Hi,
I'm working on several new sites (3-4 months life), with pr 4, all pages optimized and indexed by google (same optimization techniques I use succesfully on hundreds of sites). I have no positioning at all! I tried to put the same pages on other domains and they reched top positioning. What's going on? Is google penalizing brand new sites?
Thanks!!

It could be that the first domain had a penalty that google has not taken off. Is the site new or has it been used before?

Sites are new, never used before

i work on new and established sites - my new sites are taking a notable difference in time to establish rankings after changes have been implemented - versus sites that have been online for a while with some links previously established. New sites seem to react different to changes (slower) than established sites when it comes to rankings - based on my experiences with new sites since florida/austin/brandy ...

I have implemented the exact campaign on a new site and an established site. The established site is already in the top 10 - and it only took 2-3 weeks ... the new site has seen no where the same type of movement (these are for very competitive terms).

I'm not sure i would term it a penalty - but there seems to be some variance imo

I have a new site that went up in January, was indexed by Google, and did very well in the SERPs for about 2 weeks. Then, pages started dropping off one by one. Now, next to nothing shows up in Google. Pagerank has been going up steadily, but what good is that if you don't show up in the results. Only very odd phrases that are minutely relevant to the page bring any results. I have done several sites using the same methods...content, good links, and keywords appropriately placed, consistent theme. This new site, despite adding more content, links, etc. daily is going absolutely nowhere in Google. And Google is visiting every single day. I believe they are being very heavy-handed with new sites. This makes it tough since new sites are most dependent on the SE's.

I have a couple new sites and the same thing is happening

in fact i have noticed pages that have my links with my key phase in it outranking the targed site

I also have been doing some more optimization on my homepage and i see drastic impovements in record time for the new phrases

I also have an old site which is suddenly is ranked top 20 for a very competitive term which i didn't optimize for , which is great but sort of strange

ferret & logan - did your new sites do well at first and then die back?

I am experiencing same problems with new sites I have created for clients.

Its a pattern similar to meeting a new girl at a dance. She flaunts herself, she makes a date, she turns up, she's all over you. She swears her love for you and you have a raptuous 2/3 weeks.

Then all of a sudden she don't turn up for a date and she don't answer telephone calls.

Then after a few months she starts to answer the phone, but not on a regular basis. By which time you could have met another girl with a strange name of Yahoo and decided to stay with her because she's more reliable and does not play tricks on you.

Ches ... let me tell you - it gets tougher. Wait until you get serious with that girl and decide that you can't go thru a day with out her. Soon enough you'll be setting up a budget to make sure the expenses of your time together are covered - she'll drain your account daily, leave you until you have more money ready, and sooner or later you'll make a stronger commitment and pay to guarantee your inclusion all of the time. Uggh ... commitments, marriage ...

Excel, my sites did fairly decent at the very start. Some good two/three word rankings ... but nothing great with terms that are pretty competitive. But with time those fell, and very few relevant searches are provided. I've played with it a little bit, after being on line for two weeks - we added a section of the products by 'artist' category. As those were added, they did very good - even ranking in the top 10 for the artist names at times (which were pretty competitive).... but again with time those fell out.

My guess is that there is an initial 'local rank' established based on the contents indexed from the site. But afterwards, there seems to be some delay with the role links play. Still waiting, so i'm not sure what to expect and i just keep building/improving what i can control.

"i just keep building/improving what i can control."

Yes I think that is profitable, Google may work this out and it may not.. Got to look for the long term and ensure the site is going to succeed across other search engines.

I have just been reading in another thread and see that this thing is across the board.... One good tip I picked up is to manage client expectations early & another, if you have domains sitting out there (maybe with holding pages waiting for a site to be built, like I do) get them moving a bit.

Normally I will not allow spiders in until I have everything finished and go for the full "launch".. I am going to be rethinking this.. and get a mini version out asap... finish it later.. not ideal, but worth thinking about.

umm, my 2 sites never shined as of yet

one is for super uncompetitve term si slowly creeping inot top ten

I really thought it would debute at 1

the other is for a pretty big terms, its floating in the 90-300 area

they guy who owns it is happy becuase its such an imporvement from being 1000+

but since i don't get paid unless its hits top 10 , I'm not as estatatic

ferret? they sound like existing sites not brand new ones?

i guess that sort of true , both existed but but they had no little no pr

so they might as well not existed

I didn't think of it that way, they both had been online and optimized by other people with no results

eihter my probelem is tottally unrelated to your or the problem is involing sites with little or no pr instead of new sites

Be careful of trying to optimise on sites that have been handled by prior SEOs.. I have a classic that dates back 2years to the goodold PRZero fiasco, still holding that same penalty all this time because the SEO wasn't wise enough to trash the domain.

