LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quotetype www.whateveryourdomainis.co.uk into google, does your site still appear first?
If not it would be highly likely you've incurred a penalty of somekind.
Whats your url?
OK so sorry for the newbieness of this post - the Internet is scattered with them but there are no good answers so I wanted to get some experience from the people here.
I've had gradual improvements in SERPs over the last 4 months of my sites life. I've been doing a lot of work on the site in terms of SEO and moving content around, and
I've also addded a lot of new original content that has attracted some organic links.
Sadly, two or three days ago, I suddenly stopped ranking for my main phrases, dropping down to page 8 or 9 from top 3 positions. I haven't had any downtime and I don't think any of improvements could deserve any form of penalty.
Did this ever happen to you for relatively young sites?
I'd also love for Google to do a full recrawl after my SEO improvements. I've spent a number of hours link building yesterday in attempt to encourage this, but no joy. Any way to encourage a full deep recrawl? Incidentally, I have a brand new site that is flying and another very content rich site that hasn't been crawled for a month.
So frustrating! It sucks to be at the whim of Google! Can only imagine how I'd be feeling if my livelihood depended on this one site!
type www.whateveryourdomainis.co.uk into google, does your site still appear first?
If not it would be highly likely you've incurred a penalty of somekind.
Whats your url?
Google gives brand new sites (more specifically new domains) a "boost" in the rankings when it first discover and ranks them for a short period (it can be a few months), this is so that it gives new sites a chance to be discovered and compete with established sites.
After a period this "boost" is removed and you drop down to your normal ranking position on an equal footing with every other site.. this is probably what has happened to you.
I had a site i started in December 2006, it got a nice boost and was ranking well, it then lost it's "boost" around April 2007 and traffic dropped by about 70% from Google.. it has slowly built it's rankings back up, and is now just recovering to be at a similar point as it was a year ago.
Google gives brand new sites (more specifically new domains) a "boost" in the rankings when it first discover and ranks them for a short period (it can be a few months), this is so that it gives new sites a chance to be discovered and compete with established sites.
Not disagreeing, but can you enlighten me as to where you picked up this snippet?
Here's what I think. (Id be happy to help further if you want to PM me your sites).
I have said all along on my blog and in my free articles that changing 1 WORD on a site can drop you into oblivion.
Hence why I despair when I read "be sure to update your content regularly" - CR*P.
If your going to post sh*t like that be sure to elaborate on about 2000 other factors that need to be in place and will outweigh the damage that can be done by changing 1 WORD!!!
I have found with great success that this is a very successful strategy:
Assuming you have solid plans for a site, implement them all before you even try to get indexed.
Build the site, when you are happy it is done, get it indexed.
Then never look at it or change anything.
Move on to another and repeat.
By doing this I churn out sites that rank as you have said yours did and never drop a spot.
They hit page 1 (often number1) for my target keyword.
AND THEY STAY THERE.
Reason? I NEVER change even a full stop.
Ok so what if you need to update a site regularly because of new products etc?
Again simple. Don't even think about getting your SELLING pages indexed/ranked highly.
Focus on "clusters" around your selling site that divert traffic to YOUR KILLING ZONE.
All in my FREE articles zzzzzz...
Affi.
>> Google gives brand new sites (more specifically new domains) a "boost" in the rankings
>> Not disagreeing, but can you enlighten me as to where you picked up this snippet?
I've heard it direct from Google employees, personally. Temporal analysis is NOT your friend
Cheers dude.Originally Posted by Brendon
Temporal analysis is NOT your friend
Can you elaborate? I'm curious about what I'm reading and would like to be certain about that vague comment...
Aff.
Google timestamp everything when they see it, and they like to see a steady progression in terms of content evolution, link profile etc. Spikes in rate of change are not good.
New sites get a boost, but they need to "justify" it by getting quality recognition, quickly. As a mechanism, it allows YouTubes to spring up, whilst not unduly favouring the other 999,999 sites in a million that.... aren't
and they like to see a steady progression in terms of content evolution
Cheers Brendon, don't want to p**s on your fire but I could not disagree with that more.
