getting listed in google...

D

Domestos

A little off topic but you all must have done it...

I have submitted my site to google a few days ago....

How long does it take to get my site listed in a searh? I am typing some
direct things from the website and even the domain name and it is still not
coming up...

Any tips for getting a site noticed more? apart from ad-words :(
 
H

Hywel Jenkins

A little off topic but you all must have done it...

I have submitted my site to google a few days ago....

How long does it take to get my site listed in a searh? I am typing some
direct things from the website and even the domain name and it is still not
coming up...

Any tips for getting a site noticed more? apart from ad-words :(

Isn't your "buy a pixel" idea old hat, now?
http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/
 
D

Domestos

Isn't your "buy a pixel" idea old hat, now?

My site offers somthing slightly different... and it is not a blatent copy
of that one...

My main reason in making this site is to challenge myself in creating a site
that can do this with auto updates, php, and auto payment (it a learning
exercise for me) etc... its my learning process to create websites... if I
make a few bucks on the way then that can only be possative...
 
N

Neredbojias

With neither quill nor qualm, Domestos quothed:
My site offers somthing slightly different... and it is not a blatent copy
of that one...

If that don't work, how about "Neredbojias Poop: only $10 a bag!"
I'll wholesale you all you can handle at only 30% retail plus tp costs.

(The sad part is that I'm sure there really are people out there dumb
enough to "buy a pixel"...)
 
H

Hywel Jenkins

With neither quill nor qualm, Domestos quothed:


If that don't work, how about "Neredbojias Poop: only $10 a bag!"
I'll wholesale you all you can handle at only 30% retail plus tp costs.

How many bags have you got? I'll take the lot!
 
J

Jemdam.com

Well it took me ages to find the answer to that question. I have found over
the past 10 years of being a webmaster that google seaches will only make a
small percentage of your traffic. The big hits come from quality link
exchanges. I would do the following:

Get the alex.com tool bar installed and get browsing on sites with similar
subjects and then target sites who have a rating higher than you. Then swap
links with them and just keep going. The higher you get the bigger sites you
can swap with. I made my own link directory which makes the task VERY easy.
Check it out:

http://www.pubtricks.com/links-beta.php > Magic Tricks Sites
http://www.jemdam.com/links.php > Webmaster Tools Sites

You can see I have used my system on a number of my own sites. This worked
well and other webmasters WANT to get listed in them. When they enter their
details I have an auto approve / decline page so it takes seconds.

I don't know your level of web skills but if you make a similar system with
PHP / ASP and MYsql you can work wonders. If you are new to dynamics sites
then get a book from your local shop. It took me 2 months to learn PHP to a
level that it was possible to coding anything.

Good luck and hope this helps.

Thanks,

David
 
S

Sid Ismail

: How long does it take to get my site listed in a searh? I am typing some
: direct things from the website and even the domain name and it is still not
: coming up...
:
: Any tips for getting a site noticed more? apart from ad-words :(


Stick in a Google Search facility on your page. It'll spider in no
time at all!

Sid
 
N

Neredbojias

With neither quill nor qualm, Hywel Jenkins quothed:
How many bags have you got? I'll take the lot!

According to some people, the supply is infinite. Anyway, I'll pile-up
the next frigate heading east with what's on-hand and prepare an html
email invoice for taxing purposes.
 
B

Barbara de Zoete

[ Please quote properly and do not top-post; quote the part
you respond to, attribute the quote, then put your response
underneath. Cut all that you don't directly respond to.
Corrected once. ]

Well it took me ages to find the answer to that question. I have found over
the past 10 years of being a webmaster that google seaches will only make a
small percentage of your traffic.

Really? I think this might be true for either badly built sites (with little to
spider) or sites that have a very havy competition (like porn). Which category
does your site fit in?

If a site is well written and built (lots of relevant text and easy to be
spidered links; nicely accessible) and the content is relevant to anyone, given
time Google will pick up what is there and your pages will show up in SERP's.
All IMHO of course.

[ Please delete the signature block of the post you reply
to. It has no relevance to the further discussion. ]


--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
 
J

Jemdam.com

Barbara de Zoete said:
[ Please quote properly and do not top-post; quote the part
you respond to, attribute the quote, then put your response
underneath. Cut all that you don't directly respond to.
Corrected once. ]
Well it took me ages to find the answer to that question. I have found
over
the past 10 years of being a webmaster that google seaches will only make
a
small percentage of your traffic.

Really? I think this might be true for either badly built sites (with
little to spider) or sites that have a very havy competition (like porn).
Which category does your site fit in?

