Web Page disappeared from Google [Archive]

dbryson

01-09-2008, 12:44 PM

crankydave

01-09-2008, 02:01 PM

First of all, the site is still listed in Google...

info:http://conniebrysonstudio.com/ - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GFRC_enUS219US219&q=info%3ahttp%3a%2f%2fconniebrysonstudio%2ecom%2f)

What I'm seeing is a possible canonical problem.

When you follow the link above, notice that your URL for the home page does not have the www. Also, you're using the /index.html link on the site for the "home" link. You'll want to change that link to Connie Bryson (http://www.conniebrysonstudio.com). Also make sure you are consistant throughout the site by using the www. on all of your internal links if you are not.

I'd also check with your hosting company about adding a 301 redirect from the URL without the www. to the one with the www.

Eventually, Google sorts this out assigning value to one or the other, but it's a good idea to check on the 301.

If you're not able to get a 301 put in place, you can specify to Google in their webmaster control panel which URL you prefer. This will help take care of the problem with them.

Dave

dbryson

01-09-2008, 02:17 PM

Dave,

I truly appreciate the quick response. I will take care of the www

I do have a question about the index.html and this is where I get confused. When I'm in the Dreamweaver program it tells me that the name of the homepage needs to have the index in it. How do I change that to the Connie Bryson (http://www.conniebrysonstudio.com)?

Thank you again,

Sincerely,

David

incrediblehelp

01-09-2008, 02:23 PM

I dont think you should expect a web page to rank for a keyword when you have little or no content on it. Also do you have backlinks with anchor text containing the keyword "Connie Bryson"? if not you need some. Here are some helpful links:

Search Engine Marketing For Newbies - Jaan’s Search Marketing and SEO Blog from Cincinnati, Ohio (http://www.jaankanellis.com/search-engine-marketing-for-newbies/)

crankydave

01-09-2008, 03:27 PM

You may have to go into the html view itself to change the individual links. You could also create your own home link instead of using the one in the template. I'm not familiar enough with Dreamweaver to know exactly how.

Dave

marci11

01-09-2008, 05:50 PM

FYI, I just found the keywords Connie Bryson at #846 of Google by using this helpful tool online: Google Rank checker Rank Finder Position checker Google Position Checker (http://www.searchenginegenie.com/google-rank-checker.html)

Plus, sometimes things just fluctuate a ton with Google. That's what I've noticed anyway. :)

mvandemar

01-09-2008, 05:54 PM

Just so you know, this actually appears to be a recurring glitch with Google. If you ranked before, and disappeared today then I would be much more inclined to attribute it to that glitch than to anything you did (or could fix).

You can read some discussion about it over here at SEORefugee:

To wait or to do something (lost rankings) - Search Engine Optimization Forum - SEO Refugee (http://www.seorefugee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8023)

It's an issue I noticed 2 years ago that comes and goes with certain sites with no discernible pattern. Sometimes searching with the &filter=0 parameter will show you back at #1 again (although with this go around that does not seem to be the case). I mentioned it to Matt Cutts last summer, when that time the glitch affected his blog, but only when using Google Blog Search:

http://sphinn.com/story/3921

They fixed that one instance, but ignored the rest of the times the glitch happens.

-Michael

BigOakSEO

01-09-2008, 06:00 PM

I agree this probably has nothing to do with anything you have done or not done. The competition for your name has to be very low and the fact you have a website with your name as the domain name should be showing you at the top of Google. Give it some time and you'll be fine.

As for the dreamweaver issue...if you put a "/" without the quotes that will always direct you to the root of the web, which means your domain name without the index.html. So in the link box simple put the / in the box for any links pointing to the home page. Alternatively you can put the full url: http://www.conniebrysonstudio.com in place of the index.html and that will work too.

That will take care of your internal links pointing to more than one place.

Big Juice

01-09-2008, 06:06 PM

I can't imagine that the second set of meta tags is helping you at all.

For the www. issue, it is easier to go to google and set upi your webmaster account and use their system for dealing with the canonical issue.

Set up the xml site map and add some content to the pages. The art work is fine but you need to add some text as well.

Spend some time by doing some free HTML tutorials like the kind you can find at webmonkey.com and then redesign the site. When adding text to your site it is important to remember that readers do not suufer eye strain as much when it is black text on a white background. Any color text on a black background could cause your readers/viewers to leave the site.

Add some ALT tags to your images and don't stuff them with keywords. If you don't know how to do those here is a sample of your code that has been edited to include the ALT tag.

