Dont even show up in Google for exact company name!?

[metaphase]

I have a site which I consider to be failry well optimised for a particular keyword, which happens to simply be the company name.

All pages are showing up in google which I can see by doing a search with my domain name.

Title tag is just the company name, company name is littered throughout the pages, in ALT tags, even title tags and link text.

The domain name itself is even www.the-company-name.co.uk (not the real site)

I even have one page : www.the-company-name.co.uk/the-company-name.html and despite all of this, if I simply enter the company name into google, I dont show up (I have checked the first 5 pages anyway and Im not there so I am assuming it wont be in at all)

What on earth could be the reason for this? As some sites with no content on the home page, and no meta tags even show up for essentially the domain name itself?

Not 1 site listed on the first page of google has my company name (just the first 2 words of it)

Any help much appreciated.

[seobook]

seems that google may have done a few things with their recent update.

- maybe LSI on anchor text?
- looking at sitewides and deeplinks

ideally to avoid getting screwed by Google's recent algorithm you want
- various semantically similar anchor text
- many inbound deeplinks. you want a high ratio of inbound deep links to links pointing at your home page.
- links from a wide variety of sites. you may not want most or all of your links coming from just one other site.

other ideas such as links from .edu & .gov type sites probably help a bit too.

this stuff may not be so important in niche fields but Google's recent algorithm cut up many sites and prevented them from ranking for even their own business name.

if people want to talk about ethical SEO (http://www.threadwatch.org/node/1515) then they should ask themselves

"Self: what do I owe to a search engine that would intentionally design algorithms which prevent many other businesses and I from ranking for our official site names and brands that may have took years to build?

Is their search engine creating the best content for their users when they do this? Or are they being hypocritical when they tell me that I should?

Should search engines dictate that it is wrong for me to reference something by its official name? Should the recipient of random citations be penalized for being link worthy?"

[Chris_D]

Welcome to the forums metaphase!

<mod hat off>

This latest Google update has effectively wiped many sites off the map for their own, unique company name. And - so far - nearly 3 weeks after the update started - Google doesn't appear to care. I think the technical term is 'collateral damage'. There are hundreds of posts on numerous forums from webmasters who are suffering the same fate.

Personally - I feel that there's something inherently broken with an algorithm/filter which ranks scraper sites higher than the 'official' site for a company's registered name. Especially when those sites are part of Google's own adsense program.

If its spam that Google are trying to clean up - why doesn't Google start with its own adsense partners? I'm not a lawyer - and I'm not an Adsense partner - but the Adsense Terms of Service appears to spell out pretty clearly what isn't allowed under the adsense contract.

You may not take the results from a Google search and reformat and display them, or mirror the Google home page or results pages on your Web site. http://www.google.com/terms_of_service.html

No Google ad may be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant.https://www.google.com/adsense/policies

</mod hat back on>

If you are sure that you haven't linked to a 'bad neighbourhood' - and have no server downtime/ configuration issues - and you still rank #1 in MSN and Yahoo! for your registered company name - then leave it.

[I, Brian]

www.the-company-name.co.uk/the-company-name.html
Certainly a number of companies are currently failing to rank for their own names - but a point to make is that if the name is constructed from keywords then there can be no expectation of being able to rank on Google for them simply on this basis, especially in competitive areas.

However, as has been pointed out, where unique company names are involved it just makes no sense that they suddenly cannot rank for that. Obviously, it's easy to interpret such rsults as not being particularly relevant, but there is also the expectation that Google will be trying to fix the issue bit by bit.

I'm reading constant changes in the datacenters, so I would presume that Google are trying to adjust individual variables in turn, until they find their results reach a preferred optimum.

[krisval]

I received a form letter back from help@Google about this. However, it was interesting that the form letter clearly wanted to get accross the point that "this is not indicative of a penalty".

If this is permanent, the public and more importantly investors will find out. It is a weakness. I think that they did not intend to have such a widespread issue. My guess is that they will rollout a real fix all at once so that they don't get bad press. That is after they Really Really Test it.

I am however, going to change my link to us from my company name to keywords now. Which is ridiculous because I literally have hundreds of unique referalls all with my link to us information from sites recommending me. Not affiliates and not paid.

......................Rant Begin

What would happen if Google turned on a filter for themselves?

