New to the groups, but I've searched for a similar case and did not
find any. If I'm repeating someone else's question, feel free to
redirect me to any answers already given.
The (strange) problem is this: after launching http://www.fortunefriends.nl a few days ago (november 30th 2008) pages where almost instantly
picked up by Google (verified in Webmaster Tools, uploaded sitemap,
etc.). Doing a site:www.fortunefriends.nl query made quite a few pages
show up, and searching for 'fortunefriends' gave us a number 1
position.
Not bad, in just 2 days after launch...
However, today (day 3 after going live), no pages are indexed at all.
Doing a site:www.fortunefriends.nl gives 0 results. How can this be?
Webmaster Tools reveals my sitemap to be okay, but no pages are
indexed yet (but that was also the case right after launch).
Checked with different tools whether some technical error might be
causing this, but still no obvious reason found. I can't imagine
violating any Google rules with this site.
Just one thing that might be of help: I had the beta version of the
site up and running behind a http header login for testing. The
Webmaster Tools reveal that Google tried indexing the site on November
23rd, but that it was given a '401/407 authentication error'. Not sure
if this is relevant, but who know.
Can anyone help? Have I done something to piss of Google in just a few
days after launch, or should I just be more patient for Google to
really index the site?
Different DataCenters?
You could be talking to a different set of computers/data, and thus
seeing different results.
It's usually around a week or so for things to "settle" a little for
new site launches.
It usually consists of the main index and a smattering of other pages.
> New to the groups, but I've searched for a similar case and did not
> find any. If I'm repeating someone else's question, feel free to
> redirect me to any answers already given.
> The (strange) problem is this: after launchinghttp://www.fortunefriends.nl > a few days ago (november 30th 2008) pages where almost instantly
> picked up by Google (verified in Webmaster Tools, uploaded sitemap,
> etc.). Doing a site:www.fortunefriends.nlquery made quite a few pages
> show up, and searching for 'fortunefriends' gave us a number 1
> position.
> Not bad, in just 2 days after launch...
> However, today (day 3 after going live), no pages are indexed at all.
> Doing a site:www.fortunefriends.nlgives 0 results. How can this be?
> Webmaster Tools reveals my sitemap to be okay, but no pages are
> indexed yet (but that was also the case right after launch).
> Checked with different tools whether some technical error might be
> causing this, but still no obvious reason found. I can't imagine
> violating any Google rules with this site.
> Just one thing that might be of help: I had the beta version of the
> site up and running behind a http header login for testing. The
> Webmaster Tools reveal that Google tried indexing the site on November
> 23rd, but that it was given a '401/407 authentication error'. Not sure
> if this is relevant, but who know.
> Can anyone help? Have I done something to piss of Google in just a few
> days after launch, or should I just be more patient for Google to
> really index the site?
Still, whilst waiting for things to initially settle, you have the
opportunity to tidy up a few mistakes...
why 2 Verify tags?
why use the Revisit tag?
You didn't close your keywords tag properly (missing /)
.
You could also look into things like Titles usage and Semantic
Structure...
<title>
you have the Site/Business name as the first word in the titles...
followed by the page.
would it not make more sense to possible do PageName - SiteName?
(Do some research on it and see if there is a difference?)
Header tags (h1/h2/h3)
On some pages, you have an H1, followed by an H3 (rather than an H2)?
> New to the groups, but I've searched for a similar case and did not
> find any. If I'm repeating someone else's question, feel free to
> redirect me to any answers already given.
> The (strange) problem is this: after launchinghttp://www.fortunefriends.nl > a few days ago (november 30th 2008) pages where almost instantly
> picked up by Google (verified in Webmaster Tools, uploaded sitemap,
> etc.). Doing a site:www.fortunefriends.nlquery made quite a few pages
> show up, and searching for 'fortunefriends' gave us a number 1
> position.
> Not bad, in just 2 days after launch...
> However, today (day 3 after going live), no pages are indexed at all.
> Doing a site:www.fortunefriends.nlgives 0 results. How can this be?
> Webmaster Tools reveals my sitemap to be okay, but no pages are
> indexed yet (but that was also the case right after launch).