Original
<img src="Topanga Canyon 36x48 1.jpg" alt="TC8" width="450" height="337" />

Edited
<img src="Topanga Canyon 36x48 1.jpg" alt="Topanga Canyon - Valley View" width="450" height="337" />

Once you have set up your Google webmaster account make sure that you opt in to the enhanced image search option. Your wife is in the business of displaying her images so it makes sense that you get traffic from image searches.

To get links for your site you might want to consider adding a section to your site where you offer some free advice on painting. If you give some free advice away others may link to your site which is always helpful in terms of search engine ranking.

To monitize the site you may want to consider adding some affiliate accounts for art supplies.

Above all else just keep in mind that if you take care of your site in terms of pleasing humans search engines will eventually show you some love.

God luck and have fun learning about the inner workings of the Internet.

redspace

01-09-2008, 06:07 PM

Check your html code. I believe you've got it wrong. I suppose you are doing something wrong while cut and paste. Take out the meta verify tag once you have done verifying.

Stephen Landman

01-09-2008, 06:07 PM

The main thing that the site lacks is incoming links. You should acquire some non-reciprocal incoming links. List your site on art directories and business directories.

The page has two <title> tags. It's conceivable that Google may impose a penalty for that, but I don't really know if they do.

The page could use more meaningful text which includes important keywords. The keyword meta tags aren't very effective, but unless those words are also readable on the page, the meta tags are entirely ineffective.

Also I'd suggest that you encrypt your email address, to get rid of the mailto: link. The spammers will harvest your email address if you have an unencrypted mailto: link in the code, and your inbox will be flooded with junk.

Stephen Landman
Egret.net Web Design for businesses, located in Louisville Kentucky (http://egret.net)

G[dot]com

01-09-2008, 06:11 PM

I second mvandemar and bigoakseo on this... none of the fixes suggested above sounds logical to implement for the sake of your problem alone when, to begin with, your site worked correctly so far in the past having exactly the same constitution.

Now, if you forgot to mention any changes you might hve done to it in between, please let us know.

I would go for Google WebmasterTools, and "help" google rediscover your site again. And at the same time it will let you do a follow up of the progress. Just that.

Good luck!

David Pearson

01-09-2008, 06:12 PM

I dont think you should expect a web page to rank for a keyword when you have little or no content on it.

I believe this is very relevant .... your bio page contains just the sort of text that should be on the front page, but use her full name, maybe one more time, not just "Connie's".

Then look to add content to the whole site ... Write up a full bio, this is your wife dude, there is more that could be said ... LOL ... just be nice.

On the Articles page, put the articles, or links to the articles ... Also looking at the links to various art sites, I see that at least one (I only checked one) stocks Connie's art, so change the link to go to her work (and say so) ... ie. .... www .artcheckout. com/PictureGroup.asp?SearchString=Connie+Bryson ... instead of just .... www .artcheckout. com ....

From a viewabillity point the visited links as dark blue against a black background is not good.

Ohhh, and your links out should have TARGET=BLANK in them, in the html view, then the links open in a new window, so people never loose your site if they do for example start exploring ..... www .artcheckout. com

I would also suggest at least "watermarking" the images such as this one .... www .conniebrysonstudio. com/B2.html]Connie Bryson ... or preferably saving it at a lower resolution suitable for monitors but not just printing off.

Cheers .... David
David Pearson is Mister Balloons - Balloon Twister, Compere/MC, Spruiker. - AUSTRALIA (http://www.misterballoons.com.au)
Green Living Australia (http://www.greenlivingaustralia.com.au)

AAARRRGGHH .... This post has been edited by the forum itself ... I was trying to just put the URL's I was reffering to, without the [url] tags and descriptives ... ooh ... hate that ... hey mods, any tips on how I can prevent the descriptors, and just post the URL (without putting in spaces)

suzstephens

01-09-2008, 06:12 PM

You have title, description and keyword meta tags misplaced down near the bottom of the page. Title and description tags are very important to SEO. They should be in the head section of your document, and you should have only one of each tag, not duplicates.

dbryson

01-09-2008, 06:28 PM

I want to thank everybody for their comments, I truly appreciate it! I will do the best I can to implement all of these suggestions.

And in response to an above reply I had not made any changes to the site within the last two weeks, the last changes I made we're at the end of October or early November.

I also tried to incorporate more content other than just paintings into the website in an area called Connie's Corner - her blog, I know it's not a true blog but it was an attempt at incorporating content.

Thank you again to everyone who replied.