I don't they were penaized i think some "content" seo took 500.00 to increase the keyword density a little and put some keyword in the title

That sounds ok then, but yes I think your problem is outside this threads topic(not related to new problems).

I have 2 sites that were launched around September of 2003 and had first page rankings for their most important phrases for about 2-4 months. One disappeared in Florida and is just in the last week starting to show up in the top 200 : after not being in the top 1000 after Florida.

The other disappeared around February and is yet to appear in the top 1,000.

Another one that is not new (2-3 yrs. old) and was ranking first page for its most important key phrases until January is still nowhere to be found.

All 3 are still waiting to be included in dmoz (common thread from what I can see). (The last one that I mentioned that is 2-3 yrs. old was not submitted to dmoz until I took it over about a year ago. You'd think it would be included by now.)

The other common thread is that all of their most important phrases begin with "city" key phrase, or key phrase "city".

One has PR4 and the other 2 have PR5.

Anyone else seeing this pattern?

I've optimized my pages for a lot of keywords and phrases that are pretty much overwhelmed by off-target sites. For instance, I have a 2-word phrase that runs throughout the theme of the site. If I use that with another keyword to define it, a different set of results will come up every time I change that 3rd keyword. But none of them is really relevant to that 3rd keyword. I notice that science sites will get priority, even though they have absolutely nothing to do with the subject. If they have even one of the keywords, they'll come up close to the number 1 position. What's that about?

Everyone is optimizing using other resources by now. My guess is that by the time Google gets around to putting our sites where they belong, we'll have established ourselves elseware, and this is the beginning of the end for Google's monarchy. I've noticed over the years that whenever a search engine hammers the webmasters, they're really banging themselves over the head, because it's mostly webmasters that create and optimize sites. Other than us, you have a lot of personal sites. Lock out the webmasters and SEO's and you'll find yourself on the wrong side of that locked door.

I link my new sites as I am building them.

My latest project started about 2 months ago and I linked before I even started, just to let the bots in.

Now that the site is almost complete, EVERY page is ranking very well in google after 2 months. I have not even properly optomized it yet.


It ranked good surprisingly after about 3 weeks, but then dropped away to nothing. Now its back, just in time for its REal-release.


Its almost like google wants to make sure its not indexing "flybynight" companies/websites.





Just my 2 Euros...

Wow that same topic just came up with some friends.
so my question is ?
My site is about a year and half years old and i have good pagerank
but i don't have very good rankings in the search terms that i optamize for.


What's up confused flowers guy>>>>

Hi flower, welcome to the forums. It sounds to me that your site could do with some general analysis. I don't think that the "new sites" problem is appropriate to you (according to your description). Have a look around here.. A really cool place to find out more info on how to improve your website is the SEO101 forum.

OK, my 2 months old website is nowhere to be found in Google result for targeted keywords. PR has raised from 0 to 5 since last 3 weeks.

What I have though about the problem so far is this: PR and Link have big influence in current ranking algorithm. Since G is giving heavyweight on relevance links, new websites will probably not going to rank high for a certain period of time after launched untill they have many relevance backlinks.

So what you guys think?

"Since G is giving heavyweight on relevance links, new websites will probably not going to rank high for a certain period of time after launched untill they have many relevance backlinks."
----------------------------------------------------------

Since I do have relevant backlinks, the site is now 4 months old, has been indexed thoroughly several times, and should be doing much better than it is, my guess is this has more to do with Google stabilizing their current results before throwing all the new ones into the mix. I could try putting some of the pages on an established site to see how they do, but that's already been done with clear results. Guess we'll just have to wait...and wait...and wait. In the meantime, I'm continuing to build the site and create links with some very good sites. At the same time, I don't see any quick results from any of the other search engines either. And, like cianuro, I never wait for the site to be finished before linking or launching it. That's really a waste of time unless you're trying to get a listing in a picky directory. Get linked up with someone as soon as you have a few pages up because it's still going to take some time to get spidered or crawled and then indexed. You'll have very minimal traffic, anyway, and you may as well get established in the search engines so your site will be crawled regularly. This is the best time for search engines because you're constantly adding new material. By the time you have the site ready, you'll have traffic established as well. My rule of thumb is for every day you spend building the site, spend at least an hour of that day marketing it. That way, you won't spend so much time getting everything polished with no one showing up for the party. Always send out the invitations well in advance.

It just didn't work out so well this time, but hey, I can add another section, and perhaps get more visitors to bookmark the site. It's discouraging to create 80 hand-written pages and get next to nothing from the search engines, but I'm in it for the long haul, and this one's my own. Glad I'm not trying to explain this to a client. They'd probably try to sue me, and steer clear of internet marketing for a very long time.

lol jimish yes, you are right on many scores there... I too will aim to go for short bursts with early launch on new work (against all my quality control instincts). It's pretty crazy on the links to these new sites appearing almost instantly for their search terms, but at least it begins to establish some traffic as the searchers try to dig out what they want to really find.

