Re: Can anyone tell me why my site is not being indexed in google

[Colt-45]

Keep in mind that Google can take 4-6 weeks before indexing or
re-indexing your site. If your site hasn't been up that long, fix your
meta-tags before Google gets there.

Although Google doesn't use them for page rank, meta-tags are still
important. Google may be penalizing you for keyword spamming.

Check it here:

http://www.widexl.com/remote/search-engines/metatag-analyzer.html

I'd also recommend installing a SID (Session ID) Killer mod for your
site. You don't want any search engine recording and/or displaying
your SIDs.

Are you using any mod-rewrites? Avoid them if at all possible.

Finally, is there a robots.txt file in your root directory? I don't
see it.


On 15 Dec 2004 10:05:01 -0800, "williajay" <jwilliams_2003@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Over the past 6 months I have been tracking googles every move and it
>isn't toward my site. www.garah.com
>Any help would be greatly appreciated

[Big Bill]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:33:27 GMT, Colt-45 <colt_45@dontmail.com>
wrote:

>Keep in mind that Google can take 4-6 weeks before indexing or
>re-indexing your site. If your site hasn't been up that long, fix your
>meta-tags before Google gets there.
>
>Although Google doesn't use them for page rank, meta-tags are still
>important. Google may be penalizing you for keyword spamming.
>
>Check it here:
>
>http://www.widexl.com/remote/search-engines/metatag-analyzer.html
>
>I'd also recommend installing a SID (Session ID) Killer mod for your
>site. You don't want any search engine recording and/or displaying
>your SIDs.
>
>Are you using any mod-rewrites? Avoid them if at all possible.
>
>Finally, is there a robots.txt file in your root directory? I don't
>see it.

And your basis for any of this advice would be?

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk SEO@kruse.demon.co.uk
home of SEO that's shiny!
--

[MM]

Colt-45 wrote:

>
> Are you using any mod-rewrites? Avoid them if at all possible.
>

Would you expand on that?

From a recent thread, it was pointed out (without disagreement) that
mod_rewrites are useful for making a dynamic address appear static,
improving your chances of having that page spidered, or spidered more
quickly, whatever the case may be.

[Big Bill]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:27:12 GMT, MM <ngreader@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Colt-45 wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you using any mod-rewrites? Avoid them if at all possible.
>>
>
>Would you expand on that?
>
> From a recent thread, it was pointed out (without disagreement) that
>mod_rewrites are useful for making a dynamic address appear static,
>improving your chances of having that page spidered, or spidered more
>quickly, whatever the case may be.

I'm coming to the conclusion that Colt-45 is firing blanks.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk SEO@kruse.demon.co.uk
home of SEO that's shiny!
--

[SEO Dave]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:27:12 GMT, MM <ngreader@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Colt-45 wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you using any mod-rewrites? Avoid them if at all possible.
>>
>
>Would you expand on that?
>
> From a recent thread, it was pointed out (without disagreement) that
>mod_rewrites are useful for making a dynamic address appear static,
>improving your chances of having that page spidered, or spidered more
>quickly, whatever the case may be.

Although Google spiders dynamic URLs more conservatively than static,
as long as all pages are linked they will eventually be spidered. So I
wouldn't put that on my list of reasons to use mod-rewrite.

Avoiding the use of mod-rewrite is good advice since it adds an extra
load on the server. There are SEO reasons for using mod-rewrite, but
don't use it if you don't have to and it's increasingly becoming the
case that there are very few circumstances where it is absolutely
necessary.

So like a lot of things with websites, "avoid them if at all
possible".

David
--
http://www.search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk/

[Colt-45]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:48:07 GMT, Big Bill <kruse@cityscape.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>I'm coming to the conclusion that Colt-45 is firing blanks.
>
>BB
>--
LOL!!
Yep, that may be true! Used to be 44_Mag.
Colt-45

ANYWAY

I think you're all on the wrong track, including myself.

The page under discussion is missing the </head> tag.

[Big Bill]

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:56:58 GMT, Colt-45 <colt_45@dontmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:48:07 GMT, Big Bill <kruse@cityscape.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm coming to the conclusion that Colt-45 is firing blanks.
>>
>>BB
>>--
>LOL!!
>Yep, that may be true! Used to be 44_Mag.
>Colt-45
>
>ANYWAY
>
>I think you're all on the wrong track, including myself.
>
>The page under discussion is missing the </head> tag.

I never ran a checker on it.

BB (Howitzer to my friends....)
--
www.kruse.co.uk SEO@kruse.demon.co.uk
home of SEO that's shiny!
--

[Tony]

Dave wrote:


> Although Google spiders dynamic URLs more conservatively than static,
> as long as all pages are linked they will eventually be spidered. So I
> wouldn't put that on my list of reasons to use mod-rewrite.
>
> Avoiding the use of mod-rewrite is good advice since it adds an extra
> load on the server.



Modern servers will easily handle many tens of thousands of mod_rewrite
requests a day and work just fine.




> There are SEO reasons for using mod-rewrite, but
> don't use it if you don't have to and it's increasingly becoming the
> case that there are very few circumstances where it is absolutely
> necessary.
>
> So like a lot of things with websites, "avoid them if at all
> possible".


If you mean avoiding websites in general, I'd agree.

;-)


--
Tony