David

Kate Lennon

01-09-2008, 06:40 PM

First off, the pictures are great. The site is crap. Get a proper website.
Second, what's the use of being found on Google for "Connie Bryson"? Anyone who knows who she is will remember the URL.
You need to be found for terms like "original paintings", "watercolours", "oil paintings" or whatever.
Third - what a waste of a title. "Connie Bryson". Why not extend the title to include some key terms? "Original oil paintings, prints and posters by Connie Bryson," or something along those lines.
Fourth - you could also add a bit to your Meta description. Google may not read it, but other search engines do.
Fifth, couldn't find your site on Google. That happens, and not always for any particular reason (though you should think about possible reasons - did you break any of Google's precious rules? Add it again.
Sixth, add some content to the site.
Did I mention that you need to get a professional to redesign your website?

Rose!

01-09-2008, 06:58 PM

I am sorry, Kate, but you are just rude. I had thought that the internet was a place where people could express their attempts at creativity, a place where help was available, and individuality is prized. Your statement, even if true is rude, arrogant and troubling in a forum such as this. This person wants help and ideas, not rudeness and criticism right out of the chute. the ideas you suggest may be good, but darn, what is with the attitude? Maybe he can't afford a "professional" but then if professionals are like you, I would do my own as well.

David, persevere. Just realize that not eveyone can be number 1 in google results, and also realize that if you do not have $100,000.00 per year to spend in adsense and on google advertising to start, you will be relegated to at least page four or five regardless of the "professional appearance" of your site. For the most part, the hints above are all good, they will help, but remember, Google is an entity focused on making money, not on delivering good results.

Follow the good suggestions, yoi have a number to sowrk with here, and remember, there are probably BILLIONS of sites on the web now, and not all of them cam be number 1. Keep up the good work, and good luck.

Sincerely,
Rose!~
Romance at Heart Magazine: Romantic Novel News, Book Reviews and Author Interviews (http://romanceatheart.com/)

mvandemar

01-09-2008, 07:04 PM

And in response to an above reply I had not made any changes to the site within the last two weeks, the last changes I made we're at the end of October or early November.

Just to verify, the rankings dropped today or yesterday, correct?

-Michael

crankydave

01-09-2008, 07:16 PM

There have been some very good suggestions in this thread.

I for one, would not be so quick to attribute the problem to a "glitch" and take a wait and see attitude.

Now, I don't know what canonical version of the URL was ranking but what I do know is that version with the www. and the index.html version is not even indexed at the moment.

Since Google is showing that they have internal indexed pages for both the www. version and the non www. version that's a clear sign that they have not "assigned" one or the other as the "preferred" domain. Possibly because there's not a lot of links. This can easily cause the problem.

It's simply not a good idea to leave it up to them to figure out if you don't have to.

Dave

crankydave

01-09-2008, 07:19 PM

Just to verify, the rankings dropped today or yesterday, correct?

-Michael

From the original post..

I typed in "Connie Bryson" about two weeks ago and it was like her page had vanished completely from Google.

Dave

schachin

01-09-2008, 07:27 PM

Hello -
Here are some things you can do -
1) use a proper meta description tag with kw's
2) get backlinks
3) add a paragraph of kw optimized text at the top of the site
4) make your title tag more relevant
5) make sure you have submitted a sitemap to google sitemaps
(easy to do and google gives you assistance in how)
6) when in sitemaps get your proper verify key and remove whatever ones there are extra
7) remove the extra keyword meta tag - you can only have one of each (one description, one keyword etc)
8) put your meta tags in the proper place (style should go under those)
9) use more text on your pages with absolute links and kw related anchor text
10) add descriptive alt and title tags to each image (look up matt cutts and image tags for a good video on how to do this properly)
11) start a blog and link to your site
12) take the spaces out of your file and image file names (the %20 indicates the space)
13) make sure your page names are keyword descriptive and not abbreviations
14) Not a bad idea to get an web designer to clean-up the code though not vital
15) read up on basic SEO techniques and Google Webmaster guidelines.. that will help you get all these basics correct..

good luck with the site!!!
smiles!

jonisolis

01-09-2008, 09:54 PM

Have your artist wife go to Smartist-telesummit .com site
and listen to the two free audios for some marketing tips for artists.

What do successful artists do
smARTist™ Telesummit 2008 (http://www.smartist-telesummit.com/2008)

Audio on this page too:
smARTist™ Telesummit : smARTist™ Telesummit 2008 (http://www.smartist-telesummit.com/2008/PreEvent)

I don't have anything to do with this site and I don't make any money sending people there.
I am just an artist that found the audios helpful.

