New Sites in 2016 Get Automatically Buried?

13 replies
  • SEO
  • |
I recently made 3 new websites (all on brand new domains). Prior to this I had not made any sites since early 2015.

I've made dozen of sites in 2014 and 2015, and I know that a brand new site with no links, where the page(s) is optimized correctly for the keyword, will always land somewhere in the 50th-200th position on google, always. And this will happen within 3 days of publishing a new site. Sure, it may take months to a year to hit the first few pages, but you will always land within the top 200 positions nearly immediately if the website is set up correctly.

However, this doesnt seem to apply anymore as of 2016. All 3 of the new sites I've made in the past few months have yet to have any of their pages even show up in the top 200 positions of google. And it's been about 2 months.

I am wondering if there was an algo this year that basically made it so any brand new website will not even show up in google until it gets some amount of traffic or links to it, or meets a certain time frame? I am positive all of my new websites are not suffering from any penalization issues. So it cannot be that problem.

Also, all websites and pages are indexed in google.
#2016 #automatically #buried #sites
  • Profile picture of the author Hearn
    I do not know of such an update.

    "any brand new website will not even show up in google" for any keyword? I don't think that's the case if the website is indexed. But yeah from my experience it's harder and harder to rank new websites for decent keywords, but it's easier to index the websites. Sometimes Google find them via the hosting account and indexes them even though they don't have any links.

    But besides this issue, how the new websites perform after you started promoting them? Or you didn't get to that stage?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10754813].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DABK
    Hey, the same thing happened to me. The opposite happened to me too. The sites that didn't show up in the search results are focusing on harder heywords. The ones that did show from the start in the search results, had easy (or easier) keywords as main keywords.

    That simple.

    If you think Google's up to no good, pick a keyword nobody is going after, make a page for it, then see if it ranks.

    Keyword suggestion: DABK rocks to high heaven.

    If you don't show up in the results yet have a page for me and my greatness, something's off with the domain's history and you should abandon all hope (It worked for Dante... (Inferno, Canto III).

    If you rank for that, try something harder and more relevant. If you rank for that, try harder keywords. If you rank, it just means your chosen keywords thus far are harder to rank for than you thought.

    Originally Posted by momoneyman View Post

    I recently made 3 new websites (all on brand new domains). Prior to this I had not made any sites since early 2015.

    I've made dozen of sites in 2014 and 2015, and I know that a brand new site with no links, where the page(s) is optimized correctly for the keyword, will always land somewhere in the 50th-200th position on google, always. And this will happen within 3 days of publishing a new site. Sure, it may take months to a year to hit the first few pages, but you will always land within the top 200 positions nearly immediately if the website is set up correctly.

    However, this doesnt seem to apply anymore as of 2016. All 3 of the new sites I've made in the past few months have yet to have any of their pages even show up in the top 200 positions of google. And it's been about 2 months.

    I am wondering if there was an algo this year that basically made it so any brand new website will not even show up in google until it gets some amount of traffic or links to it, or meets a certain time frame? I am positive all of my new websites are not suffering from any penalization issues. So it cannot be that problem.

    Also, all websites and pages are indexed in google.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10755251].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    New Sites in 2016 Get Automatically Buried?


    Nonsense.

    Make up a fake keyword with zero competition and I guarantee you'll rank a page.


    So... what's that tell you?

    Yep, SERP competition is the problem.
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10755276].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author momoneyman
    Originally Posted by Hearn View Post

    I do not know of such an update.

    "any brand new website will not even show up in google" for any keyword? I don't think that's the case if the website is indexed. But yeah from my experience it's harder and harder to rank new websites for decent keywords, but it's easier to index the websites. Sometimes Google find them via the hosting account and indexes them even though they don't have any links.

    But besides this issue, how the new websites perform after you started promoting them? Or you didn't get to that stage?
    No. Site is fresh with no incoming links.

    Originally Posted by yukon View Post

    Nonsense.

    Make up a fake keyword with zero competition and I guarantee you'll rank a page.


    So... what's that tell you?

    Yep, SERP competition is the problem.

    Yea that would normally make sense, but the keywords themselves are not very difficult. Some of them have very little search volume or difficulty that I threw in for filler articles. Yet across three sites all the keywords aren't even falling withing the top 200 positions. I've also tinkered with the onpage for about a month changing the density from anywhere between 0.1% and 1.5% with no change.

    If I made these sites in 2015, based on their keyword difficulty, all of them would have fallen somewhere between 30th-90th placement initially without any backlinks after a few days of being published on a new site.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10755492].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DABK
      Tinkering with keyword density?

