This site (and other sites like it) doesn't show up in Google and therefore doesn't get any traffic from Google. Yahoo and Live are fine though. Is the site banned on Google and if so, why, or better still, what can I do to correct the problem?
Taking a stab in the dark here (since everything else appears to be ok at first glance), but remove Disallow: /*.php$ and Disallow: /*.css$ from your robots.txt file and then toss up a link to the site on a site that routinely gets crawled by the search engines.
Dan is correct, your blocking every page via your robots.txt file. Example: http://hayleyfinch.com/index.php
I thought that was the case. Especially considering that WordPress runs all the posts and pages through /index.php to begin with.
Apparently the so called issues with wildcards and the robots.txt file aren't either true or have been corrected.
Could it be because this page realy, realy sux? To be more specific: - very few content - no or minimal inbound links - code that is not liked by the SE. fe: <!-- This site is SEO optimized by wpSEO 2.3 (http://www.wpseo.org) --> - especially made for Adsense (Google does not like sites that are adsense made) - Template isn't custom made... Google just hates that - duplicated content - And especially, this page is not made for visitors, this is just a shot for some easy money and Google knows. Could it be you guys are just testing this forum credibility? Because I am really surprised that even someone with 3,577 post doesnt mention any of this. ;-) I don't want to be rude, it is just the simple truth. Make your site more likable by the SE's.
Thankfully opinions are not a major factor of the search engines' algorithms - even the human reviewers have to be objective. Nope. I've seen sites with little content on them rank well - it's wierd, but it does happen. Define inbound links. You may think that only links from other sites count, but you'd be surprised by how well a properly internally-linked site can do as well. This is called a comment. The search engines won't care about this since it's not stuffing keywords in the page - in fact, it's attributing the "optimization" to the plugin. Wrong. Google really doesn't care about ads on sites. Now, MFA sites (sites that are made specifically to get people to click on as many ads as possible) on the other hand... Google could care less about whether the template was custom made or not - all it cares about is the content on the page. Is this a fact that can be proven by independent third parties, or just another opinion? Talk about being rude... It's not the truth, as I've already demonstrated here. Also, embedding video is not an SEO technique - it's primarily a marketing device. Furthermore, RSS feeds are used to provide an alternate means of reading a site's content by making it easier for people to keep up by just checking a single Web page or news reader instead of going to 50 or more Web sites each day. Design also has nothing to do with SEO since it's a subjective medium, not a technical one.
These are the only valid point you made. Yes, the site only has approx 20 backlinks currently indexed as far as I looked into it and the site has very little content, but html comments - since when did Google hate them? Not being funny batman, but they're in the source code of almost every major site you'll come across. It's probably worse *not* having them, IMO. (For the developers perspective, not search engines, irrespective, however). Little content isn't helping, but it's not harming the site in no means. Especially made for Adsense - Google hates this...proof? Thanks for the good laugh. So what, now Google hates all of its own geo sites, because they use the same template? What about ebay.com and ebay.co.uk? Hmm, LOL. Page not made for viewers? I'm pretty sure it is, if it's about some reportedly seriously sexy female that all red-blooded males will want to jump on, I'd take a guess and say yes, it is made for viewers. The OP is obviously hoping for a few clicks on his ads just to help him get by, why not? So when new sites come along, Google knows they're just starting a site to make a quick buck? Again, LOL. Thanks for the entertainment
Google does read comments, I would not ike the word SEO been read by Google. Isn't this the whole purpose of that site? Making people click on as many ads as possible? Ok, point taken. I've read a lot on this subject on other forums claiming this is important, I don't have any experience with that, it is just a blief. I have no doubt that Google can recognize these kind of pages, especially because it is so wildly used all over by people who want to earn an easy buck. Talk about being rude... It's not the truth, as I've already demonstrated here. Also, Is good for a link to your page and trusted content. People can easely legally use the content of an RSS feed on their page. W3org sliced design is easy for crawlers to crawl, I would consider this very important for SEO.
