Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:55 pm Post subject: Indexing time for new sites
I realise that link popularity is an important issue for all the reasons discussed here.
However, what about new sites which simply do not have any incoming links and are not likely to easily get any? New sites have no PR, and often no incentive for anyone to link to them if there is no benefit to do so. Also, similar sites are very often competitors, which is definitely another reason why sites will not link to each other. There is no problem of course with information or non-commercial sites.
So, assuming a new site with no incoming links, how long before Google will index the entire site? On my latest site, Google visited the home page very quickly, but has not returned since, an the page is not in the index.
Joined: 10 Sep 2003 Posts: 76 Location: Glasgow, UK
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 pm Post subject:
AFAIK your site will not remain in Google's index with no links to it.
If your site is a good, worthwhile one then other sites will be happy to link to it, regardless of your PR value. Many webmasters will see linking in the traditional way - to provide their visitors with a site they can recommend - rather than a way of boosting PR.
Look to websites with products/services related to yours, so that if you are adding a reciprocal link you are also adding value for your visitors with the link.
Look for on-topic directories who seek to establish themselves as a hub of links for their market. They will often link to you despite your PR, although often they may not pass PR to you.
Another way of obtaining links is by writing articles and offering them to websites in exchange for a link to your site. I have not tried this so can't vouch for its effectiveness.
Anyway, back to my current linking campaign to take a 0 PR, new site to a decent PR'd high-ranking site. It can be done.
You could create a few related sites of your own, and link to it from them.
For example, if you have an affiliate site selling goldfish, you could create a few small informational sites (i.e. non-sales, just pure info) about different breeds of fish, aquarium maintenance tips, a fish-lovers' forum, etc. It shouldn't be hard to get people to link to those sites, if they offer genuine useful content with no hard-sell. Then have your info sites link to your sales site, to funnel both the traffic and the PR to it. _________________ http://www.OneStopUnder.com - serious reading for serious photographers.
Joined: 02 Jul 2003 Posts: 5839 Location: by the beach, Australia
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 6:53 am Post subject: Re: Indexing time for new sites
Anonymous wrote:
...what about new sites which simply do not have any incoming links and are not likely to easily get any?
Sorry if this sounds tough, but I don't think it's a good idea to build a site like that.
It makes much more sense to me to create a unique, useful, interesting site that people WILL want to link to.
If you have a site that isn't worth linking to, the only people likely to agree to link to it are people who also own sites that, like yours, aren't worth linking to.
The search engines' role is to find good sites. That's the whole reason for their existence and they spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to do that. Why try to fight that? It doesn't make sense to me.
If you don't build a good site, you have to resort to tricks to get it well ranked. If you resort to tricks, you may succeed in the short term, but in the long term the search engines are likely to figure out what you're doing and penalize you.
Instead, could you add useful, interesting pages to your site, thus making it worth linking to?
You could also write articles for other sites and newsletters with your URL in the source box at the end, make posts on forums, make posts in email discussion lists, and hunt for niche directories in which to get a listing.
You are trying to get your links everywhere. Tons of back links...remember when the websites with your link get spidered it leads to you often getting crawled again. So you want ever changing content. And a lot of GOOD back links.
I do have one site such as yours...But it is for a closed game community. And I haven't done much with it...but it will not be using backlinks. because it will just be for me and a dev team of my own to create things.
Things that will be posted somewhere else for downloading. So in those cases...you don't care about the links. Because I don't want anyone else there hehe....well atleast when I redo it I don't.
But for an affiliate marketing site...something where you want to make money from affiliate programs. You just will never do it the way you are athinking. Unless you are planning on just newspapers and flyers for local people where you live?
I'm new at this, but haven't had any trouble getting webmasters to link to my new (PR 0) sites. I thought it would be much harder than it is. But I guess more experienced webmasters knew (as I didn't) that when Google finally gets around to ranking a new site, it's probably going to get a PR3 or PR4 at least, if it has backlinks, which is not at all bad.