      You've ignored my post. I've launched 5 sites in the last 2 months. One had no pages to be found in the SERP's for the keywords I'm going for with nothing but onpage.

      The others had pages pop up somewhere between middle of page 2 to bottom of page 7 with only onpage optimization.

      Only logical conclusion: the one that didn't: they keywords are more competitive.

      Same applies to you, even if you think the keywords have few searches (which is not relevant) or are not competitive.


      Originally Posted by momoneyman View Post

      No. Site is fresh with no incoming links.




      Yea that would normally make sense, but the keywords themselves are not very difficult. Some of them have very little search volume or difficulty that I threw in for filler articles. Yet across three sites all the keywords aren't even falling withing the top 200 positions. I've also tinkered with the onpage for about a month changing the density from anywhere between 0.1% and 1.5% with no change.

      If I made these sites in 2015, based on their keyword difficulty, all of them would have fallen somewhere between 30th-90th placement initially without any backlinks after a few days of being published on a new site.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10755522].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author paulgl
      Originally Posted by momoneyman View Post

      Some of them have very little search volume or difficulty that I threw in for filler articles. Y
      You don't really have any idea about either of those.

      Search volume has nothing to do with search competition. In fact, you may be experiencing the opposite of what you believe. Low search = low comp.

      Low search might = highly targeted, highly targeted = targeted (high) comp

      I can't fathom why anyone would go for low volume, low this, low that.

      More people = more opportunity

      I'm gonna open a gas station on Lonely Highway. Very little traffic! No competition! I can't help but make money!

      Put that in respect to this:

      I'm going to build an amusement park right next to Disneyland. I mean millions go every year! Low comp! I should make tons!

      Paul
      Signature

      If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10755571].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author momoneyman
    Originally Posted by DABK View Post

    Tinkering with keyword density?

    You've ignored my post. I've launched 5 sites in the last 2 months. One had no pages to be found in the SERP's for the keywords I'm going for with nothing but onpage.

    The others had pages pop up somewhere between middle of page 2 to bottom of page 7 with only onpage optimization.

    Only logical conclusion: the one that didn't: they keywords are more competitive.

    Same applies to you, even if you think the keywords have few searches (which is not relevant) or are not competitive.
    What you are describing has never happened to me in 2 years of SEO. Granted, I've never gone after super hard keywords like gold ira, but any page properly targeting a keyword will fall within the top 200th positions if the site is setup correctly. Most likely, the reason why some of your pages worked and some didn't was because the on-page optimization was done right on some but not the others. You are probably getting hit on a keyword penalty.

    I've accounted for this by onpage "tinkering".

    Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

    You don't really have any idea about either of those.

    Search volume has nothing to do with search competition. In fact, you may be experiencing the opposite of what you believe. Low search = low comp.

    Low search might = highly targeted, highly targeted = targeted (high) comp

    I can't fathom why anyone would go for low volume, low this, low that.

    More people = more opportunity

    I'm gonna open a gas station on Lonely Highway. Very little traffic! No competition! I can't help but make money!

    Put that in respect to this:

    I'm going to build an amusement park right next to Disneyland. I mean millions go every year! Low comp! I should make tons!

    Paul
    Yes I am aware that low volume doesnt necessarily equal low comp. I am saying that some of the keywords I am using are in fact low volume and low comp.

    Low volume keywords that are low comp as well are sometimes highly profitable, because people overlook them. In my example, that is not so much the case. The keyword does indeed have low volume, low comp, and low commercial value. Still, it is good for this site for what I am going for.

    I can understand maybe one or two keywords not ranking at all for their main terms, or even a site that is a one-off. But not three sites and multiple pages, unique content from 800-4k works each. With good on-page seo.

    Im getting the impression that no one else is having this issue though.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10755583].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DABK
      Stubbron, huh?

      No. I did the same onpage optimization on all of them. I got different results.

      No, you don't get in the top 200 results if there are 200 sites that are better SEO'd than yours.

      Unique content 800-4k words each, how is the unique content of a particular length relevant to ranking? You can have ununique content of 100 words rank the same as unique 4,000 words with the same SEO.

      Long content benefits you if you use related keywords as you'll end up ranking for some of those related keyword.

      Unique means nothing to Google. I can take your original content, put it on my site. If I outdo you at SEO, I rank, you don't. If you outrank me at SEO, you rank, I don't.


