Original content, widely quoted - yet ignored by Google
-
Our website is https://greatfire.org. We are a non-profit working to bring transparency to online censorship in China. By helping us resolve this problem you are helping us in the cause of internet freedom.
If you search for "great firewall" or "great firewall of china", would you be interested in finding a database of what websites and searches are blocked by this Great Firewall of China? We have been running a non-profit project with this objective for almost a year and in so doing have created the biggest and most updated database of online censorship in China. Yet, to this date, you cannot find it in Google by searching for any relevant keywords.
A similar website, www.greatfirewallofchina.org, is listed as #3 when searching for "great firewall". Our website provides a more accurate testing tool, as well as historic data. Regardless of whether our service is better, we believe we should at least be included in the top 10.
We have been testing out an Adwords campaign to see whether our website is of interest to users using these keywords. For example, users searching for "great firewall of china" end up browsing on average 2.62 pages and spending 03:18 minutes on the website. This suggests to us that our website is of interest to users searching for these keywords.
Do you have any idea what the problem could be that is grave enough to not even include us in the top 100 for these keywords?
We have recently posted this same question on the Google Webmaster Central but did not get a satisfactory answer: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=5c14a7e16c07cbb7&hl=en&fid=5c14a7e16c07cbb70004b5f1d985e70e
-
Thanks very much for your reply Jerod!
Google Webmaster Tools is set up and working. Some info:
-
No detected malware
-
1 crawl error (I think this must have been temporary. Only reported once, and this url is not in the robots.txt now):
- http://greatfire.org/url/190838
- URL restricted by robots.txt
- Dec 10, 2011
-
Pages crawled per day, average: 1102
-
Time spent downloading a page (in milliseconds), average: 2116
The robots.txt is mostly the standard one provided by Drupal. We've added "Disallow: /node/" because all interesting urls should have a more interesting alias than that. We'll look more into whether this can be the cause.
Anything else that you notice?
-
-
Hi, GreatFire-
We had a very similar problem with one of the sites we manage at http://www.miwaterstewardship.org/. The website is pretty good, the domain has dozens of super high-quality backlinks (including EDU and GOV links), but The Googles were being a real pain and not displaying the website in a SERP no matter what we did.
Ultimately, we think we found the solution in robots.txt. The entire site had been disallowed for quite a long time (at the client's request) while it was being built and updated. After we modified the robots.txt file, made sure Webmaster tools was up and running, pinged the site several times, etc. it was still being blocked in the SERPs. After two months or more of researching, trying fixes, and working on the issue, the site finally started being displayed. The only thing we can figure is that Google was "angry" (for all intents and purposes) at us for leaving the site blocked for so long.
No one at Google would come out and tell us that this was the case or even that it was a possibility. It's just our best guess at what happened.
I can see that greatwall.org also has a rather substantial robots.txt file in place. It looks like everything is in order in that file but it might still be causing some troubles.
Is Webmaster tools set up? Is the site being scanned and indexed properly?
You can read up on our conversation with SEOmoz users here if you're interested: http://www.seomoz.org/q/google-refuses-to-index-our-domain-any-suggestions
Good luck with this. I know how frustrating it can be!
Jerod
-
Hi GreatFire,
With regard to the homepage content - you really don't have much there for the search engines to get their teeth into. I would work on adding a few paragraphs of text explaining what your service does and what benefits it provides to your users.
I disagree that your blog should be viewed as only an extra to your website. It can be a great way to increase your keyword referral traffic, engage with your audience and get picked up by other sites.
Just because Wikipedia have written about your topic already doesn't mean you should't cover the subject in more detail - otherwise no one would have anything to write about!
As you have the knowledge on the subject, involved with it everyday, and have a website dedicated to it - you are the perfect candidate to start producing better content and become the 'hub' for all things related to the how China uses the internet.
Cheers
Andrew
-
Hi Andrew,
Thank you very much for your response. The two main differences you point out are very useful for us. We will keep working on links and social mentions.
One thing I am puzzled about though is the labeling of the site as "not having a lot of content". I feel this is misunderstanding the purpose of the website. The blog is only an extra. What we provide is a means to test whether any url is blocked or not in China, as well as download speed. For each url in our database, we provide a historic, calendar-view to help identify when a website was blocked or unblocked in the past.
So our website first and foremost offers a tool and a lot of non-text data. To me, expanding on the text content, while I understand the reasoning, sounds like recommending Google to place a long description of what a search engine is on their front page.
If you want to read the history of the Great Firewall of China, you can do it on Wikipedia. I don't see why we should explain it, when they do it better. On the other hand, if you want to know if website X is blocked or not in China, Wikipedia is not practical since it's only manually updated. Our data offers the latest status at all times.
Do you see what I mean? It would be great to hear what you think about this.
-
Hi GreatFire,
Your competitor has a much stronger site in the following two main areas:
- More backlinks (resulting in a higher PR)
- More social mentions
Focus on building more backlinks by researching your competitors domain with Open Site Explorer and MajesticSEO. Keep up your activity in your social circles, and also get going with Google+ if you haven't already.
You should also fix your title tag to include the target keyword at the start - not at the end. So it would read something like 'Great firewall of china - bringing transparency from greatfire.org'
Looking through your site you don't appear to have that much content (this was also mentioned in your Google Support thread) so I would focus on building out the content on the homepage and also further developing your blog. For example your 'Wukan Blocked only on Weibo' blog post is not really long enough to generate you much referral traffic. Larger authority articles of 1000+ words plus with richer content (link references, pictures, Google+ author/social connections) etc will help you far more.
