View Full Version : Green Grass still isn't growing
Petorchard
01-09-2006, 12:02 PM
We have recently started a Pet Website. We have been on-line for 6 months. We have tried the link exchange, advertising, etc....still no search engine results. I am begging everyone to please visit our site Petorchard.com and look around. I would like everyones input on why our site is still not getting search engine results. Is our code wrong?? Are more keywords needed in our code ?? For example..when I do a search for "Bulldog for sale", I am seeing peoples personal websites selling bulldogs....Pet Orchard is nowhere to be found.
Help........
voasi
01-09-2006, 02:02 PM
I'm not sure if this post was meant to be an Ad or what, but i'll respond anyway. You don't have any links.
Get some. :)
Then, let us know how things are going.
Petorchard
01-09-2006, 02:07 PM
When you say get some links....are these to inbound or outbound links ?? How many are you thinking we need to get ?? How does links explain why small dog websites with no links are ahead of petorchard in the search engines....
KeithO
01-09-2006, 02:39 PM
site age. thats your problem. animal sales are competitive and you are only 6 months into the game.
jnmsnow
01-13-2006, 07:46 AM
Inbound links is what you are looking for. As many RELEVANT one as you can get. You need to look for site that have to do with pets.
hbonline
01-17-2006, 02:17 PM
showing up in the search engines is a catch 22. Basically you need all the stuff previousely mentioned, but what you need most is traffic. No visits, no placement. You need to prove the the search engine that your site is a resource for your particular content. The way you prove that is lots of inbound links from other pet sites, and good content that is not stagnant. And with more inbound links, you will get more traffic. It does not happen overnight. Content,links and traffic are king!
williamc
01-17-2006, 07:04 PM
showing up in the search engines is a catch 22. Basically you need all the stuff previousely mentioned, but what you need most is traffic. No visits, no placement.
That is nothing more than a myth. This has been discussed until its dead as a beaten horse. There is no evidence showing that clicks count in the rankings, and google rep matt cutts has stated that the search team does not have access to analytics information either.
Petorchard: concentrate on using your keywords as the anchor text in your aquired inbound links. I am not seeing your site as fitting the sandbox profile, so you CAN rank well. You just need to work on it.
Start here: http://webworkshop.net/search-engine-optimization-basics.html
hbonline
01-17-2006, 07:15 PM
show me a site that ranks high in the search engines (using two keywords or less), with no traffic, it aint gonna happen.
Yeah, you will rank high if your search term is so specific that you focus it down to your site, but with "normal" search terms you won't show up until you are a "resource"
My site HBonline.com is a site about Huntington Beach go to yahoo and use "huntington Beach" as the key words and see where I pop up.
Nick
williamc
01-17-2006, 07:23 PM
show me a site that ranks high in the search engines (using two keywords or less), with no traffic, it aint gonna happen.
Yeah, you will rank high if your search term is so specific that you focus it down to your site, but with "normal" search terms you won't show up until you are a "resource"
My site HBonline.com is a site about Huntington Beach go to yahoo and use "huntington Beach" as the key words and see where I pop up.
Nick
Keyword: article distribution
Website: articlesender.com
Age: 2.x months old.
And it had virtually 50 hits a day before it got ranked. Of course it now has traffic as it is #2. But it did not have before then.
Point.Click.Score.
This does not even mention the fact that the top 3 serps get the lions share of googles traffic, which means if clicks were counted as part of rankings, those top 3 sites would never get moved out of the top 3 as they would always be getting 80% more clicks than anyone else. Your theory is bunk.
Myths are easily debunked.
hbonline
01-17-2006, 08:09 PM
williamc Wrote:And it had virtually 50 hits a day before it got ranked. Of course it now has traffic as it is #2. But it did not have before then.
hmmm...
you were getting traffic before?? (where did you rank before, before??)
now you rank #2 but have traffic??
seems like your traffic got you to #2
plus you rank a very high 38,000 in Alexa which indicates you are getting a ton of traffic, which warrents you in a #2 slot. and according to Marketleap.com you have a ton of inbound links at over 7,800 seems like you are a traffic machine, Good Job!
I checked the other sites in google with your keywords and guess what?? the site above you has an Alexa ranking higher than you at 5,800 which is why it is #1 and the sites below you are 178,000 and 805,000 You happen to be #2 in traffic!
You can assume the site above you gets more traffic and the sites below you get less.
Seems like you just proved my point.
I just won in overtime :)
williamc
01-17-2006, 08:57 PM
williamc Wrote:And it had virtually 50 hits a day before it got ranked. Of course it now has traffic as it is #2. But it did not have before then.
hmmm...
you were getting traffic before?? (where did you rank before, before??)
As I said, the site is 2.x months old. It did not rank at all before.
now you rank #2 but have traffic??