Kate Lennon

01-09-2008, 09:59 PM

Rose,
Not my intention to be rude, just wrote in a hurry, as I was on my way out. However, I think I was more blunt/direct than rude, and that's a different thing altogether. I say what I think; and, correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't this supposed to be a forum for professional webmasters? In which case it should be possible to discuss these issues in a forthright manner, without having to worry about offending anyone's sensibilities. The design of the site is abysmal; that's just my honest opinion. The paintings themselves are very good, and deserve a better website. He's not doing the artist any favours by trying to promote them on an amateurish website like that. A professional website - or at least a more professional-looking website - doesn't cost much these days.
The rest of my advice stands, especially re expanding the title. The title (imo - others here will disagree, I know) is the second most important factor in getting found in searches (after the domain name). Merely titling the site "Connie Bryson", when he could add another six or seven keywords, is a wasted opportunity. In addition, Connie Bryson is a famous name in the world of jazz, so there's a possibility of confusion, especially as the word "studio" (in the domain name) could also refer to a recording studio.

jonisolis

01-09-2008, 10:12 PM

She may also enjoy checking out this artist site: intricateart.com
Her site is based on the blog program wordpress. She also designs
custom wordpress business bogs for artist and others.

also...
artist market Painter's MarketPlace (http://paintersmarketplace.blogspot.com)

Connie's art is very good. I wish you and her luck with her site.

scanmonkey

01-10-2008, 01:03 AM

Incredible's suggestion to get some backlinks with "Connie Bryson" in the anchor text is on the money.

You can get links from bookmarking in sites like digg, propeller, stumble, plugim etc, , articles, press releases, free directories, and posting in art related forums or blogs.

simonmohr

01-10-2008, 04:28 AM

Hi David

Personally I don't think the design is a problem - Google isn't interested in design and the 'look' will not affect the rankings. I can't imagine a potential buyer, or someone who has an interest in Connie's paintings being put off by the design of the site. I think its quite charming.

Kate - Rose is quite right - you are rude. David is looking for SEO advice and to start your post with "First off, the pictures are great. The site is crap. Get a proper website" has no relevance to the question at all.

David - can I recommend another site where Connie might want to display her lovely paintings? MyArtProfile.com (http://www.myartprofile.com) is a free site for artists and gets a fairly good amount of traffic. The site is young but growing all the time and there's a really good community of English speaking international artists (from over 70 countries) to engage with.

All the best
Simon

davidweb

01-10-2008, 04:54 AM

Hi,

I want to thank you in advance for responding to this, I truly appreciate it. I just want to mention that I am not a professional programmer and I designed this web page in Dreamweaver. If you do respond please do so in the simplest terms possible. My wife is an artist and we designed a web site, Connie Bryson (http://www.conniebrysonstudio.com) on which to display her art. We published it to the web in May or June of 2006. By April or May of 2007 if you typed in "Connie Bryson" on Google her page had risen "organically" or "naturally" to the first page of search results. By September she was #1 on the search results. I typed in "Connie Bryson" about two weeks ago and it was like her page had vanished completely from Google. I searched 27 pages of Goggle results and could not find her site. She was still #1 on Yahoo, but had completely disappeared on Google. Any thoughts on what happenned to her site and how I can re-list her site on Google would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again,

David

When we checked your html source code, we observed two keyword tags as :-

<meta name="Keywords" content="art, Connie Bryson, Oil Painting, Posters, realism, still-life, painting " />
<meta name="Keywords" content="Connie, Bryson" />

This could have led to removal of your website. keywords is a critical meta tag, and google/yahoo does not allow two meta keywords tags at the same time.

Remove second keywords tag, and i am sure it will be beneficial for this website.

Moreover the HTML CODING OF YOUR PAGE IS AS GIVEN BELOW :-

<META name="verify-v1" content="xXSCQ32O60dyqpWUg1XBN83ATOGzx197VuaQRrgr3wE=" /> -> REMOVE THIS
<META name="verify-v1" content="Wb/EXwi6ZFCOA6lz9c6C5f+4yMDs4HDp3CSlSaLPRtU=" /> -> REMOVE THIS
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
<title>Connie Bryson </title>
<style type="text/css"> - -> MOVE THIS BELOW KEYWORDS META TAG

</style>
<meta name="Description" content="Home of Connie Bryson's Original Oil Paintings" />
<meta name="Keywords" content="art, Connie Bryson, Oil Painting, Posters, realism, still-life, painting " />
<meta name="Keywords" content="Connie, Bryson" /> --> DUPLICATE KEYWORD META TAG, REMOVE THIS

I am sure your rankings will restore, once you carry above changes.

