90 days for Google
-
Hi,
I'm new to Moz so still getting a feel of the forums. If my question has been answered then please point me in the right direction.
I have noticed with many SEO companies they advertise that they can get you on google front page in 90 days. I'm not really interested in their techniques but more of why google takes 90+ to even appear.
I have been working on my site for over a month, adding content, building good links, social media, blogs etc... but have not even come close to appearing in the top 50 pages for google. Is this normal? Is it just a matter of time before it starts to appear?
Also, I have checked my backlinks and there is about 8 links that are coming from random pages in the US and some from China and india which i have no idea of. I tried to visit on of the sites but it had malware. I added all these back links to google disavow so hopefully that will fix it. Could that be the reason google would not even list my site?
Thanks...
Rick
-
Most sites say 90 days but the small print is that they will get you on page one for your brand name not your #1 key term or they will get a Google local page for you and get you ranking that way.
It can take a while to rank well, depending on the keyphrases it can take years, and for the very long tail stuff just a few days/weeks.
Links are still very important and you need to create good quality content on your site and then let sites that would be interested in knowing about that aware of it in the hope they will link to you.
Be careful with your link building, Google is dishing out penalties left right and center.
Get a link in some big directories like dmoz and yahoo. Get a facbook profile and twitter, Google loves social as well. Try to update them once a week. Even with just a small post.
Write good content and interlink where possible to create a good internal flow. (don't over do it)
It all takes time but all of a sudden it just happens and you start ranking well.
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
-
Google ranking content for phrases that don't exist on-page
I am experiencing an issue with negative keywords, but the “negative” keyword in question isn’t truly negative and is required within the content – the problem is that Google is ranking pages for inaccurate phrases that don’t exist on the page. To explain, this product page (as one of many examples) - https://www.scamblermusic.com/albums/royalty-free-rock-music/ - is optimised for “Royalty free rock music” and it gets a Moz grade of 100. “Royalty free” is the most accurate description of the music (I optimised for “royalty free” instead of “royalty-free” (including a hyphen) because of improved search volume), and there is just one reference to the term “copyrighted” towards the foot of the page – this term is relevant because I need to make the point that the music is licensed, not sold, and the licensee pays for the right to use the music but does not own it (as it remains copyrighted). It turns out however that I appear to need to treat “copyrighted” almost as a negative term because Google isn’t accurately ranking the content. Despite excellent optimisation for “Royalty free rock music” and only one single reference of “copyrighted” within the copy, I am seeing this page (and other album genres) wrongly rank for the following search terms: “free rock music”
On-Page Optimization | | JCN-SBWD
“Copyright free rock music"
“Uncopyrighted rock music”
“Non copyrighted rock music” I understand that pages might rank for “free rock music” because it is part of the “Royalty free rock music” optimisation, what I can’t get my head around is why the page (and similar product pages) are ranking for “Copyright free”, “Uncopyrighted music” and “Non copyrighted music”. “Uncopyrighted” and “Non copyrighted” don’t exist anywhere within the copy or source code – why would Google consider it helpful to rank a page for a search term that doesn’t exist as a complete phrase within the content? By the same logic the page should also wrongly rank for “Skylark rock music” or “Pretzel rock music” as the words “Skylark” and “Pretzel” also feature just once within the content and therefore should generate completely inaccurate results too. To me this demonstrates just how poor Google is when it comes to understanding relevant content and optimization - it's taking part of an optimized term and combining it with just one other single-use word and then inappropriately ranking the page for that completely made up phrase. It’s one thing to misinterpret one reference of the term “copyrighted” and something else entirely to rank a page for completely made up terms such as “Uncopyrighted” and “Non copyrighted”. It almost makes me think that I’ve got a better chance of accurately ranking content if I buy a goat, shove a cigar up its backside, and sacrifice it in the name of the great god Google! Any advice (about wrongly attributed negative keywords, not goat sacrifice ) would be most welcome.0 -
Google Answer Box
I optimized several pages using Rand's post on Google Answer Box: https://moz.com/blog/how-to-appear-in-googles-answer-boxes-whiteboard-friday How long after the page is indexed should it appear? Lastly, how long should I wait before determining it will not get an answer box and reconfigure the page? No bad answers 🙂 TY KJr
On-Page Optimization | | KevnJr0 -
Getting different search queries in Google Webmaster
Hi All, I have a website Afrofood.com. In it's Google webmaster search queries i have more than 90 Queries, but not a single query is related with this site. All queries are from different site or subject, they have no any relation with my site. Can any one please tell me how to correct this... Site is Afrofood.com related with African foods, recipes, spices and all that. But showing search queries are: [canada goose](https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/top-search-queries?hl=en&siteUrl=http://afrofood.com/&authuser=1#canada goose) [canada goose outlet deutschland](https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/top-search-queries?hl=en&siteUrl=http://afrofood.com/&authuser=1#canada goose outlet deutschland) [polizei shop düsseldorf](https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/top-search-queries?hl=en&siteUrl=http://afrofood.com/&authuser=1#polizei shop düsseldorf) [canada goose deutschland](https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/top-search-queries?hl=en&siteUrl=http://afrofood.com/&authuser=1#canada goose deutschland) [canada goose weste](https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/top-search-queries?hl=en&siteUrl=http://afrofood.com/&authuser=1#canada goose weste) [canada goose kaufen](https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/top-search-queries?hl=en&siteUrl=http://afrofood.com/&authuser=1#canada goose kaufen) [canada goose hamburg](https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/top-search-queries?hl=en&siteUrl=http://afrofood.com/&authuser=1#canada goose hamburg) [canada goose größentabelle](https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/top-search-queries?hl=en&siteUrl=http://afrofood.com/&authuser=1#canada goose größentabelle)
On-Page Optimization | | 1akal0 -
How the hell do you get microformat to show up on google serp?
