We are ignored by Google - what should we do?
-
Hi,
We believe that our website - https://en.greatfire.org - is being all but ignored by Google Search. The following two examples illustrate our case.
1. Searching for “China listening in on Skype - Microsoft assumes you approve”. This is the title of a blog post that we wrote which received some 50,000 visits. On Yahoo and Bing search, we rank first for this search. On Google, however, we rank 7th. Each of the six pages ranking higher than us are quoting and linking to our story.
2. Searching for “Online Censorship In China”. This is the title of our front page. Yahoo and Bing both rank us third for this search. On Google, however, we are not even among the first 300 results. Two of the pages among the first 10 results link to us.
Our website has an average of around 1000 visits per day. We are quoted in and linked from virtually all Western mainstream media (see https://en.greatfire.org/press). Yet to this day we are receiving almost no traffic from Google Search.
Our mission is to bring transparency to online censorship in China. If people could find us in Google, it would greatly help to spread awareness of the extent of Internet restrictions here. If you could indicate to us what the cause of our poor rankings could be, we would be very grateful. Thank you for your time and consideration.
-
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your reply. I think the fact that we gained a lot of backlinks and then lost them was due to our very highly quoted and linked story in December (the Skype story, used as an example in our first post). Many websites put links to us on their front pages. Inevitably, these only stay until pushed down and off the page by newer stories.
We have not create fake links anywhere. According to Google Analytics, visitors have entered our site through links on 904 websites since Dec 1. The top ones are Reddit, YCombinator, Twitter, habrahabr.ru, Facebook, TheNextWeb and Wikipedia. All very legitimate links, as far as I can understand.
What do you think we should do? Why does https prevent using a link profile tool?
-
Great post Matt. You nailed it.
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi.
-
http://dejanseo.com.au/hijacked/
This is a recent test - and one that may apply (though I still maintain it's link profile.)
-
Actually, I'm pretty sure your problem is in your link profile.
http://www.highonseo.com/examples/ahrefs1.jpg
The first image shows your ahrefs backlink profile. You nearly-instantly gained a couple thousand backlinks. Then lost a bunch quickly as well
So my next question was "are these legit?"
Now look at image 2.
http://www.highonseo.com/examples/ahrefs2.jpg
Out of 92,293 backlinks, you have over 90,000 dofollow links, including over 80,000 sitewide links. 1600 .govs, which is nearly more than your nofollow links.
My brain can't process a link profile that looks like this. I would love to pull it into a link profile tool to check the DA of your backlinks but because you're https, I can't.
Just speculation on my part but if someone told me they had over 97% dofollow links, as many edu as nofollow and had a huge gain and then watched those links falling off, I'd quickly believe something was wrong. I always assume Google is two steps ahead of me. So if I think this backlink profile looks wonky, they must think it's worse.
-
I heard they will give the ranking of the content to the more powerful site? not sure if thats correct. If they thought you had copied it then perhaps no ranking at all?
-
Yes. But shouldn't Google be good at determining that? For one, they all or almost all link back to our original story - not the other way around. Secondly, our story is always published before theirs and Google should detect that.
If this is the case, it doesn't explain why we have no ranking at all on the title of our front page.
-
Could it be that the big sites quoting some of your text are seen as the orgininal source as they are very high domain authority websites?
-
No problem my friend. You are most welcome. If you wanted to go for HTTPS intentionally then it is ok. However, it seems Google does not treat HTTPS the way it should as of now. Probably at some point later this may change and who know if they have already rolled it out and it is just under way. Bigger changes like this take time to propagate fully through out. Till that time, all that we can do is sit tight and have our fingers crossed
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi.
-
Thanks Devanur. Very interesting idea. However, we do want to keep our whole website as HTTPS - to make it more difficult to track what our users do on it, and also to encourage other websites to move the HTTPS as well. The more the better. For example, all of GitHub is already HTTPS-only. If HTTPS is indeed the reason it's quite a scandal that Google can't deal with it properly.
-
Hi there,
Though as per Google, it is ok (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeFo4ytOk8M) to go for https for your entire website, personally, I saw in many instances where https URLs find it very difficult competing with http URLs in Google.
Normally, I do not see a need to go in for https for plain pages that do not need to be served over https. Only the secure pages that might need a login to access them may be served over https. Hope our friends over here will jump in with their views.
Let me conclude by saying, I would go for http for all the pages that I desire to rank high in Google and this view is based solely on my personal experience.
Hope it helps.
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi.
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 Pagination Changes
What with Google recently coming out and saying they're basically ignoring paginated pages, I'm considering the link structure of our new, sooner to launch ecommerce site (moving from an old site to a new one with identical URL structure less a few 404s). Currently our new site shows 20 products per page but with this change by Google it means that any products on pages 2, 3 and so on will suffer because google treats it like an entirely separate page as opposed to an extension of the first. The way I see it I have one option: Show every product in each category on page 1. I have Lazy Load installed on our new website so it will only load the screen a user can see and as they scroll down it loads more products, but how will google interpret this? Will Google simply see all 50-300 products per category and give the site a bad page load score because it doesn't know the Lazy Load is in place? Or will it know and account for it? Is there anything I'm missing?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | moon-boots0 -
Google Penalties not in Webmaster tools?
Hi everybody, I have a client that used to rank very well in 2014. They launched an updated URL structure early January 2015, and since they rank very low on most of the keywords (except the brand keywords). I started working with them early this year, tried to understand what happened, but they have no access to their old website and I cant really compare. I tried the started optimisation methods but nothing seems to work. I have a feeling they have been penalised by Google, probably a Panda penalty, but their Webmaster tools account does not show any penalties under manual actions. Do people impose penalties that are not added to Webmaster tools? If so, is there away I can find out what penalties and what is wrong exactly so we can start fixing it? The website is for a recruitment agency and they have around 400 jobs listed on it. I would love to share the link to the website but I don't believe the client will be happy with that. Thank you in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | iQi0 -
Can I tell Google to Ignore Parts of a Page?
Hi all, I was wondering if there was some sort of html trick that I could use to selectively tell a search engine to ignore texts on certain parts of a page. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Charles_Murdock
Charles0 -
Link from Google.com
Hi guys I've just seen a website get a link from Google's Webmaster Snippet testing tool. Basically, they've linked to a results page for their own website test. Here's an example of what this would look like for a result on my website. http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.impression.co.uk There's a meta nofollow, but I just wondered what everyone's take is on Trust, etc, passing down? (Don't worry, I'm not encouraging people to go out spamming links to results pages!) Looking forward to some interesting responses!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tomcraig860 -
Google penalty or what???
Hi, we have a blog site xxxxxxxxxxx.es, that yesterday dissapear from google ranks all of a sudden it only appears if you write xxxxxxxxx.es I have checked gogle webmaster tools and there are no manual actions, no messages. Also, we don't have much links pointing to this site. Webmaster tools show only 319 links. We don't understand what have happenned. Never see something similar. What do you think? Any help would be appreciated. How do you proceed in this cases? It doesn't seem to be a link problem. How do you know what kind of penalty do you have? Thank you. Update: Hi, the domain is www.crearcorreoelectronico.es I have check the majestic seo, ose, and wmt and get the links. We have some links that are not good, but are automatic ones, that some portals generate. Maybe is something related with the content. I don't know Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | teconsite1 -
Could this work for Google Reconsideration Request?
One of my websites has received the following message: We've reviewed your site and we still see links to your site that violate our quality guidelines. Specifically, look for possibly artificial or unnatural links pointing to your site that could be intended to manipulate PageRank. Examples of unnatural linking could include buying links to pass PageRank or participating in link schemes. We encourage you to make changes to comply with our quality guidelines. Once you've made these changes, please submit your site for reconsideration in Google's search results. If you find unnatural links to your site that you are unable to control or remove, please provide the details in your reconsideration request. I have used LinkResearchTools DTOX to locate unnatural links and remove them. So far I've been able to remove or nofollow 50/350 and that's as far as I can ever go. The rest of the websites either don't respond or don't have any contact information. I added another 300 suspicious websites to my list and I'll try to get the links manually removed. Hopefully I can get 100/650 websites (and a bit more links) removed in total - at most. That is my estimate. I've been thinking to use Google Disavow Tool for the rest and make sure to submit a nicely written report with spreadsheets to Google - when I get to the reconsideration point. What are your thoughts on this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | zorsto0 -
Does Google punish sites for Backlinks?
Here is Matt Cutts video, for those of you who have not seen it already. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4dAWb5jUws (Very Short) In this Video Matt explains that Google does not look at backlinks. Many link spamming sites have detected, there have been many website receiving warning messages in their Google web tools to deindex these links, etc.. My theory is that Google will not punish sites for backlinks. However, they manually check for "link farming sites" and warn anyone affiliated with them, just in case these links were built from a competitor. This way they can eliminate all the "Bad Link Farm" sites and not hurt anyone who does not deserve to be hurt. Google is not going to give us all their information to rank, they dont want us to rank. They want us to PPC. However, they do want to have the best SERPs available. I call it Google juggling! Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEODinosaur0 -
Xpath to scrape date from google serp
Anyone managed to scrape the date from a google serp? I can get title, link etc. but the date just eludes me...please help! Here's an example of the kind of code google is returning: Latest UK News Headlines - Mirror.co.uk <cite>www.mirror.co.uk/news/</cite>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JaspalX
Cached
-
Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
13 Jan 2011 – Get the latest News and Headlines from the Daily Mirror newspaper. Read breaking bulletins, front page reports, daily articles and celebrity ...1