Here comes David Web for David Bryson :)

Rjlintl

01-10-2008, 05:31 AM

It would also be very helpful if you place the following information below
at the top of the page where it goes.
<title>connie bryson studio, top quality oil paintings, landscapes, cityscapes,art, </title>

<meta name="description" content="top published artist">

<meta name="keywords" content="art,
oil paintings,
oil painting,
landscape oil painting,
original oil painting,
oil painting reproduction,
art graceful oil painting,
adamson artist oil painting,
seashore oil painting,
portrait,
oil painting for sale,
oil painting technique,
custom oil painting,
abstract oil painting,
oil painting,
artist,
oil painting from photo,
buy oil painting,
wholesale oil painting,
animal oil painting
">
Search engines only scroll so far for information on the site and if it isn't easy for them to find they move on. Plus it has been my experience for over 10 years that you need something on the first page besides just photos.
Hope this helps
Doubtful

PumaSpirit

01-10-2008, 05:57 AM

Rose,
Not my intention to be rude, just wrote in a hurry, as I was on my way out. However, I think I was more blunt/direct than rude, and that's a different thing altogether. I say what I think; and, correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't this supposed to be a forum for professional webmasters? In which case it should be possible to discuss these issues in a forthright manner, without having to worry about offending anyone's sensibilities. The design of the site is abysmal; that's just my honest opinion. The paintings themselves are very good, and deserve a better website. He's not doing the artist any favours by trying to promote them on an amateurish website like that. A professional website - or at least a more professional-looking website - doesn't cost much these days.

You were not rude at all, Kate, and made some valid points. The site is anything but professional and the request was for help, not pacification.

I would also place more text on the site. If you don't know what to write about... Every painting is a good opportunity because it can help create good content with its descriptions. As we all know, search engines like text not pictures. While re-designing the site I would also, as suggested above, look for a more appropriate domain name which includes at least one good keyword. Having your own name as a domain name may be good for your ego, but a well chosen domain name can get you much further in the SE game.

ShaunParkerHP

01-10-2008, 05:59 AM

I have to say there is some interesting concepts here,

first of all I think the problem is covered in the first post by Cranky D,

The following posts are a good mixture of helpful advice, one ore two blunt observations and some misconceptions. This post starts of in reference to a specific term which is not competitive.

If the search term was more competitive or the site was specifically targeting some generic industry keywords then I guess it would need to be improved with many of the suggestions and perhaps even the structure and architecture itself would need improvement.

However whilst it may be good business practice for a website to target a broader set of terms the post is asking about a specific problem. This I do not see as a 'glitch' and I do see as an issue, it does not make any sense to just sit around assuming it is a glitch though that is simple bad advice.

Fix the issues Dave referenced, then when you get time improve the site using the helpful advice in the thread, from a business perspective if you want to sell to a wider audience or get a higher profile for the artist you have to determine what your target market is and then do the keyword research, once this is done apply the findings to the site using the info above to direct you.

One point that is important is whether this is what you want, if not then get your listing back by applying the fixes and also get a few new inbound links to the site using the target term as the anchor text (link text).

sitipedia

01-10-2008, 06:49 AM

We (all of us from internet industry), shopuld take care with google mouves, and move with it.
We do not have other oprtions.
We just talk but he is mouving.

ShaunParkerHP

01-10-2008, 07:04 AM

How to make things better in 60 minutes:

1. Tidy up the HTML (remove double headers, keywords etc.) - Google may penalise you for this
2. Add text to the homepage containing relevant keywords
3. Change the home link to point to Connie Bryson (http://www.conniebrysonstudio.com/)
4. Create an entry in Google sitemaps

And then try and get links to your site from other relevant sites (e.g. Artists, Californian Artists etc.)

Hope this helps,

Tim
Marshall amps (http://www.theibanezstore.com/index.php?cPath=180)

Also sort out tha Canonical issue and the 301.

Peter (IMC)

01-10-2008, 07:32 AM

I'll be very blunt.... Ignore all the code advices above and leave the site as it is and ask some people you know to set up a link in their blog or website with your wife's name in the link text. You just need a couple of them. Then just wait and see what happens.

The code advice above is good advice by the way, but they´re not the cause of the problem. So work on those things after you got the links.

The advice about more content is definitely good as well. Your wife probably has a story to tell about every painting she ever did. (A good artist should have that and judging by what I saw in your website, she is a good artist.) So she should write these stories down and then you can add them to each painting page in the site.

Another thing: She did so much work and the quality is at such a level, you should consider redoing the site on the same level by hiring a company to do it. It doesn't make sense that quality art is presented so poorly. (don't allow a designer to use flash, just html is all that's necessary.)

Another important factor. You chose black as the background. A poor choice in my opinion. You´re not presenting jewelry or games. The site should have the look and feel of an art galery.

ShaunParkerHP

01-10-2008, 08:19 AM

Kate Lennon

01-10-2008, 10:00 AM

"Kate - Rose is quite right - you are rude. David is looking for SEO advice and to start your post with "First off, the pictures are great. The site is crap. Get a proper website" has no relevance to the question at all."

Sorry, Simon, but I don't agree. Years ago the web was awash with home-made websites like this: plain black background, poor layout and design, untitled links and images etc. How often do sites like this turn up in Google search results now? Hardly ever. And that's because Google and other search engines have learned how to identify sites like this and push them down in their search results (or exclude them altogether). There are numerous indicators of the quality of websites that are detectable and measurable to search engines. Google wants its searches to display professional, well-designed websites. This makes sense commercially both because it gives Google users a positive and enjoyable "search experience", and because it is in Google's interests to promote websites compatible with the Google's objective of turning the web into a global business directory (ie, websites that have the potential to generate revenue for Google, either by paying for sponsored listings or by carrying Google ads).
The bottom line is that very badly designed websites rarely if ever turn up in search results, while professionally designed sites increasingly dominate the first pages of search results.
Far from having no relevance, "Get a proper website" is the best advice David is going to get here, blunt as it may be. Apart from the fact that search engines like Google discriminate against amateurish websites, the appearance of this site can only reflect badly on the product being sold (the paintings), and have a detrimental effect on the credibility of the artist. Appearances matter; and I would have thought they mattered more in the world of art and design than in any other field. Finally, most people are very reluctant to send money to online businesses whose websites are not professional in appearance; and these days people know the difference.

dmeakings

01-10-2008, 10:44 AM

I agree this probably has nothing to do with anything you have done or not done. The competition for your name has to be very low and the fact you have a website with your name as the domain name should be showing you at the top of Google. Give it some time and you'll be fine.

As for the dreamweaver issue...if you put a "/" without the quotes that will always direct you to the root of the web, which means your domain name without the index.html. So in the link box simple put the / in the box for any links pointing to the home page. Alternatively you can put the full url: Connie Bryson (http://www.conniebrysonstudio.com) in place of the index.html and that will work too.

That will take care of your internal links pointing to more than one place.

I read today in google's webmaster tools help section that it's always best to use the full page: http://www.thedomain.com rather than a slash (/) or even page name (index.html, about.html)

dbryson

01-10-2008, 12:44 PM

I want to once again thank everybody for their comments, suggestions, help, code that you have sent me, revised web pages that you have sent me. This outpouring is all quite helpful and most unexpected. I wish I had time to respond to each and every one of you personally and thank you, I really do.

Sincerely,

David

ezdropshipper_webmaster

01-10-2008, 01:46 PM

You're welcome for the help!
All of us were "newbies" once upon a time, and I try to "pass forward" the help I got back then.

As I told you, I've never been too impressed with the code I've seen Dreamweaver generate; it's messy, bloated, and hard to work with. Only "save as html" in Microsoft Word does a worse job.

NVU is, as far as I'm concerned, a much better DTP editor, even tho it's a bit slow running for my taste.
Nvu - The Complete Web Authoring System for Linux, Macintosh and Windows (http://www.nvudev.com/index.php) (free program)

It's _always_ a good idea to at least learn the basics of hand-coding HTML so you can go back and improve what the WYSIWHG editor generates.
W3Schools Online Web Tutorials (http://www.w3schools.com) has a pile of GOOD tutorials on a lot of web languages. Highly recommended.

Peter (IMC)

01-10-2008, 02:35 PM

The site is getting spidered in non www format so it does not make sense to just leave it it also had at least one link to non www with the Connie Bryson anchor text. why just leave it and be lazy.

Thats the trouble with large sectors of this industry they look at reasons to not do something rather that reasons to do it.

The trouble with large sectors of this industry is that they charge a sh*t load of money for things that are not really necessary. Why do so many SEO's focus only on the code of a website? You really think that's all that Google and other engines are interested in? Most SEO's have technical backgrounds and know only that part of a website and therefore they'll focus on the technical factors.

Not a waste of time, but if you analize a site and find that the technical factors are not the cause of the problem then it's just unethical to focus on that. But then again, unethical is only unethical if you realize that the problem in this site is not related to the code.

The code work is optimization, but that's hardly a problem if a site has no backlinks. (if you don't understand you'll need to study more about how search engines create search results.)

crankydave

01-10-2008, 03:13 PM

The trouble with large sectors of this industry is that they charge a sh*t load of money for things that are not really necessary. Why do so many SEO's focus only on the code of a website? You really think that's all that Google and other engines are interested in? Most SEO's have technical backgrounds and know only that part of a website and therefore they'll focus on the technical factors.

Not a waste of time, but if you analize a site and find that the technical factors are not the cause of the problem then it's just unethical to focus on that. But then again, unethical is only unethical if you realize that the problem in this site is not related to the code.

The code work is optimization, but that's hardly a problem if a site has no backlinks. (if you don't understand you'll need to study more about how search engines create search results.)

Canonical problems problems are and/or can be an issue. It's not a matter of whether or not they're "neccessary". Some folks are content to take a "wait and see" approach, or a "wait until Google figures it out" approach.

Since Google has issues with these kind of things and there's a very easy way anyone without a technical background to be able to remedy it then neither approach makes sense.

Fact is, the site had plenty of links to rank #1 for 4 months and then dropped to #846.

Which URL ranked #1 for that time Peter? You don't know and I don't know. Was the www. version of the URL just deindexed in favor of the non www. version? We don't know that either.

But what we do know is that Google treats those URL's as different sites. We also know that there are and have been indexed links pointing to the www. version and THAT version is not in the index. What we do know is that Google has not "assigned" a preferred URL since pages for both are currently indexed.

You want to wait for Google to pick one of the 3 or more? Be my guest.

But when a member asks, pointing out that this is a problem IS the right thing to do. Ethics have nothing to do with it Peter.

Google has had and still has a problem with canonical versions of a URL. You think they added the abilty to the webmaster console to tell them which one to use for shi*** and giggles?

WHY did the site disappear Peter. That is what David asked.

Dave

Peter (IMC)

01-10-2008, 04:35 PM

Fact is, the site had plenty of links to rank #1 for 4 months and then dropped to #846.

WHY did the site disappear Peter. That is what David asked.

Looking at a problem requires to look at the whole picture, including what we know about search engines, in this case Google. This site never had any more backlinks than it has now and did not rank #1 for 4 months because of backlinks.

New websites get indexed and rank well because Google doesn't use historical factors yet to rank the site. Nor does it really use PR in the beginning. They can't use those factors because they simply don't have enough information on them. They require a time to gather that information. Once that time has passed that info is used. That's when you will see the site drop like a stone. We used to call it the sand box. That name nobody wants to use anymore, but the behaviour, that is caused by the historical ranking algorithms, still exists.

This site lost positions in Google because of it's history. And even if it had more backlinks, still the same thing could have happened. The only way to resolve this problem is to promote the site. That doesn't mean a massive link building campaign, but simply going after some related sites and ask them if they could link to the site. Adding some attractive content would help to give the other sites a reason to link to it.

For example, maybe his wife got mentioned in the press somewhere. Great to write about in their site and let some related blogs or sites know so they can tell about it.

All the code changes in the world won't get the site back. What it needs now is a couple of backlinks. Just to get the site interesting again for Google.

So to be clear, all the suggested code work is not bad, but it doesn't solve the problem they have now. The problem is related to how well the site is known and obviously it doesn't have the recognition that it should have.

crankydave

01-10-2008, 05:05 PM

Peter, sites that are published in 2006, rise to the first page in April/May 2007, then rank #1 for 4 months don't drop to #846 overnight because of "history". Something happened.

While promotion is always a good idea, lack of it and history is not what caused the site to drop that.

Dave

crankydave

01-10-2008, 05:23 PM

An additional question for David. Hope you're still here. :)

Is your wife the same Connie Bryson I see all the prints for?

Dave

haselhurst

01-10-2008, 05:45 PM

Hi everyone,
I just wanted to congratulate webproworld (all of you) who give your time and knowledge to help.
I read a few posts each week (though I do not contribute much) so I appreciate all your thoughts.
Good on you - hope you are proud of yourselves!
Cheers,
Geoff

scanmonkey

01-10-2008, 07:58 PM

Fixing the canonical issues should be #1 on the list as cranky Dave pointed out. It shouldn't take more than a couple of mintues to fix.

Peter (IMC)

01-10-2008, 08:28 PM

scanmonkey

01-11-2008, 01:05 AM

It may not be a canonical problem but it makes sense to take care of it.

The Hack

01-11-2008, 01:31 AM

I think everyone that has posted to this topic has some valid points from Site design to meta tags to relevalnt text whether they were blunt or not. Everyone is entiled to thier own opinion.