Preface: I implemented Microformat aggregate review (http://data-vocabulary.org/Review-aggregate) for our e-commerce website and included only on the homepage. The vote and count are actually coming from real reviews we are getting from our customers, and in the homepage some reviews are shown prominently and a link points to the full list of all the reviews. Microformat markup is correct, validated in GWT. Have been online for a while (probably a couple of years). Our website: http://www.gomme-auto.it The star rating never showed up. When checking competitors I could see their microformats where not showing up either. But now things changed, if I check one competitor (the market leader www.gommadiretto.it) searching for it with their brand name “gommadiretto” no star rating is showing, but if I search for tires of a specific manufactured like “pneumatici barum” I can see their result in serp is showing the star rating for that specific internal page (the brand page) where they simply put the website overall aggregate review microformat mark up, they actually put it on every page. And that make me scratch my head and start asking myself some questions: is google showing their microformats because they manually awarded them somehow? no other competitor seems to have got the star rating in serp is google showing their microformats because they have so much more reviews than I have? I have around 1700, they have around 11000. is google showing their microformats because their reviews are certified by TrustPilot? is google showing their microformats because they put it in the product page? well of course since I am not putting it there (in the brand page) it's a factor, but isn't it recommended to put the website aggregate reviews microformat only on one page? and shouldn't we show the brand reviews on the brand page? isn't it best practice/recommended to put the website aggregate review microformat only on one page? is google showing their microformats because of some other reasons I can't see? What the hell is google criteria for showing the star rating? Does anyone know?
On-Page Optimization | | max.favilli0 -
Is it bad to include google Maps in footer?
We have 5 locations and we were thinking about including a map for each location in the footer. These would be set-up as no-follow links. They could potentially enhance user experience but it also increases size of footer. Right now there are just basic links to pages (sitemap, terms, etc), contact info, social links, and contact form. If we did the maps it would also include link to the individual location pages. Not sure if we are doing too much in footer or need to just keep it basic. Thanks for the help!
On-Page Optimization | | Restore0 -
Does Google use 302's to pass value to the target page?
Hi, I've received the below advice, is this correct? Throughout the site, the 302 (moved temporarily) status code is used for redirects, which Google will use to pass value to the target page. Is this correct? I was under the impression a 301 was used to pass value to the target page? Could someone explain the difference between a 301 and a 302, I'm not 100% sure. Thanks, Nathan
On-Page Optimization | | Heehaw0 -
Does Google Bias Against Homepages for Search Queries that are a Question?
If you are trying to rank for a keyword phrase that is a question (e.g. how to ___) does it matter if your page is the home page of your site or an article on your site? I suspect that Google would treat question search queries differently and would show preference for articles over a home page in most cases. An article would be more likely to satisfy the searcher by providing the answer to their question, whereas the home page usually doesn't provide specific answers. I looked at one keyword phrase that is a question and only 1 of the first 20 results was a home page. Any thoughts or experience with this?
On-Page Optimization | | Charlessipe0 -
Schema.org and Google +
Now that google merged local into Google+, should we be changing the way we do the reviews on our sites to be out of 3? I had one out of 5 and it showed up in the SERPS, but since the change now nothing shows.
On-Page Optimization | | netviper0