEO stuff for my site - but I resent it because I would have prefered to spend the time making my content better. The better the SE's are the less time I will need to spend on SEO and more on content - therefore better for everyone.
That's what fundamentally unsound means.
Jack.
Sorry, but just to continue my rant a little ...
I am at this very moment sub-obtimising some of the content on my site for humans just to make it a little more freindly for spiders.
This cannot be right and I don't feel good about it.
If the SE's were a little better I wouldn't have to do this.
Jack.
IMHO, a good SEM, with the right commision offer on teh right product, would willingly take up the challenge.I bet there's no SEM company that will work for 10% commission on sales that they deliver? or am I wrong?
You have to think though, why would an SEM work for 10% commission unless you personally brought something to the table? Not claiming this is you, but if someone sets up an affiliate site, and wants to pay an SEM 10% commision, why would they bother?
If, however, a business owned the patent on a new widget that was the best, with a unique USP, that was highly sought after, and the business handled shipping, phone calls etc, 10% commision on web sales would be a great deal. No sale, no pay.
PR agents are required because journalists are somewhat less than perfect at their jobs.SEO is only required because SE's are somewhat less than perfect at their jobs.
Do you get my point?
That is a problem with your nethodology, not with search engines. How long do you think Amazon spent optimising for this ranking? Not very.Hey, I have spent a massive amount of timing doing SEO stuff for my site - but I resent it because I would have prefered to spend the time making my content better. The better the SE's are the less time I will need to spend on SEO and more on content - therefore better for everyone.
I don't agree with that. I have seen sites that totally ignored search engines, and very few do I like. The best sites are those that understand SEO, account for it but don't sell out to it, in an erroneous belief that doing so will make them rich....therefore better for everyone.
That isa delusion. If your site reads like rubbish, people are left believing you are a rubbish business. If your site can not be found, no one gets a chance to form any opinion.
While there are SE or newspapers there will be SEMs and PR people. That is just the way the game is played. If you choose to call that fundamentally unsound, you are welcome to, but it isn't likely to change in the near future, either SEO or PR.
Internet Marketing Australia - QUISQUE COMOEDUM EST
Google has something that you need. (you want to be in their results)
It is their company, and they run it the way they want to. Thats their perogative.
If i open a store, then my customers must pay me the way i want them to, thats my perogative to do that. Customers need to comply or i will not sell them anything until they can pay for it the way i want them to.
If you want to be listed in their search engine, then you play by their rules. If you dont like where you are listed, do something about it. (ie optimise your site for google) You are forgetting, you are getting a free listing in google. For a free listing in the most widely used search engine in the world, and you expect to do nothing for it?
Suck it up, Stop complaining about having to play by their rules. It is never going to change.
Im reminded of an old saying, "Dont hate the player, hate the game."
That is just how business is.
Its justified that people can complain about googles relevence of late, but dont complain about having to optimise your sites, in order to get a top listing. Its what we all have to do. Suck it up.
I don't think it's subjective when the first 5 pages that come up are spam. Although hey i guess it's relevant to the spammer's huh?
wow I agree with projectphp for once
I wish I got that much out of some of my first clients instead of the little they paid meI bet there's no SEM company that will work for 10% commission on sales that they deliver? or am I wrong?
Most the affiliates I work for give me around that percent
and I think I make a decent living,
like hotel affiliates give me only 6% but there are so many little hotel local term which don't require a ton of work so its still ok.
SEO is the best game in town as far I am concerned
Relevance is the eye of the beholder.
If the site is converting visitors into sales then it most likely is relevant
Google has its days.
And ironically MSN does offer better relavant links.
Google has had its days - I am chaging my search engine .. not in protest
but to get better relevant results !!
If you have a number of sites like we do, naturally you will want to cross link them - fairly heavily probably. It only make business sense.. you are trying to drive potential customers to your stores basically. You're not trying to trick anyone, you're trying to gain customers plain and simple.
But but but...Google doesn't allow you to do this.
They see it as SEO trickery. Our CoolHomepages.com site is #1 or #2 for a slew of terms on virtually every major search engine and has been for years and years. But we are basically banned on Google.
Any way you cut it, it's ridiculous to ban people trying in earnest to make a living on the web.
just to be completely careful here, i'm not picking on you personally when i say that there are a million email spammers and search engine spammers out there "trying in earnest to make a living on the web"
There are too many people trying to make money on the internet, too competitive so no one makes a buck. Dont wanna be a N.I.M.B.Y. though. (Not in my back yard) Its the same concept as people who have become rich of the internet.
that coolhomepages is a great site
you might want to change the colors on that adsense though
You don't need google anymore,
if you rank good in msn and yahoo you will still make money
so the forget google if they give you trouble
Speak for yourselfThere are too many people trying to make money on the internet, too competitive so no one makes a buck.
google is not a good search engine it just gets a huge amount of traffic and is known around the world
Which search engine do you prefer? Google doesn't have perfect results, but is the best in my opinion.
Take a look at http://www.seorank.com/link-popularity.php and type in your own website url...you will see that
rhodos.startbewijs.nl
rhodos.2link.be
griekenland.eigenstart.be
rhodos.startkabel.nl
PLUS
the other websites I linked you at (like htttp:/griekenland.2link.be) are read by Google and you are linked there.
On Google some of these pages and on Dutch search engines most of my pages rank page 1 and yes, sometimes it will not show up. Nobody knows with Google...
I think there is a small catch...
There is a small catch...
http://www.seorank.com/link-popularity.php uses the following search: rhodesguide.com -site:www.rhodesguide.com
which, translated to plain english, as and far as I know by having read google's help, means: search for text "rhodesguide.com" in websites all over the internet except www.rhodesguide.com itself. This is a completely different thing that sayng "link:www.rhodesguide.com" which means search for all pages over the internet linking back to www.rhodesguide.com.
I don't say its a problem with your website. Its a glitch in google's system.
Welcome to the jungle!
http://www.yolah.com
http://www.yolah.com/search.php?name...d+people+dream vs http://www.google.com/search?q=do+bl...utf-8&oe=utf-8
What do you prefer? I personally use that search all the time, as it was an example of a question I once had that was answered on the results page.
Internet Marketing Australia - QUISQUE COMOEDUM EST
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks