Indexing techniques
-
Hi,
I just want a confirmation about my indexing technique, if is good or can be improved. The technique is totally whitehat and can be done by one person. Any suggestions or improvements are welcome.
- I create the backlinks ofcource first
- I make a list on public doc from Google.
- On the doc are only ten links.
- After I digg it , and add some more bookmarks 5-6.
- I tweet the digg and each doc. (my 2 twitter accounts have page authority 98)
- I like them in Fb.
- I ping them thru ping serviecs.
- Thats it. Works ok for moment.
Is anything what I can do to improve my technique?
Thanks lot
- I create the backlinks ofcource first
-
No is not gaming, is adult but I am thinking also to develop a gaming site , to turn Mine in a gaming site because in Cy no jobs about SEO. They are more gamblers there , And Online I dont think so that I will go good... Also I make more money from affiliate like to work for somebody... Maybe I wasnt so much lucky I guess...But is ok..Im still happy:)
-
Based on your profile, I'm guessing this is a gaming-related site?
-
My goal is about the old pages to get crawled fast. Which contains my links on them. Is not about my pages.
-
Many of them are authority 10-20-30-40, some other are zero. All are indexed pages because I am taking the links from a competitor. Yes some are low quality links but he is ranking number 1 after 2 500 000 exact matches.I just do this effort to speed up the indexing because many of them are not getting indexed fast. I mean I saw some of them that after 1 month start to show up in Webmaster Tools. After this process all are etting indexed in one day maximum. As for the quality links what you are suggesting to get is almost impossible due to the nature of the niche. Nobody want to give them, as this specific keyword is extremely profitable and have millions of searches. I mean the hardest part is to get the already good ones, and build authority for the other what I create new...OHHHH.. Also we are just 2 persons working here...From 1000 links what I visit until now only 60 was possible to get . Stay another 9000 links for checking.....If I get until 600 from his links will be good I guess , my site is already ranking with his keyword, but in position 50 about(just on page optimization)...and is old, pr 2 with 150 likes and some tweets, all real.The new links are builded in the last 2 days so I dont know where it will goes the site . Other bad on this is that they are around 45 exact matches domains under him with the same keyword...Mine is even not in url..
-
I believe you are referring to getting backlinks indexed. The only reason you would need to go to all that effort is if you were building low quality links on deep pages or pages with thin content that Google would not value in their index (e.g. Forum profile links, blog comments) I'm sure you are doing more than enough to get your links indexed but they will become quickly deindexed if Google no longer values the page content. If you are going to all this effort to index a batch low quality links then why not put that same effort into building links on pages with more trust & better quality content that Google will want in their index?
-
IF your goal is to get your webpages indexed, then why not create a sitemap and submit it in GWT? I don't understand why you would go through all that trouble to get your webpages indexed.
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
-
Images Not Indexing? (Nudity Warning!) - Before & After Photos
One of our clients is in the Cosmetic Surgery business (bodevolve.com) and individuals most likely to purchase a cosmetic procedure only search for 2 things....'**before & after photos' and 'cost'. ** That being said we've worked extremely hard to optimize all 500+ before and after photos. And to our great disappointment, they still aren't being indexed...we are testing a few things but any feedback would be greatly appreciated! All photos are in the 'attachment' sitemap: http://bodevolve.com/sitemap_index.xml I'm also testing a few squeeze pages like this one: http://bodevolve.com/tummy-tuck-before-and-after-photos/ Thanks so much, Brit
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BritneyMuller0 -
Why are some pages indexed but not cached by Google?
The question is simple but I don't understand the answer. I found a webpage that was linking to my personal site. The page was indexed in Google. However, there was no cache option and I received a 404 from Google when I tried using cache:www.thewebpage.com/link/. What exactly does this mean? Also, does it have any negative implication on the SEO value of the link that points to my personal website?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mRELEVANCE0 -
Technical Automated Content - Indexing & Value
One of my clients provides some Financial Analysis tools, which generate automated content on a daily basis for a set of financial derivatives. Basically they try to estimate through technical means weather a particular share price is going up or down, during the day as well as their support and resistance levels. These tools are fairly popular with the visitors, however I'm not sure on the 'quality' of the content from a Google Perspective. They keep an archive of these tools which tally up to nearly a 100 thousand pages, what bothers me particularly is that the content in between each of these varies only slightly. Textually there are maybe up to 10-20 different phrases which describe the move for the day, however the page structure is otherwise similar, except for the Values which are thought to be reached on a daily basis. They believe that it could be useful for users to be able to access back-dated information to be able to see what happened in the past. The main issue is however that there is currently no back-links at all to any of these pages and I assume Google could deem these to be 'shallow' provide little content which as time passes become irrelevant. And I'm not sure if this could cause a duplicate content issue; however they already add a Date in the Title Tags, and in the content to differentiate. I am not sure how I should handle these pages; is it possible to have Google prioritize the 'daily' published one. Say If I published one today; if I had to search "Derivative Analysis" I would see the one which is dated today rather then the 'list-view' or any other older analysis.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jonmifsud0 -
Indexing/Sitemap - I must be wrong
Hi All, I would guess that a great number of us new to SEO (or not) share some simple beliefs in relation to Google indexing and Sitemaps, and as such get confused by what Web master tools shows us. It would be great if somone with experience/knowledge could clear this up for once and all 🙂 Common beliefs: Google will crawl your site from the top down, following each link and recursively repeating the process until it bottoms out/becomes cyclic. A Sitemap can be provided that outlines the definitive structure of the site, and is especially useful for links that may not be easily discovered via crawling. In Google’s webmaster tools in the sitemap section the number of pages indexed shows the number of pages in your sitemap that Google considers to be worthwhile indexing. If you place a rel="canonical" tag on every page pointing to the definitive version you will avoid duplicate content and aid Google in its indexing endeavour. These preconceptions seem fair, but must be flawed. Our site has 1,417 pages as listed in our Sitemap. Google’s tools tell us there are no issues with this sitemap but a mere 44 are indexed! We submit 2,716 images (because we create all our own images for products) and a disappointing zero are indexed. Under Health->Index status in WM tools, we apparently have 4,169 pages indexed. I tend to assume these are old pages that now yield a 404 if they are visited. It could be that Google’s Indexed quotient of 44 could mean “Pages indexed by virtue of your sitemap, i.e. we didn’t find them by crawling – so thanks for that”, but despite trawling through Google’s help, I don’t really get that feeling. This is basic stuff, but I suspect a great number of us struggle to understand the disparity between our expectations and what WM Tools yields, and we go on to either ignore an important problem, or waste time on non-issues. Can anyone shine a light on this for once and all? If you are interested, our map looks like this : http://www.1010direct.com/Sitemap.xml Many thanks Paul
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fretts0 -
Which index page should I canonical to?
Hello! I'm doing a routine clean up of my code and had a question about the canonical tag. On the index page, I have the following: I have never put any thought into which index path is the best to use. http://www.example.com http://www.example.com/ http://www.example.com/index.php Could someone shed some light on this for me? Does it make a difference? Thanks! Ryan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ryan_Phillips1 -
Adding Orphaned Pages to the Google Index
Hey folks, How do you think Google will treat adding 300K orphaned pages to a 4.5 million page site. The URLs would resolve but there would be no on site navigation to those pages, Google would only know about them through sitemap.xmls. These pages are super low competition. The plot thickens, what we are really after is to get 150k real pages back on the site, these pages do have crawlable paths on the site but in order to do that (for technical reasons) we need to push these other 300k orphaned pages live (it's an all or nothing deal) a) Do you think Google will have a problem with this or just decide to not index some or most these pages since they are orphaned. b) If these pages will just fall out of the index or not get included, and have no chance of ever accumulating PR anyway since they are not linked to, would it make sense to just noindex them? c) Should we not submit sitemap.xml files at all, and take our 150k and just ignore these 300k and hope Google ignores them as well since they are orhpaned? d) If Google is OK with this maybe we should submit the sitemap.xmls and keep an eye on the pages, maybe they will rank and bring us a bit of traffic, but we don't want to do that if it could be an issue with Google. Thanks for your opinions and if you have any hard evidence either way especially thanks for that info. 😉
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | irvingw0 -
Is it possible to get a list of pages indexed in Google?
Is there a tool that will give me a list of pages on my site that are indexed in Google?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rise10 -
How long till pages drop out of the index
In your experience how long does it normally take for 301-redirected pages to drop out of Google's index?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bjalc20110
