getting listed in google...

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Domestos, Oct 3, 2005.

  1. Domestos

    Domestos Guest

    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 :(

    --
    Thanks,
    Andrew Makinson
    www.buy-a-pixel.com
    Domestos, Oct 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Domestos wrote:

    > How long does it take to get my site listed in a searh?


    Up to 6 weeks in my experience,

    > Any tips for getting a site noticed more?


    http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
    David Dorward, Oct 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <89g0f.13461$>,
    says...
    > 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/

    --

    Hywel
    http://kibo.org.uk/
    Hywel Jenkins, Oct 3, 2005
    #3
  4. Domestos

    Domestos Guest

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


    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...
    Domestos, Oct 3, 2005
    #4
  5. Domestos

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Domestos quothed:

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

    >
    > 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"...)

    > 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...


    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Oct 4, 2005
    #5
  6. In article <>,
    says...
    > With neither quill nor qualm, Domestos quothed:
    >
    > > > Isn't your "buy a pixel" idea old hat, now?
    > > > http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/
    > > >

    > >
    > > 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.


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

    --

    Hywel
    http://kibo.org.uk/
    Hywel Jenkins, Oct 4, 2005
    #6
  7. Hywel Jenkins wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >> With neither quill nor qualm, Domestos quothed:
    >>
    >> > > Isn't your "buy a pixel" idea old hat, now?
    >> > > http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/
    >> > >
    >> >
    >> > 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.

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


    http://www.worth1000.com/entries/114000/114487QWyv_w.jpg

    (From a contest for Photoshopping old propaganda posters.)


    --
    Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
    Killing All Posts from GG: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Blinky the Shark, Oct 4, 2005
    #7
  8. Domestos

    Jemdam.com Guest

    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




    "Domestos" <> wrote in message
    news:89g0f.13461$...
    >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 :(
    >
    > --
    > Thanks,
    > Andrew Makinson
    > www.buy-a-pixel.com
    >
    Jemdam.com, Oct 4, 2005
    #8
  9. Domestos

    Sid Ismail Guest

    On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 20:04:20 GMT, "Domestos" <>
    wrote:

    : 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
    Sid Ismail, Oct 4, 2005
    #9
  10. Domestos

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Hywel Jenkins quothed:

    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > With neither quill nor qualm, Domestos quothed:
    > >
    > > > > Isn't your "buy a pixel" idea old hat, now?
    > > > > http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > 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.

    >
    > 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.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Oct 4, 2005
    #10
  11. [ 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. ]

    On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 11:07:39 +0200, Jemdam.com <> wrote:

    > "Domestos" <> wrote in message
    > news:89g0f.13461$...
    >>
    >> How long does it take to get my site listed in a searh?
    >> Any tips for getting a site noticed more? apart from ad-words :(


    > 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.


    >> --
    >> Thanks,

    [ 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 |
    `-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
    Barbara de Zoete, Oct 4, 2005
    #11
  12. Domestos

    Jemdam.com Guest

    "Barbara de Zoete" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:p.sx4ql8rrx5vgts@zoete_b...
    >[ 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.
    Jemdam.com, Oct 5, 2005
    #12
  13. On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:43:54 +0200, Jemdam.com <> wrote:

    > "Barbara de Zoete" <> wrote in message
    > news:eek:p.sx4ql8rrx5vgts@zoete_b...
    >> [ 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%3A%2F%2Fwww.pubtricks.com%2F> 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 |
    `-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
    Barbara de Zoete, Oct 5, 2005
    #13
  14. Domestos

    Jemdam.com Guest


    > You have to, since the site you present has over 500 errors in its markup.
    > <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pubtricks.com%2F> 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.


    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.

    >
    >> 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.


    Tell me your site, I would love to see what you have done when you are so
    critical of others.

    >> 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.


    I guess that means you have a little site then ? :)
    Jemdam.com, Oct 5, 2005
    #14
  15. Domestos

    Jemdam.com Guest

    > You have to, since the site you present has over 500 errors in its markup.
    > <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pubtricks.com%2F> 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.
    Jemdam.com, Oct 5, 2005
    #15
  16. [ Please do attribute your quotes ]

    On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 22:38:42 +0200, Jemdam.com <> wrote:

    #>> You have to, since the site you present has over 500 errors in its markup.
    >> <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pubtricks.com%2F> The
    >> page is a markup nightmare.


    > 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 |
    `-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
    Barbara de Zoete, Oct 5, 2005
    #16
  17. Domestos

    Jemdam.com Guest

    >
    > 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.
    Jemdam.com, Oct 5, 2005
    #17
  18. 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

    --
    Michael Winter
    Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.
    Michael Winter, Oct 5, 2005
    #18
  19. Domestos

    Neredbojias Guest

    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.


    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Oct 5, 2005
    #19
  20. Domestos

    Mark Parnell Guest

    In our last episode, "Jemdam.com" <> 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>.
    <font> shouldn't be used at all - it has been deprecated in favour of
    CSS.

    > 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.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://clarkecomputers.com.au
    alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/
    Mark Parnell, Oct 6, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\) [MVP]

    Need to get my site listed with search engines, where do I start?

    Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\) [MVP], Jun 8, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    294
    Charlie@CBFC
    Jun 8, 2004
  2. Neo

    assembly isn't listed

    Neo, Sep 14, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    411
    William F. Robertson, Jr.
    Sep 14, 2004
  3. Stu
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    410
  4. fripper
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,097
    Juan T. Llibre
    Oct 28, 2005
  5. George
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    588
    Roedy Green
    Jun 28, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page