61 replies to this topic

[qwerty]

I was going to say that article on SEO Chat had to be a year or two old, but then I looked at the date: yesterday. I am astonished.

Get your brand new site listed by Google in a day by buying text link ads? No.

[betcj]

WOW! It was like Clash of the Titans! I have been following this thread anxiously to see what the outcome was. I had to quit lurking and sign up just to say how impressed I was that everyone stuck to the spirit of the investigation and played fair--BRAVO! What great folks.

By the way, you also provided us newbies with come fantastic info along the way. thank you, thank you.

Sincerely,
Betcj

[Scottie]

Welcome to the forum, betcj!

I just checked and none of the 3 pages that I submitted have been requested by Googlebot yet. She hasn't shown a bit of interest in any of them.

[qwerty]

The page I submitted hasn't been crawled by googlebot yet either, but the page I referred to here -- the one that was linked to from its site's home page -- was cached two days after I created it, although for some reason I couldn't see a cached copy of it until this morning (3 days after it was cached).

But I do have news about the submitted page: Yahoo has indexed it! They don't show dates on their cached copies, and I'm afraid I haven't been checking every day so I don't know the exact date it happened. When I download this month's logs I'll look for the first time Slurp requested that page.

[mcanerin]

The next question is - will it stay indexed?

I imagine there is a "grace period" where a recently indexed site is kept in under the assumption that eventually the SE will find some links to it, but I suspect that once those links are not found that it will be considered an orphan and abandoned.

Interesting that Yahoo actually looks at sites submitted to it. Yet another difference between them and DMOZ

Ok, that was a cheap shot - sites submitted to MY section got reviewed within days (sometimes hours) back when I was a DMOZ ed, but it was a slow area - I suspect "Polar Regions" gets more submissions...

Ian

[Jill]

They would be paying for a link on a site that (presumably) gets crawled. As long as you can keep the site in Google somewhere, it shouldn't matter. As people keep adding links, the page contents will change (I am assuming multiple pages), and then Google crawls the site more frequently.

They could submit to an FFA site or 10 or 1,000 too, for free even. Not that I think that's a good idea, but it's basically what your $1 link page would become eventually.

[Jill]

www.seochat.com/c/a/Link-Trading-Help/How-to-Steal-to-the-Top-of-Google-part-2/

contains the comment that the google add url actually hurts your ranking ... any evidence for this?

why do they allow complete and utter morons to write articles?

Sorry, harsh but true. That's the kind of that the rest of us have to constantly disspell, and quite frankly, I'm sick of it. In 2005 people shouldn't be spreading ridiculous crap in articles, and places like SEOchat shouldn't be publishing it. It's just not right.

And what's with that stupid intellitext crap links they have on every word? Someone please remind me never go visit a page on SEOchat again.

[Michael Martinez]

They could submit to an FFA site or 10 or 1,000 too, for free even. Not that I think that's a good idea, but it's basically what your $1 link page would become eventually.

That was the reason for my qualifying remarks. To prevent it from becoming an FFA, you have to insert some sort of control (hence, charging a dollar at least filters out anyone not willing to pay a dollar for a link). You also have to prevent it from becoming an ABUSED site (so you have to filter out autosubmitters -- again requiring payment may get you there).

But, please, don't anyone ask or expect me to rationalize or defend this concept. I just have the feeling it's been tried or will be tried and no one has noticed yet.

[Michael Martinez]

I apologize. I've lost track of the original discussion thread, but maybe it's better to just start a new topic about this anyway.

Last Friday, a week ago, several of us created orphaned pages on Web sites to test my repeatedly stated assertion that submitting new content to Google will get it crawled.

When I was challenged about this assertion, I had to fess up to doing some major cross-linking to new content throughout my network (from related content). And I usually feature new content on at least one domain main index page, as well as add it to appropriate site maps.

So, how did I know for sure that Google was crawling my new content because I submitted it? I didn't.

And even if Google DOES crawl the two interlinked orphaned pages that I have submitted to them, it has not done so within a week, as I predicted it would.

It is easy enough to verify that Google did not sneak past my searches of my server logs:

http://www.google.co.....rphaned page"

Nothing on Xenite.Org has been indexed with the phrase "orphaned page" in the past week. That phrase does indeed occur on the two pages. I am not sharing the URLs because I want to see if those pages EVER get crawled by Google.

I may create some other orphaned pages to do some further testing of other ideas that came up in the previous discussion.

For the timebeing, however, I concede that I have been dispensing bad advice about submitting new content to Google. It hasn't worked for me in this test, and I don't see any of the several other people who created orphaned pages reporting that it has worked for them.

The challenge for new Web sites, then, is to find good links quickly that will get them crawled and indexed. Anything like a free-for-all page won't work. But I believe there are a lot of different free content sites out there which, in the short term, could prove useful.

I say "short term" because, as soon as anyone compiles and publishes a list of such resources, they will immediately be abused and ruined for a lot of good people.

[qwerty]

I've merged it with the original thread, Michael.

For what it's worth, my test page is still in Yahoo's index. It's even coming up at #1 on a search for the contents of its title tag in quotes, although it's not in the top 1000 (actually, 979 is as far as the SE would let me go) for those words without quotes.

[storyspinner]

And what's with that stupid intellitext crap links they have on every word?  Someone please remind me never go visit a page on SEOchat again. 

