I started a site called FileHigh (http://www.filehigh.com) about a year ago. It was started as a project site to help me learn PHP, but was very addictive so I decided to try and make a proper go of it. It is an image hosting site, but is all custom coded by myself - not another off the shelf script.

From the very beginning I spent hours on forums and reading articles about the best ways in which to design and market web sites. The most important thing I learned was that for a long term successful site, you have to design it for the user - not the search engines. So this is what I have tried to do.

The other important advice I tried to follow, was not to base any business model on the assumption of search engine traffic - so I didn't. That is not to say that I have not tried to optimise the site for SEs, because I have, but that I do not rely on their traffic. Any traffic from the SEs is a bonus, but I would still like to get it.

The problem I am having with Google is that I can not get my site to appear in the SERPs for the keywords 'free image hosting' - at least not in the top 500 anyway. Now, I know that this is an incredably competative term (and also really an artificial one as it probably has very few real users searching for it), and I have no expectation of ever being no. 1 (or even in the top 10 probably), but I would still expect to at least be in there.

I have been trying to promote the site every day for the past year. It is listed in quite a few directories, has lots of backlinks, thousands of pages indexed (many of which rank very well for terms specific to them), and even shows in the top 20 for 'allinurl:free image hosting'. It ranks quite well in Yahoo, and at least appears in MSN, but try as I might I can't get it to appear under these keywords in Google. (By the time you get to the 100+ results, they are not very relevant, but still no sign of little me).

I just don't understand. I have 1000s of users, several hundred of which are very active, and I beleive that I provide them with a good service. I had a sound model from the start, I do not promise more than I can provide (unlike a lot of free image hosts) and work hard to make sure the site is always operating properly. In fact, despite 2 server moves in the past year (during which I always kept both running together while the DNS propogated), the site has only had about 3 hours of downtime - most of that from a failed HDD. So, I beleive I have a quality site which is highly relevant to those keywords, but still can't rank well (or at all) for them.

Google seems to like the site, the spider visits often and regularly updates cached pages as they change. I also have a Google sitemap which updates daily. I know that Google doesn't owe me anything, and I do not have a bad word to say about them.

Sorry for such a long post, but I would really appreciate any help or insights you may have.

Thanks.

There's a lot of advertising on your pages, banner ads, AdSense, and some other link text ads, maybe too much, as many pages have little content, and show Public Service ads.

Be aware many "directories" fell foul of G in the recent past, quite possibly for having large numbers of empty categories that had both text links and AdSense on them.

You've also got run of site link to a banned casino site, that won't help matters ;-)

All that glengara said, plus...

- you're competing for a three word phrase that has over 2-million exact page matches on Google, many of which are on well-established sites. That's very competitive, and the site doesn't send out very many signals of high quality.

- you're showing some 68,000 backlinks on Yahoo, too many to be natural, with a Google Toolbar PR4 (I know, I know, but it's one quick measure of quality). I'm guessing, you must have a lot of really crappy backlinks, or you must have gotten a great many links since the last TBPR update.

- not very good onpage or onsite optimization. Overall, not much text content on very many pages, and you seem to want to rank on only one phrase, which is a sure way not to rank on Google these days.

- you're into some "bad neighborhoods" that may make both your inbound and your outbound links additionally questionable.

Thanks very much for taking the time and effort to look at and comment about my site guys, it is very much appreciated. I'll try and address the issues you have raised....

There's a lot of advertising on your pages, banner ads, AdSense, and some other link text ads, maybe too much, as many pages have little content, and show Public Service ads.

Yes, looking at it a bit more objectively now, I can see that the advert to content ratio is not very good for most of the site. I have cut down on the text links. Some expired a while ago and I just haven't removed them, but most were from an automated link exchange system I started trying out about a week ago. Most of the links I gained in return were of a very poor quality, so I have knocked this on the head.

I have a slight dillema that part of the possible appeal for upgrading to my paid service is to remove the ads, so I guess it is a fine ballance. The banner ads have made me absolutely nothing in the entire year I have run them, so I will try to find an alternative or remove them completely.

You've also got run of site link to a banned casino site, that won't help matters ;-)

Yikes! I see which one you mean. Would you believe that I had never even thought about checking the sites people asked for a link to for a google ban. That link had been up for quite a while, but had recently expired, so is now gone never to return.

That's very competitive, and the site doesn't send out very many signals of high quality.

I'm not sure whether you mean SEO quality or asthetic quality. I am not a great designer, but my aim was to make the site fairly minimal (i.e. text not images) as I had a feeling that many users of free image hosts may still be using dial up modems. It is also an interesting point as to whether the google spider is able to determine how astheticly pleasing the look of a site may be.

you're showing some 68,000 backlinks on Yahoo, too many to be natural

A lot of these are just links back to the main page from my own site, but even so I see your point. The blame lies with me, when I first started (and was naive) I purchased a quantity of site wide text links in order to try and promote the site. In fairness, I did try to get them on forums and blog hosts whose users may want to use a free image host. i.e. They were bought more for traffic than for backlinks. Many of these have expired or are due to expire soon, so this may help.

not very good onpage or onsite optimization. Overall, not much text content on very many pages, and you seem to want to rank on only one phrase, which is a sure way not to rank on Google these days.

