Invisible Website Puzzle?

[H3LL]

Someone I know has a website that is totally invisible to searches.

This is not a desirable situation as it is a primary part of a new business he is starting later this year.

The site itself has been up and running for most of a year and he has all the standard meta tags visible when viewing the source and has informed Google of its existence, which they have confirmed.

It usually takes some time for search indexes to find new sites but none of them can find this site either on keywords, URL or by name.

Sites I have, using the same method (e107 CMS), have been found quite quickly and can be searched by keyword or name (even ones that have little or no content).

Further work and cost to raise the search engine ranking seems somewhat pointless when the site is effectively invisible.

Any thoughts what may be causing the invisibility?

Does anyone know how to email Google?

Google seems to be becoming more god-like as it becomes less and less easy to contact them directly. :D



.

[Michael C]

Could you post a link to the site?

[Rob Lister]

Could you post a link to the site?

lol

[krelnik]

Someone I know has a website that is totally invisible to searches.

Has your friend gone to Google Webmaster Central and "claimed" their site and checked whether the crawler has hit it?
http://www.google.com/webmasters/

Is it on a unique domain, or does it share a domain with other sites? Is it possible the other sites on that domain have a bad reputation (link bait, spamming, etc)?

Does anyone link to this site from elsewhere on the web? That's a key. If nobody links to it, Google's not going to think its very important, and give it a low priority in the crawler. (Make sure the links that exist are NOT tagged with rel="nofollow", those will not help.)

Have they used any "Search Engine Optimization" consultants to boost page rank? Take care with this. Some of these companies advise you to use tricky techniques, and Google takes a dim view of this. If they see you are using "tricky" stuff like invisible text, keywords that don't match your content, etc., they are likely to ban you.

That should get you started.

[six7s]

Does anyone link to this site from elsewhere on the web? That's a key. If nobody links to it, Google's not going to think its very important, and give it a low priority in the crawler

Indeed

Rule #1: Content is King, Linking is Queen (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=Content+is+King%2C+Linking+is+Queen&btnG=Search)

Have they used any "Search Engine Optimization" consultants to boost page rank? Take care with this. Some of these companies advise you to use tricky techniques, and Google takes a dim view of this.

Yup!

If in doubt, refer to Rule #1

[six7s]

Could you post a link to the site?
lol

Maybe I'm in dire need of an irony supplement, but I fail to see why such request would prompt anyone to LOL

Please, Rob, explain

[H3LL]

Great tips - Thanks.

Internal Linking is OK (none broken) and there has been relevant content on the site since day one. External linking is minimal - chicken and egg problem.

The webmaster tools were useful but not too helpful. Google knows it's there, can see the sitemap and meta tags, can verify that it is available but has never sent a bot?!?

All relevant information has been re-submitted to Google again.

We have no dodgy tricks in effect on the site.

I actually found an email address to contact Google - waiting a result - if any.

.

ETA: I thought I had posted this - It has a unique TLD (not a sub-domain) and currently running on the same host as all my other websites which have no problem with Google. The host has a TOS that exclude/bans "inappropriate sites". I have no reason to believe that this policy is not enforced.


.

[H3LL]

Could you post a link to the site?

A good suggestion, but I don't think it would be appropriate for this forum. As a business site it contains required information we would rather not have here.

.

[Michael C]

A good suggestion, but I don't think it would be appropriate for this forum. As a business site it contains required information we would rather not have here.

Its a bit strange that you want the site to be found, but don't want to put a link to it.

If you want to PM me the address of the site, I'll see if I can find any reasons for it being ignored by the search machines.

[H3LL]

Its a bit strange that you want the site to be found, but don't want to put a link to it.

If you want to PM me the address of the site, I'll see if I can find any reasons for it being ignored by the search machines.

PM sent.

I very cleverly spelt the second link incorrectly. :o

Sorry.

[sophia8]

Have you checked the robots.txt? Or the .htaccess file? They may have all searchbots blocked.

[H3LL]

Have you checked the robots.txt? Or the .htaccess file? They may have all searchbots blocked.

robot.txt has been checked and given a little tweek. We will see if that works.

.htaccess didn't occur to me. If there was a major problem there wouldn't the site just not load in the browser?

All that is there are the error paths:

ErrorDocument 400 /error.php?400
ErrorDocument 401 /error.php?401
ErrorDocument 403 /error.php?403
ErrorDocument 404 /error.php?404
ErrorDocument 500 /error.php?500

That should be OK - Shouldn't it?
.

[Michael C]

I can't find anything in the site content that's stopping the bots from seeing it. Of course the bots first have to find it, and for that they need links from somewhere else. I would guess that the situation will change when people start using the site and linking to it. If a business is starting up, it needs to attack on all fronts: send e-mails, send real mails, get people to link to the new site, advertise in relevant journals, advertise by word of mouth... The search machine ranking is only part of the picture.

Here are a few comments on the site. These aren't things that should scare away the bots, but they may have some bearing on the rankings.

- The description and keywords seem to be the same on every page. It's recommended to make individual descriptions and sets of keywords.

- There are a lot of validation errors. Google likes valid HTML.

- The navigation links on the left of home page, which are the first set of links encountered in the source code, open in new pages. The actual "main menu", where the links open in the same page, is much further down in the code and appears somewhere down the page on the right. This is good neither for bots nor for human users.

[H3LL]

This post isn't here.

[H3LL]

- There are a lot of validation errors. Google likes valid HTML.


This is not good.

Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type
The document is being served with the text/html Mime Type which is not a registered media type for the XHTML 1.1 Document Type. The recommended media type for this document is: application/xhtml+xml
Using a wrong media type for a certain document type may confuse the validator and other user agents with respect to the nature of the document, and you may get some erroneous validation errors.

Needs fixing even if not related. :mad:

I should have checked.

I'm not sure if it is tampering or a problem with e107. I'll look into it.

Thanks.

BTW - I got an almost-but-not-quite-completely-unlike-a-helpful-answer from Google.

What a surprise.:rolleyes:

[six7s]

Conflict between Mime Type and Document TypeNeeds fixing even if not related. :mad:

As there is no evidence of any need to eXtend the HTML, fixing it would involve converting to HTML4 (strict is best :) )

See: Why most of us should NOT use XHTML (http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum21/12026.htm), which links to Sending XHTML as text/html Considered Harmful (http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml) by Ian Hickson

I'm not sure if it is tampering or a problem with e107

Even if the 'invisibility' issue is a result of (intentional) tampering, I strongly recommend a revision of the decision to go with e107

Despite proclaiming 'Valid xHTML' and Valid CSS (via the w3c logos at the foot of http://e107.org/news.php), the site managers have either never checked or don't understand the error messages

HTML:
SEVEN errors:
validator.w3.org/check on e107.org/news.php (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fe107.org%2Fnews.php)
CSS: FOUR errors:
W3C CSS Validator results for e107.org/news.php (CSS level 2.1) (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fe107.org%2Fnews.php)

Also... the javascript file (http://e107.org/e107_files/e107.js) that is fired by a (rather ugly) body onload event on all(?) e107 sites is bloated (despite a conspicuous absence of /* in-line comments */ ), buggy (unmatched parentheses and curly brackets) and - in the complete absence of explanations and 'workarounds' in <noscript> tags - illegal in some countries (at least for certain types of sites)

US: Section 508 (http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=3)
UK: Disability Discrimination Act (http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/uk-website-legal-requirements.shtml)


__________________________________

As much as I like the philosophy of open source software, I could never recommend anything like e107 with so many fundamental flaws :mad:

Of course... none of this (necessarily) explains the invisibility issue

Hmmmmmm...

[H3LL]

six7s, thanks again.

I'm conscious that I'm straying into territory beyond my knowledge/ability.

[slight derail]

e107 and CMS issues are a tough one for me. Familiarity is the biggest issue and total inability to select another even using comprehensive comparison sites.

As a relative amateur (also not fully understanding the messages) e107 would seem to be better than here or vBulletin (excluding the js issue).

forums.randi.org - MVS = 58 Errors - CSSVS = 145 Warnings

vBulletin.com - MVS = 15 Errors - CSSVS = 3 Errors 40 Warnings

e107.org - MVS = 13 Errors - CSSVS = 4 Errors 0 Warnings

You can see how an uneducated assessment can be misleading (or is it)?

I would be delighted if you or anyone else could recommend a better CMS from experience.

Criteria would be: Free - Apache - PHP - MySQL - Themes - Plugins - No root access needed (I don't have root access on my host).

It must include shop/commercial plugin(s). [/dr]

I would drop e107 in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the fact that all my other sites are very visible with successful traffic and ad income (could be better - need more time - it's 2:43am here as it is).

.

[six7s]

six7s, thanks again.
YVW :)

I'm conscious that I'm straying into territory beyond my knowledge/ability.
<myTurnToDerail>
No offense intended... yeah, the next word is but... but I find it rather bizarre that professionals will almost invariably employ experts to design and manage their buildings, their cars, even their holidays... yet when it comes to what is potentially the most highly visible aspect of their business, a significant proportion opt to save a few dollars and go the DIY approach... with scant regard to the ROI :confused:
</myTurnToDerail>

You can see how an uneducated assessment can be misleading (or is it)?

All errors are not created (nor implemented) equally... A couple of missing alt tags on some kids fanzine or blog is unlikely to detract from the message... However, a DOCTYPE mismatched with a MIME type on a geek's site is - I think - a clear indication that the said geek(s) are in the wrong job

Criteria would be: Free - Apache - PHP - MySQL
Thw whirled is your oyster
- Themes - Plugins -Your whirled - potentially - just shrank a bit

No root access needed (I don't have root access on my host).
Get a new host

I would drop e107 in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the fact that all my other sites are very visible with successful traffic and ad income
There's absolutely no need for you to compromise/jeopardise any of the 'positives'

I would be delighted if you or anyone else could recommend a better CMS from experience.
From experience? No, not yet... it's my next project, due to commence in a fortnight. However... the word from some that I trust and respect (esp with regard to CMSs for dynamic, dB-driven websites) is Drupal (http://drupal.org/)

Or, in keeping with my derail above: Drupal PLUS a professional developer :)

[H3LL]

<myTurnToDerail>No offense intended... yeah, the next word is but... but I find it rather bizarre that professionals will almost invariably employ experts to design and manage their buildings, their cars, even their holidays... yet when it comes to what is potentially the most highly visible aspect of their business, a significant proportion opt to save a few dollars and go the DIY approach... with scant regard to the ROI :confused:
</myTurnToDerail>


I agree entirely apart from the ROI as it is in reality RONI - Return On No Investment. ;)

There is no money for any outside help - Sad to say - It's got to be free or not at all and that applies to solicitors, accountants and other professional services as well.

Many people couldn't function for a day on what we use in a week or more.

When I say that help is appreciated - I really mean it.

I'll give Drupal a test.


.