      Originally Posted by momoneyman View Post

      What you are describing has never happened to me in 2 years of SEO. Granted, I've never gone after super hard keywords like gold ira, but any page properly targeting a keyword will fall within the top 200th positions if the site is setup correctly. Most likely, the reason why some of your pages worked and some didn't was because the on-page optimization was done right on some but not the others. You are probably getting hit on a keyword penalty.

      I've accounted for this by onpage "tinkering".



      I can understand maybe one or two keywords not ranking at all for their main terms, or even a site that is a one-off. But not three sites and multiple pages, unique content from 800-4k works each. With good on-page seo.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10755597].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author momoneyman
        Originally Posted by DABK View Post

        Stubbron, huh?

        No. I did the same onpage optimization on all of them. I got different results.

        No, you don't get in the top 200 results if there are 200 sites that are better SEO'd than yours.

        Unique content 800-4k words each, how is the unique content of a particular length relevant to ranking? You can have ununique content of 100 words rank the same as unique 4,000 words with the same SEO.

        Long content benefits you if you use related keywords as you'll end up ranking for some of those related keyword.

        Unique means nothing to Google. I can take your original content, put it on my site. If I outdo you at SEO, I rank, you don't. If you outrank me at SEO, you rank, I don't.
        Saying you did the same on-page for each of them is very broad. Google will rank certain terms based on varying factors of on-page seo. For example, old posts can get away with a large keyword density and be fine, whereas a new site will get immediately penalized.

        Since different keywords consist of different amount of words, the density would differ based on the amount of repetitions of that keyword. If your keyword was "how to die in a shallow pond", and you repeated that 30x in a short article you would never rank. However, if it were "how to die", and you repeated it 1-5x in an article you would rank somewhere. This is an oversimplification to make the point.

        And yes. I've made somewhere around 40 websites in total and have never not hit within the first 200 positions. If I dont, I tinker and then I do. And this is for fresh, new sites with no links pointing to them.

        .
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10755611].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author DABK
          No, saying I did the same optimization is not broad at all. You're saying it is because it makes you feel better. When I say it is the same, it is the same. It is the competition that's different, as in, there are hundreds of pages that target the keywords for the site where I'm not ranking and only dozens that target the ones where I am.

          By target, I mean sites have at least one page with the keyword in the title and in content.

          Like I said, stubborn. But it's a free country, so be it.

          Originally Posted by momoneyman View Post

          Saying you did the same on-page for each of them is very broad. Google will rank certain terms based on varying factors of on-page seo. For example, old posts can get away with a large keyword density and be fine, whereas a new site will get immediately penalized.

          Since different keywords consist of different amount of words, the density would differ based on the amount of repetitions of that keyword. If your keyword was "how to die in a shallow pond", and you repeated that 30x in a short article you would never rank. However, if it were "how to die", and you repeated it 1-5x in an article you would rank somewhere. This is an oversimplification to make the point.

          And yes. I've made somewhere around 40 websites in total and have never not hit within the first 200 positions. If I dont, I tinker and then I do. And this is for fresh, new sites with no links pointing to them.

          .
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10755766].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10755626].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author momoneyman
      [quote=DABK;10755597]Stubbron, huh?

      No. I did the same onpage optimization on all of them. I got different results.



      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      Lol this is what people say who don't understand on-page well. If you dont think keyword over-optimization is a thing, or that you can tinker to adjust rank then idk what to tell you.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10755668].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lindsay Cooper
    There is no suspicion in the fact that ranking high in google search results is becoming harder and harder with time. This is a snowballing effect of many factors. Let me enlist some of them here. On the technical front, the search algorithms are becoming more intelligent with time. Latest algorithms are intelligent enough to find the best content for the best query. Search algorithms are taking counter steps to stop SEO experts who get their page in high rankings with moderate content quality. The updates in search engine algorithms every year is the evidence of their actions against such malicious practices.
    Increase of internet penetration and smart phones maturity opened up a new army of bloggers and website developers. This has increased the rivalry for the keywords. There are many new authors that are making new websites and blogs daily. They are searching the keywords and targeting them. These new authors are also following the SEO tips to rank high. This factor has also resulted in more struggles to rank high in search results.
    The impact of social networking platforms is not hidden from anyone. As more people discuss legitimately about your content on their timelines and feeds, your content trustworthiness will increase.
    People are continuously updating their contents on the website, talking about it on social networks. This trend is demonstrating a fact that author must stick to two or three website only. Focus only limited websites update them continuously and converse it on social networking sites. This practice can save their website from future competition wave that is coming towards with time.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10758533].message }}

Trending Topics