Can you please post here the following information? 1. age of site (from WHOIS.NET) 2. Page Rank 3. Number of sitelinks you have in WMT 4. Have you actually seen them in SERPS? If YES, what was the number of results for that search term? Were all the sitelinks shown as per your Webmaster tools section? 5. Number of Google links AS REPORTED IN WEBMASTER TOOLS (not link:www.mydomain.com) It might shed some light on what is going on. Ill start - Site one: 1. Age: DEC 2005 2. PR 5 3. Number: 5 + 1 blocked by me. 4. SERPS: NO 5. LINKS: 44000 in webmaster tools Site two: 1. Age: DEC 2007 2. PR 0 3. 0 sitelinks in WBT 4. sitelinks in SERPS: None 5. Links: 300
Site one: 1. Age: Jun 2005 2. PR 4 3. 4 sitelinks in WBT 4. SERPS: NO 5. LINKS: 54972 Site two: 1. Age: Jan 2005 2. PR 5 3. 7 sitelinks in WBT 4. SERPS: NO 5. Links: 5525
1. age of site : 2 years 2. Page Rank : 3 (was previously 4) 3. Number of sitelinks you have in WMT : 8 4. Yes, all shown in SERPS but NOT for the main search term for the site, only for a secondary, less competitive term the site also ranks number 1 for (this term only has 300k results) 5. Number of Google links AS REPORTED IN WEBMASTER TOOLS (not link:www.mydomain.com) : 3,000 I haven't seen them in the SERPS for any of my other sites that now show them in webmaster tools
Age: 2001 (domain) 2003 (domain with site) PR: 3 Sitelinks: 7 (peaked at 8, the completely irrelevant link has now gone from sitelinks list) SERPS: No. Links: 4900 (to homepage) 5600 (to homepage and internal pages) Why, oh why, oh why
1. age of site - 5 years 2. Page Rank - 3 3. Number of sitelinks - 7 [ 2 are pretty useless] 4. Have you actually seen them in SERPS? - no 5. Number of Google links AS REPORTED IN WEBMASTER TOOLS - 4807
1. age of site - 1 year 2. Page Rank - 4 3. Number of sitelinks - 6 [ All are useful] 4. Have you actually seen them in SERPS? - no 5. Number of Google links AS REPORTED IN WEBMASTER TOOLS - 10299
Some very interesting results. It seems that the only person who has seen the sitelinks in the serps hasn’t got anything that clearly stands out apart from having 8 sitelinks in his account. We really need more information for more sites, especially if you have seen the results in SERPS.
i think sitelinks is only related your site structure. i think it's not related with your pr and age of the domain. note: i'm so sorry . i have made a comment which is a bit off topic
I have sitelinks in webmaster tools -- but not in search? What does this mean? I only noticed the sitelinks about 1 weeka ago.
I think you are correct with this comment. A while ago I read somewhere that if you repeat your main navigation links twice on your site, once at the top of your site and once at the bottom this helps google decide on what links are accurate. Rasputin - Is this the case for your site?
The last couple of comments would go against the theory for my site. I've got pages which are only linked to by a couple of pages on my site. Not by the homepage or any other main page, so I'm not sure what's going on there. It's the Privacy page, which is just the usual stuff we have to say but don't want to
From what I've noticed is that the amount of links from external sites seems to be a possible factor... 1. 2006 ( has a 301 redirect from previously used domain from 2005 ) 2. PR3 (was 4) 3. No sitelinks. 4. N/A 5. 296 Links.
Thats a good possibility, however I remember a friend of mine having a site that had very few backlinks all of bad quality about 6 months ago and he had 4 sitelinks.
@gazzerman - no, my navigation isn't repeated at the bottom of the page. On every page I have a 'main menu' with about 6 items, horizontal near the top and also a second menu, with about 20 items, vertical on the left. Most of the sitelinks have been pulled from these menus, but one of the sitelinks does not appear in either menu - and is to a page that is not linked to at all from the homepage, only from an internal page.
Just had another thought. Could it be that traffic plays a big part in this? Will people mind putting the daily unique visitors also on the post?