I disagree with this. I get about 30% of my traffic from search engine. With
search engines alone I would have an alexa rating of 500000 or higher. With
link exchanges I'm now about 100000. The site is number 1 for may search
terms in google. The domain is:

http://www.pubtricks.com

I'm in the top 10 for

Pub tricks
Bar Tricks
+ many magic terms etc

Google just doesn't make that bigger impact. Look at all the sites that have
ratings of 3000 to 4000. They are not driven by search engines. They are
from having 1000s of hard links into their sites or being house hold names
like ccn.com bbc.co.uk etc

I strongly feel there is no magic method of making traffic other than hard
work (or may be RSS feeds but that is a whole other story).

I welcome other webmasters views, but only comment if you are a big (ish)
player, i.e. Alexa rating below 250000 as you just don't have enough traffic
to know the effect of links vs google.
 
B

Barbara de Zoete

Barbara de Zoete said:
[ Please quote properly and do not top-post; quote the part
you respond to, attribute the quote, then put your response
underneath. Cut all that you don't directly respond to.
Corrected once. ]
Well it took me ages to find the answer to that question. I have found
over the past 10 years of being a webmaster that google seaches will only
make
a small percentage of your traffic.

Really? I think this might be true for either badly built sites (with
little to spider) or sites that have a very havy competition (like porn).
Which category does your site fit in?

I disagree with this.

You have to, since the site you present has over 500 errors in its markup.
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.pubtricks.com/> The page
is a markup nightmare. There is no way to know how your page would perform with
the major search engines, if it is build better and all content is accessible
with ease.
I get about 30% of my traffic from search engine.

That's like a miracle.
With
search engines alone I would have an alexa rating of 500000 or higher. With
link exchanges I'm now about 100000. The site is number 1 for may search
terms in google. The domain is:

http://www.pubtricks.com

I'm in the top 10 for

Pub tricks
Bar Tricks
+ many magic terms etc

How about the plain 'magic' or 'magic trick'? Doesn't work, does it. I don't
know about you, but if I wanted a cool magic trick, I would search for 'magic
trick'. Not 'pub' or 'bar trick'.
Google just doesn't make that bigger impact.

Somehow you just prooved my point. A site well built gets its traffic through
search engines because they can spider and index the lot. A site not that well
built (over five hundred errors in markup can qualify as such) has to resort to
other systems to generate traffic.
I strongly feel there is no magic method of making traffic other than hard
work (or may be RSS feeds but that is a whole other story).

Oh, but creating accessible and usable sites _is_ hard work.
I welcome other webmasters views, but only comment if you are a big (ish)
player, i.e. Alexa rating below 250000 as you just don't have enough traffic
to know the effect of links vs google.

:-D You shouldn't try to keep people out of a thread. As soon as _you_ exclude
(groups of) people, that is a sure reason for them to get and stay involved.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
 
J

Jemdam.com

You have to, since the site you present has over 500 errors in its markup.
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.pubtricks.com/> The
page is a markup nightmare. There is no way to know how your page would
perform with the major search engines, if it is build better and all
content is accessible with ease.


That's like a miracle.

I write my HTML by hand and don't use all the tags. The tags in font and img
for example are optional and the markup test you have used thinks a lack of
an alt is an error which is total rubbish. The HTML coming out of
dreamweaver etc is so heavy, it is full of so much un-needed code.
How about the plain 'magic' or 'magic trick'? Doesn't work, does it. I
don't know about you, but if I wanted a cool magic trick, I would search
for 'magic trick'. Not 'pub' or 'bar trick'.

Magic Tricks is too competitive, biggest factors for high google rate is the
title and domain name. I don't have magic in the domain and I don't think it
will be easy to get to the top for that.
Somehow you just prooved my point. A site well built gets its traffic
through search engines because they can spider and index the lot. A site
not that well built (over five hundred errors in markup can qualify as
such) has to resort to other systems to generate traffic.


Oh, but creating accessible and usable sites _is_ hard work.

Tell me your site, I would love to see what you have done when you are so
critical of others.
:-D You shouldn't try to keep people out of a thread. As soon as _you_
exclude (groups of) people, that is a sure reason for them to get and
stay involved.

I guess that means you have a little site then ? :)
 
J

Jemdam.com

You have to, since the site you present has over 500 errors in its markup.
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.pubtricks.com/> The
page is a markup nightmare. There is no way to know how your page would
perform with the major search engines, if it is build better and all
content is accessible with ease.