The rest of your comments were just a stab in the dark at a completely randomised guess, therefore I'll show you further shame by commenting on your last comment. Search engines do not care if your site is XHTML-compliant, HTML 4.1, 4.0, or even HTML 1.0 compliant. The compliancy and strictness of it only deters better markup for cross-browser compatibility. Ie. An X-HTML/CSS compliant web page has a much greater chance of cross browser compatibility than an error-strewn html 4.0 encoded site. Next you'll be telling me Google read the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy and understood every word, even Slartibartfast's parts!!! Edited: I'm aware the DocType doesn't make that great a deal in its rendering on multiple browsers - why bother starting a new post though
Google only reads comments to scan for stuffed keywords. <!-- SEO taken care of by XYZ plugin for ABC CMS --> is NOT the same thing as <!-- viagra, cialis, levitra, pamela anderson, nikki cox, porn, adult fantasy, adult entertainment, (other keywords I'm not going to mention here to ensure this post remains family friendly and safe for work) -->. Just having a keyword in a comment does not mean that the site will be penalized for it. No, this appears to be a fan site dedicated to a model; with the ads being placed to cover the hosting costs and other expenses. Granted, as a site owner I'd hold off on placing ads until the site became popular, but that's got nothing to do with SEO. There are also no more than three ads per page anyway, so his is clearly not an MFA site (especially since I happened to actually learn something about someone I had never met before). Belief, hypothesis, speculation, theory. It all means one thing to me - and Jack left town. SEO isn't rocket science, it's not brain surgery and it's a process best practiced using accepted conventional technical details, and a LOT of something many people lack called common sense. His site is also new. If advertising was truly as evil as you claim it is, not even Digital Point would be using ads on its site or forums, afterall, Shawn's out to make a buck, right? What about SitePoint, or even Website Publisher? They're in it for the money as well, right? If Google and other search engines didn't want people putting ads on their sites, THEY WOULD NOT BE OFFERING THEM. (Folks, for those who are reading this, we're talking about embedded videos here. Just wanted to say this to prevent any possible confusion.) Yes, it's good for a link back. That's what videos are - VIRAL CONTENT. They're designed to get people talking about them. How else do you think YouTube became so popular? As for trusted content, it can help, but it's not the end-all be all of trusted content either. They can be as trusted or deceptive as the next page - it all depends on how accurate and honest the subject matter of the video is. Which will likely be filtered out by the search engines as duplicate content. It's a common problem. If you don't believe me, search on this very forum. Like Hell it is. First off, there's no such thing as "W3org sliced design" - period. I've been a Web developer for six years now and I can tell you straight up that the W3C has NOTHING to do with Web design. Just recommendations on how to code our Web pages. Once in a while it'll get off its duff and actuall give us something new, but things move so slowly there that glacial drift during the middle of an ice age will appear to be faster than a speeding bullet compared to them. What IS important is how you structure your page's markup. HTML is a structural markup language - it has absolutely nothing to do with design (despite what the old school designers and the HTML 5 working group would have you believe). Its only job is to define the structure of a Web page. That's it. And how you structure your page is what will have the impact on SEO, not the design. Ouch. Correct. All they care about is the content. That's not entirely true. An HTML 4.01 Strict compliant page stands just as good a chance of rendering properly across browsers as an XHTML 1.0 Strict page does. In other words, it's not the DOCTYPE you choose that matters (unless you're using frames), it's how well-formed it is that matters. You lost me there (then again, I never saw the movie or read the book).
Dan, I was referring to the fact that he believed Google read your content and understood the content and your psychological state of mind when attempting to start a business to make money online You wouldn't believe it...
Thanks for the suggestions! I adjusted the robots.txt file, made a new post and submitted to Digg, but the site still isn't indexed. Should I remove the entire robots.txt just to see if it makes any difference? Could there be any other causes?
Get quality links to your homepage, submit a sitemap to Google, social bookmark - all will help your site, if content is worthy, get indexed and cached within a couple of hours, if not a couple of days. In my experience, new pages on an already-indexed site can get indexed within minutes or hours, new sites take a few days to get indexed. Just wait a couple more days