I think on the client expectations score - if you have explained things correctly nobody can give a guarantee on free listings (as we ultimately have no control - only can work with the engines as far as we can know how).. The how changes little over the years really, so it is just a matter of keep on building and let the search engines work out their own way to keep ahead and relevant.

Right, excell. I was exaggerating somewhat. Whenever I do a site for someone I tell them not to expect much for the first six months, and if it's not being updated and marketed after that point, it will peak, then gradually fade away. But if it's maintained, marketed, and continually linked for better traffic, the site will do great (depending on the subject). This year however, I would have had to tell them not to expect anything at all for the first 6 months (and perhaps more). Fortunately, I'm not taking on any more new sites so I can focus on my own and steadily develop it over the years.

I am seeing the same thing with a apartment lofts website I built. Google has done this in the past (years ago) but changed it. I am also seeing a higher importance in keywords in the domain name which I also have not seen in some years.

I am noticing new sites taking way longer! It's puzzling.
As an example the results I am seeing results for a specific searck term are as follows:
allintitle: Ranked Top 20
allinanchor: Top 50
allintext: Top 50
Page rank: 5
Natural search: Not in first 1000 for term
Is anyone else seeing this? Google seems to me to be making it harder for start-up sites. I am starting to see a pattern! Maybe the Florida thing now applies more toward newer sites. Ha, Ha!

I am seeing the same issue, one of my terms has only 34,000 pages coming up for the search and my client is nowhere.

My question is: are any of your new sites in DMOZ? One of mine is in Yahoo! directory, but not in DMOZ yet.

I bet you their not!

The 4 or 5 I am working on are not in the DMOZ. I have a question for you 88sahara, has Google assigned related pages to the site yet?

Yes, she...it has for the index page.

allintitle: Ranked Top 20
allinanchor: Top 50
allintext: Top 50
Page rank: 5
--------------------------

I'm seeing:
allintitle: Ranked #1
allinanchor: #1
allintext: #1
Page rank: 5

And not in the SERPs. This is for at least a dozen keyword phrases (3 word each). And yes, all of the sites that have us on their links page are showing up as #4 - #20. Finally just got spidered by slurp--all day yesterday. Wonder how long that will take to show up in the SERPs, if at all.

Yes, I am seeing that on multiple sites. I have some new test sites also. I am goind to drop the kw density on those to see what happens. The others I am going to just wait.

Jumping in at the end here, please forgive me if it's been discussed. I've read elsewhere about the "sand box" theory, that these observations regarding new sites may be by design. Links credited, PR improves... yet no SERP's.

Hello Scott,
What is the sand box theory? I haven't heard of it?

shehateme: It's pure speculation but it goes something like this. To discourage people from "buying PR" through links to good PR sources Google doesn't apply the effect of PR/Backlinks to results for an undetermined period of time (speculated to be 3-4 mos). The proposed motive would be to have those purchasing links believe it's of no value thereby dissuading others from similar.

Once a site is "out of the sandbox" backlinks and PR are applied to SERPS. It's not my theory but the effect seems to be supported here, or at least would be if we were to see sites after a period of time show major improvement in their positions.

Hmm... The term "sandbox" & initially "quarantine" have been used on another forum to try to lable the effects of what folks see with new sites launched.

The pattern appears to be a good healthy spring in rankings on launch that might last about a week - a month... then the site plumments in ranking for competitive search terms but good PR and links may appear. It's in the index alright but can only be found in search on obscure terms. I don't know that it is application of PR & backlinks that makes it right again. I don't know that it is something to do with google trying to stop folks buying backlinks.. etc. (I don't feel that it has much to do with links & PR).

That sand box thing sounds stupid, but if it's being used then that's yet another hurdle to overcome. Very counter productive on Google's part because it just causes their index to not rank a site's listings effectively even when the content is excellent.

excell; Have you read or do you have any experience with the time frame from the plumet to reasonable search results?

I think this theory, as with most others, is simply a bunch of frustrated SEO's trying to explain a new phenomena (at least this one makes sense to me). Personally I subscribe to the theory that the God's are angry. I have "sacraficed" a few virgin keywords on mount Google to appease.

Finally just got spidered by slurp--all day yesterday. Wonder how long that will take to show up in the SERPs, if at all.
---------------------------------

Yahoo for Yahoo! Number 1 position for many search phrases, first page for many more. Hope they don't google me. Looks like they only included the home page, and an old cache of it at that. I can tell 'cause there's a misspelled word in the title that I fixed a month ago. Now if Google will just let me out of the "sandbox" or "quarantine" or whatever it is they're doing to new sites...