Just thought I would use this page to test some of the big boys.

Google has 41 errors on a very simple page
Yahoo has over 300 on an average page
BBC has 60 errors

I don't think the previous spidering message is really that valid. I don't
wanted to get into a too an throw argument on this. I really don't think
google is going to get you above 250000 in the world.

If anyone reading has a very high rating please settle this by tell us how
you got there.
 
B

Barbara de Zoete

[ Please do attribute your quotes ]


#>> You have to, since the site you present has over 500 errors in its markup.
I write my HTML by hand and don't use all the tags.

Writing markup by hand usually prevents bogus code. In your case it doesn't seem
to work though. But then again, that is only true for authors who understand
what markup is about. Your code is very sloppy and doesn't show any
understanding of what you're doing.
The tags in font and img
for example are optional

Font and Image are elements. <font> And <img> are the opening tags for those, in
html. The Font as element is depricated in relevant versions of html, BTW. What
you mean to say is that _attributes_ are optional.
And, no, you're wrong. Some attributes are not optional for some elements,
although you can set their value to zero or leave it empty. It depends on what
doctype you choose to use for your markup what elements can be used and which
attributes are allowed or even obligatory. Since you didn't set any, the
validator chose the most common, being HTML4.01 Transitional. That is a very
lenient doctype. Having over 500 errors with that doctype really says it all,
actually.
and the markup test you have used thinks a lack of
an alt is an error which is total rubbish.

Sure it is. Hush, don't let the ISO people here about it, that their standards
are rubbish. Don't spread the word in the W3C, for you will make their world
come down.
The HTML coming out of
dreamweaver etc is so heavy, it is full of so much un-needed code.

You have a strange perception on markup validation, editors like dreamweaver and
what rubbish is. Remember what usenet group you're in at the moment. A group
about markup, about html. Read a bit, say a week back. Try figuring out what
matters for people who participate in this group.

Never mind. Enjoy your life. Byebye

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
 
J

Jemdam.com

You have a strange perception on markup validation, editors like
dreamweaver and what rubbish is. Remember what usenet group you're in at
the moment. A group about markup, about html. Read a bit, say a week
back. Try figuring out what matters for people who participate in this
group.

Never mind. Enjoy your life. Byebye

Let's get back to the orginal thread. How many hits to you get a day and
what percentage are from search engines.
 
M

Michael Winter

On 05/10/2005 21:50, Jemdam.com wrote:

[snip]
Just thought I would use [the W3C SGML validator] to test some of the
big boys.

So have others, as if it somehow implies that just because large
companies can impose poor standards on their developers, or hire idiots,
everyone else is excused from being professional.

Choosing to write something that is invalid is one thing and can have
its reasons. Doing it out of ignorance when one should know better is
another matter entirely.

Mike
 
N

Neredbojias

With neither quill nor qualm, Jemdam.com quothed:
I welcome other webmasters views, but only comment if you are a big (ish)
player, i.e. Alexa rating below 250000 as you just don't have enough traffic
to know the effect of links vs google.

Hey, Alexa rated me number 1 (-until I dumped her for Felicia.)
Nevertheless, she still doesn't deny I'm a big(ish) player.
 
M

Mark Parnell

In our last episode, "Jemdam.com" <[email protected]> pronounced
to alt.html:

[http://www.pubtricks.com/]
I write my HTML by hand

You wrote that by hand? Ouch.
and don't use all the tags.

It would be unusual for any page to need every HTML tag. Or even every
element.
The tags in font and img
for example are optional

Assuming you mean attributes, some of them are, including alt for <img>.
and the markup test you have used thinks a lack of
an alt is an error

That's because the specs say that it is:

"The alt attribute must be specified for the IMG and AREA elements."
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
which is total rubbish.
References?

The HTML coming out of
dreamweaver etc is so heavy, it is full of so much un-needed code.

True, but you would have got better results from Dreamweaver than your
hand-coding. Heck, you probably would have got better results from
FrontPage.
Magic Tricks is too competitive,

Scared to try in case you fail?
biggest factors for high google rate is the
title and domain name.

Title and links from relevant sites are the most important. The address
does help, but that includes page and directory names. When doing a
search for magic tricks, only half of the first 10 sites have magic in
the domain name. A couple of others have it in another part of the
address, but some don't even have that.
I don't have magic in the domain and I don't think it
will be easy to get to the top for that.

Doesn't mean it's impossible. Someone's got to be at the top.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,482
Members
44,901
Latest member
Noble71S45

Latest Threads

Top