> Checked with different tools whether some technical error might be
> causing this, but still no obvious reason found. I can't imagine
> violating any Google rules with this site.
> Just one thing that might be of help: I had the beta version of the
> site up and running behind a http header login for testing. The
> Webmaster Tools reveal that Google tried indexing the site on November
> 23rd, but that it was given a '401/407 authentication error'. Not sure
> if this is relevant, but who know.
> Can anyone help? Have I done something to piss of Google in just a few
> days after launch, or should I just be more patient for Google to
> really index the site?
First of all: thanks for replying so quickly, I really appreciate that
and all of your other suggestions!
> why 2 Verify tags?
The second verify tag was added just two hours ago (after disappearing
from the index), because the owner of the site wanted to check out the
Webmaster Tools for this site also (so, one verify tag for me, one for
the owner). I assumed this was the way to go... isn't it?
> why use the Revisit tag?
No real reason, I just wanted to be as complete as I could be header
wise. If it serves no purpose, I guess I could just get rid of it, but
I can't imagine it doing much harm. http://www.fortunefriends.nl is
almost an exact copy code wise of http://www.kiddiegift.nl, and the
latter is being indexed fine for over a year now. That's why I assumed
using the same headers would work out fine.
> You didn't close your keywords tag properly (missing /)
True, fixed.
> would it not make more sense to possible do PageName - SiteName?
Sounds quite logical, fixed.
> On some pages, you have an H1, followed by an H3 (rather than an H2)?
I'll look into this, thanks for the note.
If I'm not mistaken, you are telling me to sit and wait for a while to
see where Google is going with this. I think you might be right... we
were quite surprised to see that were indexed that fast, so I guess
it's quite early to start to panic. Thanks for handing me some tips on
improving my headers, that's more than I counted on. By all means,
feel free to point me to other quirks you might encounter ;)
I will wait and see, and report back if things change (or, after
reasonable time, don't).
FYI: I tried a few online tools to seek out search results for
fortunefriends.nl and all datacenters seem to be giving the same
result... Not sure if this means it's not a matter of different
DataCenters and 'things to settle', but it seems unlikely that there
are any indexed pages at the moment. Nevertheless, I will remain
patient ;)
> Different DataCenters?
> You could be talking to a different set of computers/data, and thus
> seeing different results.
> It's usually around a week or so for things to "settle" a little for
> new site launches.
> It usually consists of the main index and a smattering of other pages.
> On Dec 4, 10:57 am, jeroendenhaan wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > New to the groups, but I've searched for a similar case and did not
> > find any. If I'm repeating someone else's question, feel free to
> > redirect me to any answers already given.
> > The (strange) problem is this: after launchinghttp://www.fortunefriends.nl > > a few days ago (november 30th 2008) pages where almost instantly
> > picked up by Google (verified in Webmaster Tools, uploaded sitemap,
> > etc.). Doing a site:www.fortunefriends.nlquerymade quite a few pages
> > show up, and searching for 'fortunefriends' gave us a number 1
> > position.
> > Not bad, in just 2 days after launch...
> > However, today (day 3 after going live), no pages are indexed at all.
> > Doing a site:www.fortunefriends.nlgives0 results. How can this be?
> > Webmaster Tools reveals my sitemap to be okay, but no pages are
> > indexed yet (but that was also the case right after launch).
> > Checked with different tools whether some technical error might be
> > causing this, but still no obvious reason found. I can't imagine
> > violating any Google rules with this site.
> > Just one thing that might be of help: I had the beta version of the
> > site up and running behind a http header login for testing. The
> > Webmaster Tools reveal that Google tried indexing the site on November
> > 23rd, but that it was given a '401/407 authentication error'. Not sure
> > if this is relevant, but who know.
> > Can anyone help? Have I done something to piss of Google in just a few
> > days after launch, or should I just be more patient for Google to
> > really index the site?
The top menu is javascript only. None of those links will be picked up
from there by any crawler.
You need to provide a <noscript> alternative with plain html links.
You could add some text content to the homepage as well, otherwise
most of what you have is hyperlinked to other pages.
> First of all: thanks for replying so quickly, I really appreciate that
> and all of your other suggestions!
> > why 2 Verify tags?