Occassionally I get some good articles from SEOChat, however it usually tends to be more towards the PR/Marketing side of the house and I usually print them out so I can read them later. This is the first I noticed that awful intellitext stuff .... wow... talk about ANNOYING!

Anyway.... I just noticed this thread... and I'd have to agree with a previous poster about the spirit of investigation, y'all are great!

I've done some experimenting of my own with submitting and non-submitting and watching my logs. Before I came to QVC I did work for clients ... In the beginning (when I first started up the business and my own website) I was submitting the sites, through the Google and Yahoo submissions and also to smaller search engines, and of course submitted to DMOZ. It took a few weeks but finally they got indexed.

I found though once these were indexed, I really only needed to submit to the smaller more unknown search engines for my clients that wanted the broader reach (more international and targeted). Google/Yahoo/Inktomi bots came to my site usually every two-three days because I was working on adding content .. and with my portfolio page it was easily finding my clients new sites and indexing them.

It was here that I learned that I didn't need to spend so much time submitting to get great results ... just keep the site fresh with relevant content.

Thanks y'all for saving me hours of work!

[Michael Martinez]

Thanks for the merge, qwerty.

I've done some experimenting of my own with submitting and non-submitting and watching my logs.  Before I came to QVC I did work for clients ... In the beginning (when I first started up the business and my own website) I was submitting the sites, through the Google and Yahoo submissions and also to smaller search engines, and of course submitted to DMOZ.  It took a few weeks but finally they got indexed.

I found though once these were indexed, I really only needed to submit to the smaller more unknown search engines for my clients that wanted the broader reach (more international and targeted).  Google/Yahoo/Inktomi bots came to my site usually every two-three days because I was working on adding content .. and with my portfolio page it was easily finding my clients new sites and indexing them.

It was here that I learned that I didn't need to spend so much time submitting to get great results ... just keep the site fresh with relevant content.

Well, I was advising people trying to get new sites (especially new domains) into Google to use the submission just to get indexed. I agree that, once a site is indexed, it's preferable to use the site itself to promote its new content. You don't have to wait for other people to link to your new pages, and you can link to them as prominently and as frequently as you wish.

Some sites automate the process (like blogs, for example), and you get a lot of false positives in search results because their links come up rather than their content.

But the idea is to help new sites get indexed as quickly as possible, with as little dependence upon other sites as possible. People are naturally frustrated with the length of time it takes to launch a new site and build traffic.

Those of us who can kick-start a new site with referrals and links from existing content are fortunate, but then, we've also gone through the process of building sites, reputation, and traffic.

Maybe that's just always going to be part of the system for most people.

[Nathan Malone]

www.seochat.com/c/a/Link-Trading-Help/How-to-Steal-to-the-Top-of-Google-part-2/

contains the comment that the google add url actually hurts your ranking ... any evidence for this?

Nah, that wouldn't make sense because then, anyone could sink their competitor's site easily by repeatedly submitting it.

[qwerty]

Anybody remember this thread? As a quick update, I'd like to mention that my test page dropped out of Yahoo pretty quickly, although Slurp continues to spider it now and then, and I've updated the page a couple of times. I also got Google to crawl the page by opening it in Opera -- of course, that was just the Mediapartners bot and it didn't get the page into the index. On top of that, I tried opening it in IE with the toolbar on, since some have claimed that that could be enough to get G to spider a page. No go.

But the real reason I'm bringing this thread back from the dead is an article in today's NY Times about taking control of one's online reputation by adding content to the web rather than trying to remove content you don't like. You probably need to have a subscription to open the page, but it's at http://www.nytimes.c...ted=1&th&emc=th

The main thing that got me thinking about this thread is something Marissa Mayer is reported to have said to the author, who's looking for ways to get her recently-created blogs to come up on searches for her name (she probably should have linked to them from the article ) (emphasis added):

Right now neither my Web site nor my blogs appear on a Google search of my name; the company says these take time to get ranked. So not only do I have an unflattering photo floating around the Net, but on a scale of zero to 10, I am a zero.

It turns out that Google's crawler - the software that roams the Web and ceaselessly indexes its contents - has yet to discover my sites. Ms. Mayer said I could speed things up by visiting the Submitting Your Site link on Google and entering an Internet address. A crawler, like a door-to-door salesman, would visit my site within two to three weeks. In the meantime, I was encouraged to link to other sites and have them link back to me.

She doesn't specifically say that the blogs will get indexed just because they're submitted, but it seems pretty inaccurate to me. Of course, it's not a quote. I suppose the author could have misunderstood whatever she was actually told.

[storyspinner]

sometimes I wonder if Ms. Mayer actually really sits down and thinks about what come out of her mouth - lately she's not been very high on a lot of wemaster's lists (the whole autolinking mess comes fresh to mind here).

i find some of the things she's been saying pretty darn misleading ... so I wouldn't doubt that whatever Ms. Mayer actually said could have been misconstrued.

apparently this author hasn't really done her homework though, if she had , she'd have discovered it takes a bit more than just submitting to Google .... she should be reading ... a lot... here at high rankings, and other blogs that help with exactly what she's complaining about.

sometimes I really wonder about folks who think that "just because I have a blog... people will read it!" ... or "just because I updated my site today or yesterday, Google will change the information instantaneously!"