It seems that if your site is useful enough to get included in directories (DMOZ, JoeAnt), it will not be a problem getting other types of backlinks. Hard, tedious work for sure, but not as if you'll be collecting thousands of rejections. _________________ - blake
Day Job Killer -- an ebook I actually bought, actually read and actually liked.
The main problems are the mini sites as per Phil Wiley. These are sites of between 1 and 5 pages typically.
Now I know that most people here, and in particular Debs espouse the virtues of content sites, and I agree completely. But in order to diverse, try different things and products, and to add non-related sources of income, mini sites are excellent, and people should not be prejudiced against them. A mini site can contain a great deal of information, just as a content site can contain little of use to anyone; there are people building many so called content sites which are nothing more than pages of content built around keywords designed to rank well on the search engines. I would sooner get all the information I need from one page, rather than scour 50 pages and not find anything of relevance. I would not like to see mini sites v content sites to become a religious issue like many aspects of SEO generally. All sites have a purpose, and should not be discriminated against by either people or search engines.
It doesn't alter the fact however that really useful mini sites are difficult acquire links for, often due to the fact they are commercial, and the only other sites on the same topic are equally commercial, and are therefore competing with each other.
On the subject of linking; do you people and sites generally simply set aside pages just for links; I mean you don't presumably place links on your main content pages?
Joined: 10 Sep 2003 Posts: 76 Location: Glasgow, UK
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:24 pm Post subject:
I'm assuming you are the same "Guest" who started this thread?
Guest wrote:
really useful mini sites are difficult acquire links for
I think you have picked up on the reason why 1-5 page sites have become discredited to a degree at present - Google uses link popularity (partly) to establish their SERPs, and these sites are difficult to get links to. Of course, this may change in the future as SEs change.
This is one reason why I'm developing sites which remain tightly focused but have some original content. Other sites are more likely to link then.
If you are seeking links to boost Google rankings, then depending on your competition, a single link from one of your other high PR'd sites might be enough to get good rankings. A good reason for checking out competition before starting to build a small site.
Guest wrote:
do you people and sites generally simply set aside pages just for links; I mean you don't presumably place links on your main content pages?
Depends what the focus of your site is. If I had a non-commercial site I would attempt to include links I thought were useful within relevant content.
I exchange links both ways, with a dedicated page for links as well as links on various content pages.
It depends on the site as to where they get listed. If it's on topic, and how they link to my site.
Debs _________________ Learn how to turn keyphrases into quality, well-targeted articles your visitors and SE's will love with Gary Antosh's new ebook "Web Content Made Easy!"
A mini site can contain a great deal of information, just as a content site can contain little of use to anyone
I hate definitions. "Content sites" don't have to be big, surely - just informative.
Quote:
there are people building many so called content sites which are nothing more than pages of content built around keywords designed to rank well on the search engines.
Yes, especially now Adsense has arrived. Content sites are often portrayed by many as the ethical way to get SE traffic, but often they are just another way of manipulating the SE algos.
Quote:
I would sooner get all the information I need from one page, rather than scour 50 pages and not find anything of relevance.
Me too. And it doesn't have to look pretty either.
Quote:
I would not like to see mini sites v content sites to become a religious issue like many aspects of SEO generally.
I think you might have come to the wrong place then.
Quote:
I mean you don't presumably place links on your main content pages?
Content pages - yes; action pages - no.
All the best,
Charlie. _________________ "Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Your host: Allan Gardyne. Earning a good living from affiliate
programs since 1998.
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
espouse the virtues of content sites, and I agree completely. But in order to diverse, try different things and products, and to add non-related sources of income, mini sites are excellent, and people should not be prejudiced against them. A mini site can contain a great deal of information, just as a content site can contain little of use to anyone; there are people building many so called content sites which are nothing more than pages of content built around keywords designed to rank well on the search engines. I would sooner get all the information I need from one page, rather than scour 50 pages and not find anything of relevance. I would not like to see mini sites v content sites to become a religious issue like many aspects of SEO generally. All sites have a purpose, and should not be discriminated against by either people or search engines.