Conduct the relevant keyword research for your blog posts in the same way you did with your root domain. This will keep your website niche focused and generating lots of similar 'china firewall' terms.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Andrew
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Why is Google no longer Indexing and Ranking my state pages with Dynamic Content?
Hi, We have some state specific pages that display dynamic content based on the state that is selected here. For example this page displays new york based content. But for some reason google is no longer ranking these pages. Instead it's defaulting to the page where you select the state here. But last year the individual state dynamic pages were ranking. The only change we made was move these pages from http to https. But now google isn't seeing these individual dynamically generated state based pages. When I do a site: url search it doesn't find any of these state pages. Any thoughts on why this is happening and how to fix it. Thanks in advance for any insight. Eddy By the way when I check these pages in google search console fetch as google, google is able to see these pages fine and they're not being blocked by any robot.txt.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | eddys_kap0 -
Nofollow "print" URLs?
Hi there, Apols for the basic question but is it considered good practice to nofollow one of one's own URLs? Basically our 'print page' command produces an identical URL in the same window but with .../?print=1 at the end. As far as I've been reading, the nofollow html attribute is, broadly speaking, only for links to external websites you don't want to vouch for or internal links to login/register pages that together with noindex, you're asking Google not to waste crawl budget on. (The print page is already noindexed so we're good there) Can anyone confirm the above from their own experience? Thanks so much!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Daft.ie0 -
When i search for my domain name - google asks "did you mean" - why?
Hi all, I just noticed something quite odd - if i do a search for my domain name (see: http://goo.gl/LBc1lz) google shows my domain as first result, but it also asks "did i mean" and names another website with very similar name. the other site has far lower PA/DA according to Moz, any ideas why google is doing this? and more inportantly how i could stop it? please advise James
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | isntworkdull0 -
Google Indexing Duplicate URLs : Ignoring Robots & Canonical Tags
Hi Moz Community, We have the following robots command that should prevent URLs with tracking parameters being indexed. Disallow: /*? We have noticed google has started indexing pages that are using tracking parameters. Example below. http://www.oakfurnitureland.co.uk/furniture/original-rustic-solid-oak-4-drawer-storage-coffee-table/1149.html http://www.oakfurnitureland.co.uk/furniture/original-rustic-solid-oak-4-drawer-storage-coffee-table/1149.html?ec=affee77a60fe4867 These pages are identified as duplicate content yet have the correct canonical tags: https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&site=&source=hp&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.oakfurnitureland.co.uk%2Ffurniture%2Foriginal-rustic-solid-oak-4-drawer-storage-coffee-table%2F1149.html&oq=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.oakfurnitureland.co.uk%2Ffurniture%2Foriginal-rustic-solid-oak-4-drawer-storage-coffee-table%2F1149.html&gs_l=hp.3..0i10j0l9.4201.5461.0.5879.8.8.0.0.0.0.82.376.7.7.0....0...1c.1.58.hp..3.5.268.0.JTW91YEkjh4 With various affiliate feeds available for our site, we effectively have duplicate versions of every page due to the tracking query that Google seems to be willing to index, ignoring both robots rules & canonical tags. Can anyone shed any light onto the situation?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JBGlobalSEO0 -
Can Google read content/see links on subscription sites?
If an article is published on The Times (for example), can Google by-pass the subscription sign-in to read the content and index the links in the article? Example: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/property/overseas/article4245346.ece In the above article there is a link to the resort's website but you can't see this unless you subscribe. I checked the source code of the page with the subscription prompt present and the link isn't there. Is there a way that these sites deal with search engines differently to other user agents to allow the content to be crawled and indexed?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CustardOnlineMarketing0 -
Should you bother with an "impact links" manual action
I have a couple sites that have these, and I have done a lot of work to get them removed, but there seems to be very little if any benefit from doing this. In fact, sites were we have done nothing after these penalties seem to be doing better than ones where we have done link removal and the reconsideration request. Google says "I_f you don’t control the links pointing to your site, no action is required on your part. From Google’s perspective, the links already won’t count in ranking. However, if possible, you may wish to remove any artificial links to your site and, if you’re able to get the artificial links removed, submit a reconsideration request__. If we determine that the links to your site are no longer in violation of our guidelines, we’ll revoke the manual action._" I would guess a lot of people with this penalty don't even know they have it, and it sounds like leaving it alone really doesn't hurt your site. If seems to me that just simply ignoring this and building better links and higher quality content should help improve your site rankings vs. worrying about trying to get all these links removed/disavowed. What are your thoughts? Is it worth trying to get this manual action removed?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | netviper0 -
Can too many "noindex" pages compared to "index" pages be a problem?
Hello, I have a question for you: our website virtualsheetmusic.com includes thousands of product pages, and due to Panda penalties in the past, we have no-indexed most of the product pages hoping in a sort of recovery (not yet seen though!). So, currently we have about 4,000 "index" page compared to about 80,000 "noindex" pages. Now, we plan to add additional 100,000 new product pages from a new publisher to offer our customers more music choice, and these new pages will still be marked as "noindex, follow". At the end of the integration process, we will end up having something like 180,000 "noindex, follow" pages compared to about 4,000 "index, follow" pages. Here is my question: can this huge discrepancy between 180,000 "noindex" pages and 4,000 "index" pages be a problem? Can this kind of scenario have or cause any negative effect on our current natural SEs profile? or is this something that doesn't actually matter? Any thoughts on this issue are very welcome. Thank you! Fabrizio
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau0 -
Maximum of 100 links on a page vs rel="nofollow"
All, I read within the SEOmoz blog that search engines consider 100 links on a page to be plenty, and we should try (where possible) to keep within the 100 limit. My question is; when a rel="nofollow" attribute is given to a link, does that link still count towards your maximum 100? Many thanks Guy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Horizon0