> The second verify tag was added just two hours ago (after disappearing
> from the index), because the owner of the site wanted to check out the
> Webmaster Tools for this site also (so, one verify tag for me, one for
> the owner). I assumed this was the way to go... isn't it?
> > why use the Revisit tag?
> No real reason, I just wanted to be as complete as I could be header
> wise. If it serves no purpose, I guess I could just get rid of it, but
> I can't imagine it doing much harm.http://www.fortunefriends.nlis > almost an exact copy code wise ofhttp://www.kiddiegift.nl, and the
> latter is being indexed fine for over a year now. That's why I assumed
> using the same headers would work out fine.
> > You didn't close your keywords tag properly (missing /)
> True, fixed.
> > would it not make more sense to possible do PageName - SiteName?
> Sounds quite logical, fixed.
> > On some pages, you have an H1, followed by an H3 (rather than an H2)?
> I'll look into this, thanks for the note.
> If I'm not mistaken, you are telling me to sit and wait for a while to
> see where Google is going with this. I think you might be right... we
> were quite surprised to see that were indexed that fast, so I guess
> it's quite early to start to panic. Thanks for handing me some tips on
> improving my headers, that's more than I counted on. By all means,
> feel free to point me to other quirks you might encounter ;)
> I will wait and see, and report back if things change (or, after
> reasonable time, don't).
I have faced the very same problem today: my site was finally indexed
and added to google search results but after a few hours, it
disappeared again. I can't think of any valid reason why google would
blacklist my page. At the webmaster tools says that my site is
verified and everything is just fine.
Is it really possible that the are several google server locations and
databases for which it takes time to synchronize with themselves, or
my site got blacklisted (for any reason)? In case I'm allowed and it
helps, I could provide you my domain name.
> FYI: I tried a few online tools to seek out search results for
> fortunefriends.nl and all datacenters seem to be giving the same
> result... Not sure if this means it's not a matter of different
> DataCenters and 'things to settle', but it seems unlikely that there
> are any indexed pages at the moment. Nevertheless, I will remain
> patient ;)
> On Dec 4, 1:25 pm, Autocrat wrote:
> > Different DataCenters?
> > You could be talking to a different set of computers/data, and thus
> > seeing different results.
> > It's usually around a week or so for things to "settle" a little for
> > new site launches.
> > It usually consists of the main index and a smattering of other pages.
> > On Dec 4, 10:57 am, jeroendenhaan wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > New to the groups, but I've searched for a similar case and did not
> > > find any. If I'm repeating someone else's question, feel free to
> > > redirect me to any answers already given.
> > > The (strange) problem is this: after launchinghttp://www.fortunefriends.nl > > > a few days ago (november 30th 2008) pages where almost instantly
> > > picked up by Google (verified in Webmaster Tools, uploaded sitemap,
> > > etc.). Doing a site:www.fortunefriends.nlquerymadequite a few pages
> > > show up, and searching for 'fortunefriends' gave us a number 1
> > > position.
> > > Not bad, in just 2 days after launch...
> > > However, today (day 3 after going live), no pages are indexed at all.
> > > Doing a site:www.fortunefriends.nlgives0results. How can this be?
> > > Webmaster Tools reveals my sitemap to be okay, but no pages are
> > > indexed yet (but that was also the case right after launch).
> > > Checked with different tools whether some technical error might be
> > > causing this, but still no obvious reason found. I can't imagine
> > > violating any Google rules with this site.
> > > Just one thing that might be of help: I had the beta version of the
> > > site up and running behind a http header login for testing. The
> > > Webmaster Tools reveal that Google tried indexing the site on November
> > > 23rd, but that it was given a '401/407 authentication error'. Not sure
> > > if this is relevant, but who know.
> > > Can anyone help? Have I done something to piss of Google in just a few
> > > days after launch, or should I just be more patient for Google to
> > > really index the site?
> The top menu is javascript only. None of those links will be picked up from there by any crawler.
Heheh... thanks, good tip. It was already on my to-do list, but I'll
make haste in setting that straight. I'll probably get rid of the
javascript completely for the menu, I think it'd be best to solve it
using normal links to begin with.
The text content remark makes sense, thanks again.