I went through 8 of my sites and looked at everything -- DMOZ (yes and no), New or Old domain, hidden text (yes and no), number of pages (10 - 50), page rank (3 - 6), top 5 results and first page results and the only common thread is filtered results --

keyword keyword

results are different to

keyword keyword -kjjkkjkj

none of the sites rank on the first page with filtered results except one which is a bona fide authority on the subject and 6 years old.

When people talk about established sites are they talking established in the SERPs or just established online (being around a long time)?

For example;

I have a potential client in need of SEO, whose site is PageRank 5 but nowhere in the SERPs. The site has been around for over a year (Established).

Do you think it will be penalised as the new sites have been experiencing?

Established sites mean in the top 30 for a search term or just been around for a while?

from my knowledge, google wants to make certain that the site is reputable and is continuing to update its content. even sites that are in a 'sand box' still get visit by the googlebot checking the server logs to see if new content is there. so if your site is already past that stage, its probably time to start refreshing your content daily and see if that will work

jtatcu: I've been looking at this and IMO it's just time. 2-3 mos no matter what you do. I just had one get out and when it did, it really did. One of the JWGuides had the perfect solution, it just gives you time to build content and perfect your presentation.

Mr Creosote: This just refers to brand new sites. If your pages were indexed by Google before Feb. this shouldn't be a factor.

Did you all find that the homepage got in before the others? or did all of your pages come in at the same time?

I've been in the 'sandbox'.

My main site went from PR0 to PR5 in february and starting ranking really well. A few days later it plummeted (I guess into the 'sandbox'). On saturday it came out of the sandbox and my site now ranks #1 for about 60% of the main keyphrases in our industry.

I dont think its fully out of the sandbox though as it still doesnt rank as high as it does with the 8 parameters (-adsf -asdf etc.. - which is supposed to show the results with out the sandbox filter). For the main search term in our industry we went to #8, but today have dropped back to about 50ish. With the parameters we are #2.

Part of the theory suggests that it may be the links rather than the site which are 'sandboxed'. So a link only counts once its a set amount of time old. This could account for my partial exit from the sandbox.

"Did you all find that the homepage got in before the others? or did all of your pages come in at the same time?"

My experience was that supporting pages would come up for obscure terms right away. Then after the 3 mos. within one weekend all pages started popping up.

As silentbob said, I could see PR and back links growing during the process, but absolutely no SERP's.

thank you very much, silent bob... i never thought of it as the linnks being in the sandbox as oppossed to the url.... this way google prevents link buying and farming, even though there might be legit incoming links from dmoz and the like. it still could possibly be that during the sandbox time, your PR and serps might be affacted if they arent being updated. let me know.

thank you very much, silent bob... i never thought of it as the linnks being in the sandbox as oppossed to the url.... this way google prevents link buying and farming, even though there might be legit incoming links from dmoz and the like. it still could possibly be that during the sandbox time, your PR and serps might be affacted if they arent being updated. let me know.

OK has anyone had keyterms not drop off, but like move from page one to , say page seven. Taken that page, tweaked it, and regained position? Anyone had that happen?

Today one of my site showed up for my main term at #55. This may not seem like a big deal until you understand that more than 15 million results show for this ultra competitive term. Here is what I am starting to think. Google instead of actually penalizing new sites, is actually some how determining the age of the links to your site or the age of the site linking to you before they give the links much weight. The reason I think this is because the site was up for a few months before I actually started promoting it. I think what G may be trying to stop people from buying a bunch of domains and crosslinking, Google Bombing, etc... Therefore my GUESS is that the newer the links or site that links to you the longer it will take your site to show.

Here's the rundown:

1. The freshbot will allow pages with un-competitive search terms to rise to the top very quickly for 2 weeks or so. This is mainly implemented for news articles, etc. When CNN releases a new news article, people can find it at the top of the SERPs very easily.

2. After 2 weeks, the site's ranking is dampened with a factor of around 0.05.

3. Each rolling SERP update increases the factor by about 1%-2%.

4. Each major 3 week Google update increases the factor by around 15%.

After about 6 months, you have passed through the passage of rites and your site will be ranked properly.

Also: Lets not confuse the sandbox with the dampening system.


Hexed

Hexed,
That sounds like a reasonable theory that definitely makes sense. How sure are you about it?

she...I like your theory best, I am not familiar with dampening, and factors, but I am seeing some of what you are saying on many of my newer sites.

Hi,

I read all the post and I have been seeing that all my new sites are taking months to be truly ranked in Google but I have found that Yahoo ranking my new sites alot faster than google. Also, yahoo has spidered my entire site much quicker than google since they have started using their own robot. Also with my new sites google takes much longer to update their cache then yahoo.

Has anybody had the same experience? and or reasons why.

Vahine