Very true. I have tried my best, but the problem I have is that the site is simply an image hosting service. I could really do with some advice about how to go about broadening the terms I am aiming for without losing site of the core purpose of the site.

you're into some "bad neighborhoods" that may make both your inbound and your outbound links additionally questionable.

As earlier, I have now tried to get rid of the bad outbound links - I really can't believe how silly I had been with this one! I'm not quite sure what I can do about the bad inbound links (at least the ones I didn't pay for - in this case I am referring to sitewide links which I now appreciate are not really a good thing as they can be quite easily identified as artificial). I know that I am linked to by some questionable porn type sites in their lists of possible image hosts to use - even though I do not allow images of that type. I think they probably just pulled lists of sites from things such as the google ads I ran and other listings. I will try to email the webmasters of these sites to point out that they shouldn't bother linking to my site as I do not allow images of that type and will remove them on sight.

Again, thanks for the advice and sorry for such a long post. I really would appreciate any more help that anyone could provide.

I'm not sure whether you mean SEO quality or asthetic quality.

By "signals of high quality," I'm talking about SEO quality... what kind of company do you keep? ...what's the depth and quality of text content on your site, and what kinds of inbound links does your site attract?

They were bought more for traffic than for backlinks.

Sitewides are a whole separate subject in themselves, and I understand this point of view. They do send out a signal to the engines that they've been purchased, not gotten naturally because people liked your site, and, at best, they're discounted. They may also raise up some flags to the engines.

If there were offsetting quality factors, other inbound links of good quality, no sitewides from your site to banned sites, etc, these run of site links might not create a problem. But the combination of all that has been mentioned creates a very sleazy picture.

As earlier, I have now tried to get rid of the bad outbound links - I really can't believe how silly I had been with this one!

This sounds like a line from a bad comedy... "Oh officer, how silly of me to run that red light."

I know that I am linked to by some questionable porn type sites in their lists of possible image hosts to use - even though I do not allow images of that type.

I didn't look at your site all that hard, but there is a reference to porn image hosting somewhere on the site. I thought that was, in fact, why you were in the kind of neighborhoods you're in. I'm not making any judgements about what kinds of images you do or don't host, btw... justing pointing out how things seem to work with linking patterns.

It's your site, your domain. Either you really care about it, or you don't. All the things you're saying suggest a combination of naivite, opportunism, and carelessness, and you can see how the engines pick up on this. You can't expect them to rate the site's importance higher than you do.

I'd like to see G index/cache more of your pages, let's see if she does after your linkage clean-up...

Thanks once again for your insights guys, they have been very helpful. It is refreshing to see more useful comments than "submit to directories" and "get more backlinks" which seems to be the usual fare.

This sounds like a line from a bad comedy... "Oh officer, how silly of me to run that red light."

Quite right. Although in this instance, I think the problem was that I didn't know what a red light meant, or that I should be looking out for them.

It's your site, your domain. Either you really care about it, or you don't. All the things you're saying suggest a combination of naivite, opportunism, and carelessness, and you can see how the engines pick up on this. You can't expect them to rate the site's importance higher than you do.

I do indeed really care about my site. I feel that the three adjectives you have selected have hit the nail on the head. It's all very well having the best intentions, but you also need to know what you are doing.

I'd like to see G index/cache more of your pages, let's see if she does after your linkage clean-up...

I hope so too. I'm aware that if the Google algorithms have taken a dislike to my site due to the bad links, then I may be under a penalty which will take a will to be discharged, but at the end of the day thats my fault so I'll just have to wait it out.

I have changed the title of the main site page a few days ago, but one thing I noticed before then was that when I did a search for the words 'filehigh free image hosting' (which were the words in the original title), my site was appearing 6th or 7th with directory listings of my site being on top. As I am begining to understand a bit more, I feel this may back up the suggestion that google is not seeing my site as having much 'authority' for some reason, and as such is seeing the directories as having more weight than my own site.

...I may be under a penalty which will take a will to be discharged, but at the end of the day thats my fault so I'll just have to wait it out.

wolseley - It may take "a will" and a while, but generally, on linking problems like this (and I think that's the bulk of your problem), Google ultimately does forgive if you correct them. In addition to getting rid of the junk, you will need to get a lot of good quality inbound links.

That means you'll need to focus on building some really good content about the pleasures and benefits of hosting images online, maybe some pages about optimizing images, taking good pictures, etc etc, good enough to motivate people to link to you. This broadening of your keyword content will also serve you well in the long run.