I talk from personal experience and income results.
Let me be clear to any noob reading this.
If you are aiming to get a large generic site ranking very strongly in the SERPS the above may prove correct. My personal oppinion is disregard this strategy anyway. The work involved for an individual starting out would be far better spent on a niche site strategy.
Once you are making £50k a year from this, then you are in a position to either continue or put some time and effort into the generic stuff.
Point is; in 9/10 of cases, to do that, you would need to spend far more time as an individual than is humanly possible vis-a-vis the results.
I aim to get niche sites to page 1 Google. I NEVER change 1 word from creation. I've had sites at #1 Google for £14k (commission) per year keywords within 24 hours that ARE STILL THERE after 18 months. Sites that took 45 minutes to create and have very little content.
SUMMARY:
In my oppinion, do NOT waste time updating content on NEW generic sites.
(For this you would need endless hours of work, funds to tied you over for at least a year, etc)
Go niche sites, get indexed, move on...
Aff.
True story:
A Director at Heinz once told me they put tomatoes in Heinz Tomato soup, as for the other specific ingredients and ratio... Even HE did not have the faintest
What I DO KNOW is that I make a lot of money by NEVER changing content. I just create, index, move on...
One of my niche sites went straight to number 1 in Google but after a couple of weeks just disappeared (not completely but went far enough down for me not to bother looking for it.) The site itself was poor in terms of content thus it didn't take long to build, so I just forgot about it and after another couple of weeks, having changed nothing, it reappeared at 1 and has been there ever since. This seems to happen quite a lot and in most cases that I have seen and heard about, if they have been there before they will be again.
I guess that makes sense from a user pov. If a page is relevent to you one day, then it will still be relevent the next. Unless it changes of course!
I guess thats why people suggest fixed landing pages, perma linked content etc. But I dont think that is contra to the idea of producing more content. Surely the more content the more chance of links on more keywords and therefore more visitors. Not that you'd want that necessarily with a narrow site - so ^^ makes sense.
>> and they like to see a steady progression in terms of content evolution
>> Cheers Brendon, don't want to p**s on your fire but I could not disagree with that more.
Not my fire, it's Googles - I'm relating what they've told me. I should also be clear that I'm talking about site content as a whole, not fiddling with individual pages every day, but adding new, fresh, "unique" content
>> If you are aiming to get a large generic site ranking very strongly in the SERPS the above may prove correct.
I generally play in terms like "mobile phones", "cheap holidays" etc, and I play for #1 - so I recognise that my experience is different to that of most members here
>> I make a lot of money by NEVER changing content. I just create, index, move on...
Thats' a perfectly valid strategy, but you should also recognise that it's not the only one. It might also pay you to remember that Googles responses evolve, where they see behaviour that they don't care for
It's a generally agreed on theory that you'll see in just about all the SEO Forums, I've seen it happen to my own sites, i've seen it happen to plenty of others on these forums, and I have seen plenty of other people talk about it anecdotaly.
I've watched with interest your views on content updating, and I agree with you in some cases and not in others. There is a Google factor named "Query Deserves Freshness" or QDF for short. This is where Google will specifically look for a site or page with fresh content as it realises that dated content would not be suitable. You can read more on QDF from this interview with one of Googles top engineers:
Inside the Black Box | GoUpstate.com | Spartanburg, S.C.
The site of my own that I mentioned in reference to the new site boost effect is actually an example of a site where it does need fresh content though, as it contains event listings.. event listings obviously have to be fresh and regularly updated and purged to remain relevent.
However I agree that aged content in many cases can be left alone for literally years and will continue to rank stronly, I am not a great believer in the "constantly update your content" for most sites.
I like Brendan work slightly differently to yourself in that my sites are generic sites and they are well established... so I am fortunately in the position where I can invest time and money in building rankings for the big hitting generic keywords over the long term with no initial pay offs, so yours is not a strategy I use.
I don't think you are doing me any harm warding people off the generic terms as the less competition the better obviously
That's a really interesting article and well worth reading, thanks for the link channel5
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks