is there a way

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Is there a way to get search engines to find a new web page? I placed a
new .com on the web over a month ago and Google hasn't been able to
detect it. Thanks...

Re: is there a way wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Its only two clicks away from the homepage.

David Dorward       < <
                     Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

Re: is there a way writes

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Almost certainly.

Please use meaningful subject headings. Thank you.
Andy Mabbett
                Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards:  <

                Free Our Data:  <

Re: is there a way wrote in

Quoted text here. Click to load it

When one of my sites isn't getting into the search engines (assuming I
want it there), I start looking at my site to figure out why.

Stan McCann, "Uncle Pirate" /
Implementing negative score for googlegroup postings, see A zest for living must include a
willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein

Re: is there a way

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Some potential reasons:

1. If you're using meta keywords, some SEs could interpret that as an attempt
   to "cheat", and blacklist the site.
2. If your site is all Flash, there's no HTML content to index.
3. If your site's HTML is invalid, the search bot may not be able to cope with
   it and index your site.

Also - you *have* submitted your site, right? Each SE has a form you can fill
out to let them know about new sites. Sometimes they can find you without it,
by following links to your site. But that only works if there *are* links,
and for a brand-new site there often aren't any.


Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians:
Cocoa programming in Perl:

Re: is there a way

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Does that actually happen?  I use the meta keyword tag on all my pages,
and I fill them with keywords relevant to my site that don't necessarily
appear elsewhere on that page.  Isn't that the whole point?

I can see how it would be abused (e.g. I could list a bunch of
sexual-content words to attract more hits) but does any major search
engine blacklist based on the mere existence of meta keywords?
Google doesn't seem to (at least, my sites are there).


Re: is there a way

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yup, but as it's part of a larger picture, it's hard to prove anything

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No. The meta tag is there to give meta information about the page. This
should be keywords that summarise the main points of the page. If your
keywords do not appear on the page itself, the SE could justifiably
assume that they do not relate to the page and are an attempt to fool

Quoted text here. Click to load it

"Mere" existence of keywords? probably not. It will use this as a factor
with other things though.

The SE watchers I know all seem to think that meta keywords are
increasingly being ignored by the SEs anyway as so many people abuse
them. As the algorithms for checking the content of a page become more
sophisticated, the meta keywords are less and less important.

Still, I wouldn't risk it. Why do something that could harm your
ratings? Use the meta keywords for what they are intended and the worst
that will happen is that the SE will ignore them. It may just give you a
slightly higher rating for them.


Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)

Re: is there a way

Quoted text here. Click to load it

What's the point of using only keywords that are present on the
page?  The same words can be found on that page!  It seems redundant
-- especially if the "home" page of the site is fairly simple and
doesn't contain many words in the first place.

A site full of hyperlinked pages should logically have keywords
describing what the *site* is all about, indicating that information
concerning those keywords can be found either on the current page or
on the pages linked from the current page.  I should need keywords
only in the root document.  At least, that's the way I *thought*
it was supposed to work.  It doesn't seem logical to treat each
document as stand-alone things, when they are related by hyperlinks.


Re: is there a way

axlq wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You don't have to avoid words that aren't on the page, but, as Alan
said, listing words that aren't on the page is not the point. Your
argument is that there's no need to list words that are already on the
page because the search engine already sees them. Yeah, the search
engine sees lots of words on your page, but they don't all equally say
what the page is *about*.

Look at the article at .

This article includes the words "insanity", "weekend", "parts",
"scattered", and "caused". None of these words would be included in a
one- or two-line summary of the page's purpose or content. The article
also contains words (or phrases) like "heat wave", "nation", and "power
consumption". A search engine will return this page in response to any
of the terms listed above, but if in addition it knows that the page is
*about* "a hit wave hits the nation and increases power consumption",
then it can do a better job of assessing this page as a good match for
the second set of terms than for the first set.

Site Timeline