Non-varying Text:
-- Every Powered By Across the web
-- Every Adsenses Search box
-- Thousands of links that just use Google as the anchotext.

Intenal Links:
-- Their own Directory which includes site wide keyword anchor text to advertise "Adwords"
The Directory which includes the keyword "Directory" pointing to the home page.
------------------Rant End

[Michael Martinez]

I received a form letter back from help@Google about this. However, it was interesting that the form letter clearly wanted to get accross the point that "this is not indicative of a penalty".

If this is permanent, the public and more importantly investors will find out. It is a weakness. I think that they did not intend to have such a widespread issue. My guess is that they will rollout a real fix all at once so that they don't get bad press. That is after they Really Really Test it.

Just out of curiosity, did you change anything on your Web site within 1-2 weeks prior to your noticing the loss of ranking for the company name?

While I agree there seems to be a lot of collateral damage from the latest Google redesign (which I don't believe is finished), I have also run into a number of people making complaints who, when questioned further, admitted to making some changes on their sites.

The smallest change can have big consequences, sometimes. If you so much as added a title tag, deleted a page, altered a link, fixed a typo, or made any small change, it would help you to inform others of whatever you did. Experienced eyes can often see things right in front of us simply because they come in with a fresh persepective.

[krisval]

Michael

Changes:

Yes. Always, but nothing that should have impacted this. I have a lot of fresh on-page content that changes frequently.

Still # 1 - MSN. Ask, Yahoo, Gigablast, Plus new Engines Accoona, Become.com
Page 12 on Google

I am in agreement with most of what SEOBOOK has said above. I run multiple sites. The biggest difference between the site that was hit and the ones that weren't. I use keywords for IBLs in the ones that were NOT affected for "Domain Name". Including Directory Submissions and recommended "Link to Us" Links.

The one that was hit uses "domain.com" as the title for most IBLs. I am actually on a lot of recommend pages which provide great backlinks from people that just like my site. However, almost all recommend pages use "mydomain.com" in the title and in many cases do not have accompanying descriptive text.

I have read your other posts and do not wish to get into an argument, but I am definitely of the opinion that the way in which Google now interprets on-site and in-bound links had the greatest affect in this update. I don't know exactly how the interpretation changed, but I didn't make any on-page changes that should affect the serps to the degree they have been affected.

Hope this answers your question.

[Michael Martinez]

The one that was hit uses "domain.com" as the title for most IBLs. I am actually on a lot of recommend pages which provide great backlinks from people that just like my site. However, almost all recommend pages use "mydomain.com" in the title and in many cases do not have accompanying descriptive text.

I have read your other posts and do not wish to get into an argument, but I am definitely of the opinion that the way in which Google now interprets on-site and in-bound links had the greatest affect in this update. I don't know exactly how the interpretation changed, but I didn't make any on-page changes that should affect the serps to the degree they have been affected.

Hope this answers your question.

Yes, thank you.

And I don't see anything to argue about, even if you believe Google is trying to preserve a PageRank average of 1.0 (which is impossible according to the laws of probability, but whatever).

Frankly, I don't think you need to be concerned yet. Google may not change anything until March or April. It took about that long the last time a major update took a lot of people by surprise.

As I have said elsewhere, I don't think Google is quite finished. It looks to me like they are hung on the fence again. And I say that based on what I am seeing in my daily searches (which have nothing to do with my search rankings -- those are all good, even for new content).

It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to find the kinds of sites I know are out there, that I want to get to. They are doing something, or HAVE done something, to their algorithm which probably is not working out as they expect. I am confident they will fix the problem, as they did the last time something went wrong.

[krisval]

Hope you are right. SEOBOOK Still has some great advice above that can do nothing but good. I am going to implement some changes especially on-site and with my "link to us" Description and anchortext.

With this site, I don't care about search results, just brand identity. Expect for the fact that I am now losing thousands of people who search for my domain name.

[ThouShaltSeo]

those "everything is peachy" e-mails crack me up too. Don't rank foryour weird domain name? Don't worry, you're not penalized or anything. During the 302 redirect issues people would "There's almost nothing a competitor can do to harm your rankings" too


I received a form letter back from help@Google about this. However, it was interesting that the form letter clearly wanted to get accross the point that "this is not indicative of a penalty".