But, like you and Autocrat both mention, the matter of not being
indexed at all (as opposed to, say, not being indexed optimally) must
be solved with patience...
> The top menu is javascript only. None of those links will be picked up
> from there by any crawler.
> You need to provide a <noscript> alternative with plain html links.
> You could add some text content to the homepage as well, otherwise
> most of what you have is hyperlinked to other pages.
> And then be patient.
> On Dec 4, 7:47 am, jeroendenhaan wrote:
> > Hi Autocrat,
> > First of all: thanks for replying so quickly, I really appreciate that
> > and all of your other suggestions!
> > > why 2 Verify tags?
> > The second verify tag was added just two hours ago (after disappearing
> > from the index), because the owner of the site wanted to check out the
> > Webmaster Tools for this site also (so, one verify tag for me, one for
> > the owner). I assumed this was the way to go... isn't it?
> > > why use the Revisit tag?
> > No real reason, I just wanted to be as complete as I could be header
> > wise. If it serves no purpose, I guess I could just get rid of it, but
> > I can't imagine it doing much harm.http://www.fortunefriends.nlis > > almost an exact copy code wise ofhttp://www.kiddiegift.nl, and the
> > latter is being indexed fine for over a year now. That's why I assumed
> > using the same headers would work out fine.
> > > You didn't close your keywords tag properly (missing /)
> > True, fixed.
> > > would it not make more sense to possible do PageName - SiteName?
> > Sounds quite logical, fixed.
> > > On some pages, you have an H1, followed by an H3 (rather than an H2)?
> > I'll look into this, thanks for the note.
> > If I'm not mistaken, you are telling me to sit and wait for a while to
> > see where Google is going with this. I think you might be right... we
> > were quite surprised to see that were indexed that fast, so I guess
> > it's quite early to start to panic. Thanks for handing me some tips on
> > improving my headers, that's more than I counted on. By all means,
> > feel free to point me to other quirks you might encounter ;)
> > I will wait and see, and report back if things change (or, after
> > reasonable time, don't).
@webado: while we wait, the javascript menu has been fixed.
@BLaslo: try searching Google for 'check datacenters google'... it'll
give you a number of online tools with which you can check your domain
and/or keywords across multiple data centers. Like I said before, it
doesn't seem to do much for my problem, but maybe it sheds a light on
yours.
> The top menu is javascript only. None of those links will be picked up
> from there by any crawler.
> You need to provide a <noscript> alternative with plain html links.
> You could add some text content to the homepage as well, otherwise
> most of what you have is hyperlinked to other pages.
> And then be patient.
> On Dec 4, 7:47 am, jeroendenhaan wrote:
> > Hi Autocrat,
> > First of all: thanks for replying so quickly, I really appreciate that
> > and all of your other suggestions!
> > > why 2 Verify tags?
> > The second verify tag was added just two hours ago (after disappearing
> > from the index), because the owner of the site wanted to check out the
> > Webmaster Tools for this site also (so, one verify tag for me, one for
> > the owner). I assumed this was the way to go... isn't it?
> > > why use the Revisit tag?
> > No real reason, I just wanted to be as complete as I could be header
> > wise. If it serves no purpose, I guess I could just get rid of it, but
> > I can't imagine it doing much harm.http://www.fortunefriends.nlis > > almost an exact copy code wise ofhttp://www.kiddiegift.nl, and the
> > latter is being indexed fine for over a year now. That's why I assumed
> > using the same headers would work out fine.
> > > You didn't close your keywords tag properly (missing /)
> > True, fixed.
> > > would it not make more sense to possible do PageName - SiteName?
> > Sounds quite logical, fixed.
> > > On some pages, you have an H1, followed by an H3 (rather than an H2)?
> > I'll look into this, thanks for the note.
> > If I'm not mistaken, you are telling me to sit and wait for a while to
> > see where Google is going with this. I think you might be right... we
> > were quite surprised to see that were indexed that fast, so I guess
> > it's quite early to start to panic. Thanks for handing me some tips on
> > improving my headers, that's more than I counted on. By all means,
> > feel free to point me to other quirks you might encounter ;)
> > I will wait and see, and report back if things change (or, after
> > reasonable time, don't).
|
