New Site Ranking Problems

[gadget]

Tweet

I've recently launched a new site which has been indexed by G within the first week, however, for the life of me I can't get it to rank .. for anything, not even the domain.

The site has plenty of backlinks. There is nothing showing up in Webmaster tools as being an issue. I've done exactly the same thing with this site as I have done for others. The server is the same as the others ( my VPS ).

All ideas welcome!

[aaclapham]

Sites can take up to 3 months to be indexed properly.

If there was a quick fix, I would be a rich man :tup

Just keep adding unique content, get nice links, write some articles to post on free article sites, and that is all you can do.

[Brendon]

1) Malformed XML sitemap - not helpful
2) Cookie cutter titles - not helpful
3) Big, fat, term specific penalty for "insurance" - priceless...

Seriously. I'm half surprised you've managed to get pages into the supplemental index. Turn it down

>> The site has plenty of backlinks.

To make a hollow laughing sound. Plugging it into your spammy looking network of sites (Note I'm talking specifically about the cross linking here, not the sites themselves) != "plenty of backlinks"

[mtuffin]

To make a hollow laughing sound. Plugging it into your spammy looking network of sites (Note I'm talking specifically about the cross linking here, not the sites themselves) != "plenty of backlinks"

Seconded. I've made this mistake in the past.

Lots of cross linking from the same IP address triggers googles spam filters as in the past people used to create large numbers of websites on the same ip and interlink them so they ranked higher.

I got what I believe to be a -950 penalty because of this but recovered and I realised my mistake.

Even if you're not suffering from a penalty it is assumed links from the same ip address or subnet are valued lower than those externally for the same reason.

Mike

[gadget]

Sites can take up to 3 months to be indexed properly.

This isn't an indexing issue. It's a ranking issue.

[gadget]

1) Malformed XML sitemap - not helpful
2) Cookie cutter titles - not helpful
3) Big, fat, term specific penalty for "insurance" - priceless...

Thanks for your comments on what is clearly my very poor attempt at SEO.

1) Malformed XML sitemap .. it's a Wordpress plugin that I use across all my sites - how do I rectify this?

2) Cookie cutter titles - I've no idea what that means :blush

3) Big, fat, term specific penalty for "insurance" - I've no idea what that means :blush

[gadget]

I used this site - Bad Neighborhood - Link Exchange Tool - to identify a problem with a bad neighbourhood.

It identified that by using a contact form plugin for my wordpress site - the cFormsII from Delicious Days - I had entered a bad neighbourhood.

[jennifermaben33]

First of all new site will be taking time for indexing and try to check complete site may be there were something which G doesn't like

[fizzbird]

I used this site - Bad Neighborhood - Link Exchange Tool - to identify a problem with a bad neighbourhood.

An interesting tool, although it does return some odd results. If you have any links to The Sun then be prepared to be alarmed :scared

[Brendon]

Interesting concept for a tool, but it can provide a starting point for real investigations at best, IMO. "Bad neighbourhoods" are very hard for 3rd party automated tools to detect. Also, there are some "bad neighbourhood" issues they won't catch, such as the crosslink-the-hell-out-of-your-sites thing...

1) Dunno, sorry. I merely noted that the sitemap is actually being returned as a result, so it's not being picked up and processed as a sitemap. Most likely cause is malformed XML (by definition, XML is strict - any deviation from the schema invalidates it)

2) you're clearly constructing your titles from snippets of text with variables from the page pasted in. If I can see it by inspection, the SEs can detect it automagically. SEs don't like this kind of behaviour, since it's too close to autogenerated content for their tastes

3) G have a selection of penalties available to them, including one that only penalises a site for a specific term, or narrow range of terms. You've got one for terms involving "insurance". I'm not going to run through the proof here and now, but the evidence is pretty unequivocal

[gadget]

Thanks Brendon.

I'm beginning to see what you're saying now. As per my PM, I've made some changes and will continue to research this so thanks for you help.

How do I get rid of that Google penalty?

Joost has some interesting comments to make to support what you're saying on .. XML Sitemaps

[takahashii]

Can I post a couple of articles? (0:
--<br>Posted via my Mobile Device

[anilimb]

Just keep adding unique content, get nice links, write some articles to post on free article sites, and that is all you can do.

Really agree with your thoughts ..

Adding quality content and link building is the key to success on any search engine

[Schebesta]

2) you're clearly constructing your titles from snippets of text with variables from the page pasted in. If I can see it by inspection, the SEs can detect it automagically. SEs don't like this kind of behaviour, since it's too close to autogenerated content for their tastes

I am interested by this strategy are you suggesting that the "Title" tag should not be the same as the <h1> tag. I.e. make it unique each time?

Very interested in why you think this is important and where you get your proof from?

Schebesta

[gadget]

Brendon is one of the best SEO guys in the country. He doesn't need to prove anything on this subject.