If this is permanent, the public and more importantly investors will find out. It is a weakness. I think that they did not intend to have such a widespread issue. My guess is that they will rollout a real fix all at once so that they don't get bad press. That is after they Really Really Test it.

I am however, going to change my link to us from my company name to keywords now. Which is ridiculous because I literally have hundreds of unique referalls all with my link to us information from sites recommending me. Not affiliates and not paid.

......................Rant Begin

What would happen if Google turned on a filter for themselves?

Non-varying Text:
-- Every Powered By Across the web
-- Every Adsenses Search box
-- Thousands of links that just use Google as the anchotext.

Intenal Links:
-- Their own Directory which includes site wide keyword anchor text to advertise "Adwords"
The Directory which includes the keyword "Directory" pointing to the home page.
------------------Rant End

[krisval]

Looks like Google made some changes. My domain name is now showing up on page 1 as #1. I see a couple of others back up too. Back on all data centers. Looks like Michael was right. I am glad. However, we should still look at the reason behind this because I have a suspicion that distinct parts of this algorithm are here to stay, but as long as I am not being penalized for spamming my own brand, I am fine with any other changes.

[I, Brian]

Heh, we've swapped - now you rank for your name, now I don't. :)

What amazes me is why Google, in seeing that the product isn't right or working properly, decide to fix it live over a period of a few weeks, rather than take the changes offline and tweak them there instead.

I have to say, it's hard not to see that as a very sloppy way to run a business.

[ThouShaltSeo]

Sergei: so, is this update ready?
Engineer: yes sir. We have removed a lot of spam but about 10% of the sites caught might be innocent.
Sergei: Eh, it's ok. In six months or so they might be back in when we change the algo again. It's only six months.

What amazes me is why Google, in seeing that the product isn't right or working properly, decide to fix it live over a period of a few weeks, rather than take the changes offline and tweak them there instead..

[krisval]

Brian,

Unreal. At least your subs show up for your name. Getting closer! At least we know that Google knows things were messed up and they are making an effort to fix it. Well....Until tomorrow when my domain name goes back to page 55:)

[Marcia]

OK... 11 sites, 6 are showing up for the site name and 5 aren't. The 5 have gone up within the last 2 years, some almost that old and some just this year. The 5 that are showing up for the site name are all older, the two oldest being from 1999 and 2001.

The oldest has no anchor text for the site name by itself that I can think of, and neither does the one from 2001 - if any are out there (too lazy to check) it would be just a random few. Neither has a keyword phrase in the domain name.

With the second newest, which first went online January or February of 2004 with a "coming soon" page and a link with the site name, it was coming up for a search for the site name until a few months ago, last I had checked - for sure over the summer and into Fall. No more - it's not to be found for the sitename, which is something fairly recent.

Three of them that show up for the sitename have mostly all anchor text that's just the site name - but they're older.

The newest of my own sites went up in July of 2004 and has never come up for the site name, ever. There's no evidence of a penalty or ban when it was previously owned - but prior to its expiration, it was an Eastern European dating site. I didn't check - loved the name and grabbed it when I thought of it.

Two factors I'm connecting with the missing site name phenomenon are site age and anchor text. I say age because a few of the older domains do have the main keyword phrase in the domain name (including main keyword phrase, two in particular), and most of the links are just the site name. Still, the turn up for a search for the name.

[I, Brian]

Platinax now ranks for its own name again...SEObook now ranks for its own name again. I'd say there was progress being made at last - on this front at least. :)

[ThouShaltSeo]

on all or just on some DCs? I rank for my name only on a few, but that's about it.

Platinax now ranks for its own name again...SEObook now ranks for its own name again. I'd say there was progress being made at last - on this front at least. :)

[I, Brian]

Good point - I'm not accounting for the rolling updates.

Either way, there seems to be general movement in the right direction at least, though there are still some silly sandboxing issues even on this set of results - pages that mention a site ranking higher.

What's pretty amazing is that Google feel confident enough to roll out knowlingly flawed results over such a prolonged period. It puts a dull polish on the company name.

[I, Brian]

on all or just on some DCs? I rank for my name only on a few, but that's about it.
I posted too soon - everything has disappeared again.