Thats a given, rankings bring traffic. Not the other way around.
seems like your traffic got you to #2
Incorrect. Proper optimization and relevant IBL's got it to #2. Google has no way of seeing inside my sites stats to determine what traffic I had. Google has also stated analytics data is not used in rankings, which by itself puts your theory in the trash bin. Further, if my traffic had got me to #2, then I would have never gotten there, as in #3 I had less traffic that the previous #2 site would have had.
plus you rank a very high 38,000 in Alexa which indicates you are getting a ton of traffic, which warrents you in a #2 slot. and according to Marketleap.com you have a ton of inbound links at over 7,800 seems like you are a traffic machine, Good Job!
I checked the other sites in google with your keywords and guess what?? the site above you has an Alexa ranking higher than you at 5,800 which is why it is #1 and the sites below you are 178,000 and 805,000 You happen to be #2 in traffic!
#1 hint: Alexa is worthless as far as their ratings go. The data is 100% skewed. Their rankigns come from only users using their toolbar which is a low figure. Not to mention that the figure is further skewed by the fact that it is mainly webmasters using the toolbar so that webmaster sites get better rankings comparatively. Basing anything on alexas data is setting yourself up for a large disapointment.
You can assume the site above you gets more traffic and the sites below you get less.
It is a known factor that the #1 serps gets the lions share of googles traffic, and that #3 gets proportionately less than #1 or #2. If google used click data for rankigns those serps would never change. When the site was #3 it got less traffic than #2, however it took #2 anyway.
Heads are good for other things than hat racks.
Seems like you just proved my point.
Sonds like some good Ganja.
I just won in overtime :)
Read above comment.
Once again, your theory holds no water and is not even remotely able to be intelligently defended.
hbonline
01-17-2006, 10:53 PM
You are going around in circles, I bet if your site was not getting the traffic it would not rank as high.
That's why it's a catch 22 you need traffic to get rankings, and the high rankings perpetuate your ranking in the search engine, by getting you traffic.
Like I said show me a site that has no traffic that ranks high. Yours is not an example of that. You get tons of traffic, and rank high that's the way it works.
If you think rankings in search engines are the only way of getting traffic your really trippin. You should be aware of that since you have 7800 inbound links if you get just one click from each of those sites a day you would be getting 234,000 visits a month! you don't need a high ranking to get traffic.
williamc
01-17-2006, 11:02 PM
Like I said show me a site that has no traffic that ranks high. Yours is not an example of that. You get tons of traffic, and rank high that's the way it works.
No, that is not the way it generally works.
The site I showed is an exact example of that. It went from no traffic and no rankings, to rankings. Period. It ranked before it had any real traffic. It really is that simple.
Your theory is worthless.
As for search engines being the only way to get traffic, I actually preach against that theory the same as you. However that is not what we were talking about. We were specifically talking about a site ranking with no traffic. ArticleSender did exactly that months ago. What it has NOW does not matter in the least. What mattered when it first started ranking did.
Also you obviously did not read the marketleap report very well, as the number 7800 is an aggregate total of links across all search engines that their service scans. That is not the actual number of links the site has.
hbonline. Please stop wasting people's time with silly statements and arguments about a site's traffic getting it ranked well. It only takes 2 or 3 brain cells to realise how silly that idea is.
Sorry to be so blunt, but I see no point in explaining something that is as plain and obvious as the proverbial nose on your face as that is, and silly ideas like that only serve to confuse poeple who really don't know about it.
Where on earth did anyone get the idea that without traffic you cannot get rankings????
Think about it for just 30 seconds - If the high ranking sites are getting virtually all the traffic and the high traffic sites are getting the rankings then the serps would never change and the rich would only get richer and new sites could never rank.
WilliamC has clearly shown that new sites can rank and of course once they rank they start getting traffic, but do not believe for one moment that Alexa is a true or even fair approximation of the amount of traffic a site really has.
TRAFFIC IS NOT NECESSARY FOR RANKINGS, BUT IT DOES COME WHEN YOU HAVE RANKINGS
janeth
01-18-2006, 07:03 AM
I'm going to build me a dating site.
Then I'm going to sit here and refresh my browser until it ranks #1 for dating.
Does anyone know how long this will take?
williamc
01-18-2006, 07:23 AM
I'm going to build me a dating site.
Then I'm going to sit here and refresh my browser until it ranks #1 for dating.
Does anyone know how long this will take?
Well, your finger would be rubbed down to the bone before it happened :P
aaron2005
01-18-2006, 06:40 PM
all joking aside, traffic does increase activity in the engines when people post comments in my blog. that is just one fraction of the whole pie. My new blog seobuzzbox shows no signs of sandbox and is competing well with the old boys.
