Can anyone tell me why my site is not being indexed in google

Over the past 6 months I have been tracking googles every move and it
isn't toward my site. www.garah.com
Any help would be greatly appreciated

Over the past 6 months I have been tracking googles every move and it
isn't toward my site. www.garah.com
Any help would be greatly appreciated

No, but it's odd.

You have backlinks

http://beta.search.msn.com/results.a...2 F&FORM=QBHP

However http://www.garah.com/robots.txt gives something but nothing. Could
be borking google, could be your host.....How 'old' is the site, and the
back links?

Keep in mind that Google can take 4-6 weeks before indexing or
re-indexing your site. If your site hasn't been up that long, fix your
meta-tags before Google gets there.

Although Google doesn't use them for page rank, meta-tags are still
important. Google may be penalizing you for keyword spamming.

Check it here:

http://www.widexl.com/remote/search-...-analyzer.html

I'd also recommend installing a SID (Session ID) Killer mod for your
site. You don't want any search engine recording and/or displaying
your SIDs.

Are you using any mod-rewrites? Avoid them if at all possible.

Finally, is there a robots.txt file in your root directory? I don't
see it.


On 15 Dec 2004 10:05:01 -0800, "williajay" <jwilliams_2003 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com>
wrote:

Over the past 6 months I have been tracking googles every move and it
isn't toward my site. www.garah.com
Any help would be greatly appreciated

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:33:27 GMT, Colt-45 <colt_45 (AT) dontmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

Keep in mind that Google can take 4-6 weeks before indexing or
re-indexing your site. If your site hasn't been up that long, fix your
meta-tags before Google gets there.

Although Google doesn't use them for page rank, meta-tags are still
important. Google may be penalizing you for keyword spamming.

Check it here:

http://www.widexl.com/remote/search-...-analyzer.html

I'd also recommend installing a SID (Session ID) Killer mod for your
site. You don't want any search engine recording and/or displaying
your SIDs.

Are you using any mod-rewrites? Avoid them if at all possible.

Finally, is there a robots.txt file in your root directory? I don't
see it.

And your basis for any of this advice would be?

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk SEO (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
home of SEO that's shiny!
--

Colt-45 wrote:

Are you using any mod-rewrites? Avoid them if at all possible.

Would you expand on that?

From a recent thread, it was pointed out (without disagreement) that
mod_rewrites are useful for making a dynamic address appear static,
improving your chances of having that page spidered, or spidered more
quickly, whatever the case may be.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:27:12 GMT, MM <ngreader (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Colt-45 wrote:


Are you using any mod-rewrites? Avoid them if at all possible.


Would you expand on that?

From a recent thread, it was pointed out (without disagreement) that
mod_rewrites are useful for making a dynamic address appear static,
improving your chances of having that page spidered, or spidered more
quickly, whatever the case may be.

I'm coming to the conclusion that Colt-45 is firing blanks.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk SEO (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
home of SEO that's shiny!
--

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:27:12 GMT, MM <ngreader (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Colt-45 wrote:


Are you using any mod-rewrites? Avoid them if at all possible.


Would you expand on that?

From a recent thread, it was pointed out (without disagreement) that
mod_rewrites are useful for making a dynamic address appear static,
improving your chances of having that page spidered, or spidered more
quickly, whatever the case may be.

Although Google spiders dynamic URLs more conservatively than static,
as long as all pages are linked they will eventually be spidered. So I
wouldn't put that on my list of reasons to use mod-rewrite.

Avoiding the use of mod-rewrite is good advice since it adds an extra
load on the server. There are SEO reasons for using mod-rewrite, but
don't use it if you don't have to and it's increasingly becoming the
case that there are very few circumstances where it is absolutely
necessary.

So like a lot of things with websites, "avoid them if at all
possible".

David
--
http://www.search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk/

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:48:07 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk>
wrote:

I'm coming to the conclusion that Colt-45 is firing blanks.

BB
--
LOL!!

Yep, that may be true! Used to be 44_Mag.
Colt-45

ANYWAY

I think you're all on the wrong track, including myself.

The page under discussion is missing the </head> tag.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:56:58 GMT, Colt-45 <colt_45 (AT) dontmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:48:07 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:


I'm coming to the conclusion that Colt-45 is firing blanks.

BB
--
LOL!!
Yep, that may be true! Used to be 44_Mag.
Colt-45

ANYWAY

I think you're all on the wrong track, including myself.

The page under discussion is missing the </head> tag.

I never ran a checker on it.

BB (Howitzer to my friends....)
--
www.kruse.co.uk SEO (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
home of SEO that's shiny!
--

Dave wrote:

Although Google spiders dynamic URLs more conservatively than static,
as long as all pages are linked they will eventually be spidered. So I
wouldn't put that on my list of reasons to use mod-rewrite.

Avoiding the use of mod-rewrite is good advice since it adds an extra
load on the server.

Modern servers will easily handle many tens of thousands of mod_rewrite
requests a day and work just fine.

There are SEO reasons for using mod-rewrite, but
don't use it if you don't have to and it's increasingly becoming the
case that there are very few circumstances where it is absolutely
necessary.

So like a lot of things with websites, "avoid them if at all
possible".

If you mean avoiding websites in general, I'd agree.

;-)


--
Tony