Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Sandboxed? Or Did I Do Something Wrong?
Posted 04 August 2006 - 07:22 AM
We had a site that, largely thanks to things I learned here, was search engine friendly and had lots of original content and was doing quite well. Every month we'd see about 10% more traffic than the month before and got to about 3500 unique visitors per month, mostly from search.
The site was started to simply support our eBay sales and things were working well. Sales were coming in from the site as well as ebay and we made the decision that our-generic-ebay-id.com was very unprofessional sounding so we bought our-company-name.com.
After setting up a revamped version of the site on the new domain we set up 301 redirects on the old site and all seemed ok, much of the search engine traffic was going to the old domain and redirected but the new domain was getting some traffic too.
Over the first couple of months (April and May) there was a neglegable drop in traffic but I put this down to the weather heating up - we do seem to be affected with a summer slow down so I wasn't worried.
Unfortunately this trend has continued month on month and the last few weeks we've seen a significant drop in traffic, to the point where it looks like this month might bring less than 500 visitors from the engines :-(
Although the design has changed somewhat, the new design 'should' actually be more search friendly so I don't think this is the cause. All of the old content is still there with new content added regularly, so I just don't get why the drop.
Posted 04 August 2006 - 07:27 AM
new domain = aging delay
Posted 04 August 2006 - 07:40 AM
So would it have been better to have kept the site where it was and set the new domain up as an 'about our company' type site for a while until it aged?
If so, would it benefit me to move the site back to the old domain for a few months or am I chasing shadows with that?
Posted 04 August 2006 - 11:31 AM
I know Google has gone through a couple of updates since then, so there's no guarantee that things still work exactly as they did when the article was written. But it might be worth at least experimenting to see if that will do the trick for you.
Posted 04 August 2006 - 12:16 PM
There seems to be a bit of controversy about 302s, I can see the logic but I'm not sure if it's the way to go. One thing I read was an article about Business.com, who apparently incorrectly used a 302 to redirect and got penalized for it - had the writer got the wrong end of the stick?
As the site has permanently moved to a new home, would I not be gaming the engines by using a 302 instead of a 301?
Posted 04 August 2006 - 06:13 PM
Posted 06 August 2006 - 08:09 AM
Posted 07 August 2006 - 03:06 PM
These pages were both in the #2 slot on google for my fairly uncompetitive keywords. Five days later google had updated the results to point to the new domains.
Today- 10 days later - the one is #3, and google is starting to return results for the other pages on the site.
The pages were removed from the first domain 6 weeks ago, and blank place holders put up. Even the blank place holders held the search results, which I assume is from the inbound links.
I don't know whether this points at a work around, or if I'll lose the rankings and go into the age delay. Only time will tell.
From experience, my new sites since the age delay filter was added mostly seem to get included in spite of the filter. The sites that go bink and have dozens of pages get slammed. The sites that only have a few pages and then slowly grow with a page or two a week don't get filtered out. That could be a part of the filter. I think the filter was added to block huge scraper sites. Building the site slowly might be a way to get past the filter. Then again, I don't have any ads on the sites other than text links to other sites.
PS to ROLF - what do you sell on eBay? are you using a blog to promote your auctions? I am looking for people who do a good job of promoting their auctions with websites and blogs.
Posted 08 August 2006 - 02:04 AM
That's because the aging delay only affects fairly competitive phrases.
Posted 08 August 2006 - 02:41 AM
Google has it at #1 out of 542,000 for a search on the first three words of the home page's title, and #22 of 393,000 for three words from the title, but don't appear in a single string. Obviously, these aren't highly competitive searches. The same searches in quotes return 9 and 0 respectively. But in my experience, the best you can hope for with a new site is to rank for the company name and maybe some unique string of text.
Posted 08 August 2006 - 02:47 AM
I always build my sites around uncompetitive terms then add more competitive terms later.
My Seo skills aren't great, but I get quite a bit of traffic from the uncompetitive terms.
The site I built last week has already got people posting in my comments section, so as time goes by should be a good site.
Most of what I've learned I learned here.
Everytime I think about this I kick myself for delaying the rebuild of a big site I built 6-8 years ago and abandoned. That site was ranking well, and now has fallen off as a result of neglect.
Posted 08 August 2006 - 02:58 AM
This is a one word keyword phrase. Google has me at #2 of about 97,600 results. Yahoo has me at #10 of 97,800. However, most of those results are copycat pages of people chasing affiliate commissions. My page is a long negative review so content wise it's more attractive.
Using the Wordtracker results I have top ten results for four of the top five search variations using the word on both Yahoo and Google. MSN is moving all over since I built the new site.
Not bad for an hours work. I hope they stick.
Posted 08 August 2006 - 10:39 AM
Posted 08 August 2006 - 12:13 PM
Terry - we sell cat products, have a look at my sig for all the info (resisting getting into self promotion mode here ). I'm not a blogger anyway so I can't help you on that one.
I kind of look at eBay as a disaster waiting to happen these days (See what's happening to AOL at the moment?) so my focus is now on using auctions to promote the website, rather than the other way round.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users