I know your original post was inquiring on why your listing dropped out of google. Personally, I think it is because the sites that currently come up when searching for Connie Bryson, have more relevant links, code and better position due to more content.

I could put in my two cents worth for design and code, but I am more of a visual person. I have taken some time and would like to provide you with a working example at: Califonia Artist Connie Bryson's Art Studio (http://www.open247.ca/client/cbtest/index.html)

I have cleaned up the code, (not pefect but this is just a quick example for code and design) and provided a hopefully a more visually pleasing layout as an example to showcase your wifes incredible art. What she does is amazing.

I am not trying to make a sale. I would sooner trade for a painting. I too had to start at the beginning, but working examples definately helped me.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

The Hack

Kate Lennon

01-11-2008, 12:28 PM

Ron,
That's a very good sample site you put together. A big improvement on the original site. Personally, I would go more for a white or off-white background. Also, I would use the term "original oil paintings" in the title - eg, "Original oil paintings by artist Connie Bryson", or "Connie Bryson Art Studio - Original oil paintings and prints". I would even add "Commissions accepted", if the artist does in fact accept commissions. Google displays up to 65 characters of a site's title, so why not use them?
People who buy paintings do so for one of two reasons: they want a painting for their home (usually when they've redecorated or moved into a new house), or they are collectors, who buy paintings partly or entirely as an investment. Whatever their reasons, the most likely search terms they use are going to include "painting" or "paintings", "original", "oil". and "art". They are far less likely to use terms like "studio" or "California", so these words in the title would only dilute the search results.

jxw

01-14-2008, 10:50 AM

Peter (IMC)

01-14-2008, 11:10 AM

but sometimes a site just drops out for a week or two and then reappears in its old spot.

That's the historical data algorithms at work. Sometimes you´re outside of the limits and then you´re back in. In this case a couple of new backlinks will keep you inside. It's a very indirect cause and result thingy... which makes it hard to accept that it really works like that... ;)

crankydave

01-14-2008, 06:45 PM

David,

Don't know what you did since I looked at this thread last week, but this morning Connie Bryson is #3 on page 1 for my Google search here in Bucks County PA. You received a lot of good advice here, but sometimes a site just drops out for a week or two and then reappears in its old spot. A lot of theories about this on other threads but no one seems to know for sure.

I noticed it over the weekend at #2 and an indented result at #3. Still there.

When I first checked the site, using the info: site: and cache: operators for the URL with the www. Google returned nothing for all 3.

If you check the canonical version of URL using the www. today using those operators, each of them return the URL without the www.

What does this mean?

It likely means that a preferred version of the URL has been assigned and that any "value" is now being attributed to the non www. version of the URL.

Many times when this kind of thing happens, and quite likely in this particular instance IMO, is that Google had more than 1 canonical version of the URL indexed. At least one in the RI and the other(s) either in the SI or being filtered.

Eventually, and sometimes this can take a very long time, Google gets around to "assigning" a preferred canonical URL when there are multiple versions. When this happens, the other URL's are deindexed. Unfortunately, sometimes the version of the URL they decide is going to be the preferred one is one that is being filtered or not the one you want.

The "value" of the URL's that are deindexed (ie any links etc.) does not "immediately" pass to the URL that has been "deemed preferred". I does take a bit of time just like 301 redirects do.

This is why it's importantant from the onset of any site, to establish the preferred version of the URL yourself, be consistant with that URL, and redirect any others.

Hope this makes sense.

Dave

mvandemar

01-14-2008, 11:37 PM

Actually, CrankyDave, since the site I referred to in my post also returned this weekend then it is much more likely that yet again it is merely an algo tweak, and this one with the bug not being there, and not a canonical issue at all.

David... gratz on the return, but unfortunately since it does seem like this is related to the bug I mentioned I have to warn you that it is indeed and on again/off again type of thing. It will probably disappear again in one of the future shifts, only to re-appear again with no changes down the line. Since minor bugs like these really aren't a high priority for Google it's just something we kind of have to put up with. I can even picture the engineers at Google telling their bosses it's not really a bug at all, but a "feature". :D

-Michael

crankydave

01-15-2008, 09:07 AM

Actually, CrankyDave, since the site I referred to in my post also returned this weekend then it is much more likely that yet again it is merely an algo tweak, and this one with the bug not being there, and not a canonical issue at all.

-Michael

Quite possible Michael. I don't discount this at all. But given that the site here returned nothing for one of the canonical URL's using various operaters and is now being attributed to another, quite plausible that the "bug" is related to the canonical issue. We both know they've had a few of those.

Dave