BUT I got a pet site that is over a year old, I didn't see any movement until 11 months and it still has a long way to go. Huge competition in the pet market for sure and when you finally make it to #20 in Google you got a pile of very old sites whoring single pages ranking better than your entire god damn site dedicated to the freakin subject, follow me? ;)
Vaneth rocks!
williamc
01-18-2006, 10:20 PM
all joking aside, traffic does increase activity in the engines when people post comments in my blog.
Yes, but that is due to fresh content, which we know spiders like, not the traffic count itself. You could have exactly 3 visitors daily total who post a comment each and get the same effect.
williamc
01-20-2006, 02:23 AM
Hoptoo exactly.
all joking aside, traffic does increase activity in the engines when people post comments in my blog.
What sort of "activity in the engines" occurs when someone posts in your blog?
off-topic:
I'm curious. Why would someone who openly admits to knowing nothing about seo, and who openly states that SEOs are bad, start a website called "seobuzzbox"?
wow! WPW is getting posts from the future!!! This is a huge leap forward in forum technology, and we must make sure that we take advantage of everything that's posted from the future :)
I'm refering to hoptoo's post at the end of this thread ;)
ctabuk
01-20-2006, 06:01 AM
I'm going to build me a dating site.
Then I'm going to sit here and refresh my browser until it ranks #1 for dating.
Does anyone know how long this will take?
With your pic, I would say about a week.
OH this is weird, well spotted SPC2 Hoptoo post is in a time warp, it keeps going last. I'll ask Admin
frogmanandy
01-22-2006, 02:30 PM
You know william c, in the google patent application there was some talk about traffic, it seemed as if they were saying that if your page searches highly but people don't click, then you could be penalized
or at least that's how I read it
freehits
01-23-2006, 10:00 AM
Seeing all the articles and ways that Alexa is cheated or faked I dont see the common sense in google or yahoo caring about what alexa says.
Seems like using an outdated stat to run their more modern search engines, and makes no sense.
Perhaps next a 'coal burning' space shuttle?
http://www.alexasurf.com/
http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/downloads/fake_alexa_rank_info/
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=48518
greeneagle
01-23-2006, 03:37 PM
petorchard,
The boys and girls don't always play as nice as they could here.
Unless I am wrong they are saying that with only 2 links in GOOGLE (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-50,GGLD:en&q=link%3Awww%2Epetorchard%2Ecom) and only 12 in MSN (http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=link%3Awww.petorchard.com&FORM=MSNH&srch_type=0), that you are barely on the map.
You are going to have to get down to some serious SEO and SEM to be competitive in the Pet Website arena. You have a ways to go.
You may want to visit the links in my Signature below for some advice and direction in promoting your Site against the stiff competition you are up against.
Best Wishes in your endeavors,
Ken
DrTandem1
02-19-2006, 08:26 AM
#2 for a while, then buried forever. Then again, that's what you're suppose to do with #2.
pemburung
02-20-2006, 05:37 PM
Maybe we could run a book on what date is going to appear on the next post in this thread.
pemburung
02-20-2006, 06:23 PM
There may be some confusion between Google traffic, which may affect rankings:
Quote:
"[Google] may monitor the number of times that a document is selected from a set of search results and/or the amount of time one or more users spend accessing the document. [Google] may then score the document based, at least in part, on this information."
And site traffic itself.
Portucuenta
08-17-2007, 09:07 PM
Seeing all the articles and ways that Alexa is cheated or faked I dont see the common sense in google or yahoo caring about what alexa says.
Seems like using an outdated stat to run their more modern search engines, and makes no sense.
Perhaps next a 'coal burning' space shuttle?
http://www.alexasurf.com/
Fake alexa rank section at Free Download Manager (http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/downloads/fake_alexa_rank_info/)
What's the point of Alexa, exactly? Serious question. (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=48518)
add AlexaSEO - Best way to improve your Alexa Rank (http://www.alexaseo.com) to that list
bart0r
08-20-2007, 11:14 AM
I'm going to build me a dating site.
Then I'm going to sit here and refresh my browser until it ranks #1 for dating.
Does anyone know how long this will take?
IF this was true, surely you've got to go via a link from google SE, and not just direct onto the site itself?
incrediblehelp
08-20-2007, 08:44 PM
Well I am not getting this website to work:
petorchard.com
Have you had a chance to look over these links:
Search Engine Marketing For Newbies - Jaan’s Search Marketing Blog - Toledo, Ohio (http://www.jaankanellis.com/search-engine-marketing-for-newbies/)
Link Baiting and Social Media Optimization, Huh? - Jaan’s Search Marketing Blog - Toledo, Ohio (http://www.jaankanellis.com/link-baiting-and-social-media-optimization-huh/)
As said before you really need to start a linking campaign.