I guess I don't understand the confusion.

Sure his website content is better than those ranking there in the top 10, but obviously the website needs more backlinks.  Search engins cant just "magically" rank better content first.  Obviously related back links is requirement to rank on Google, so that is what is needed.  No confusion to me.

Another huge problem is the website is brand new, registered in August.  Websites that have history and have been around for years are ALWAYS going to rank higher than news ones.  Also not very confusing.

Before pointing the finger at Google I think some basic SEO understanding should be set first.

Oh come on.......

You're telling me that a young site, no matter how good, is always treated like dirt because of it's age?

"Gee boss... this guys got a great site, but you know what? We got great directory page here and look at that!... a site map with nothing on it! Obviously these pages are way better than that well-optimized-content-rich site. After all... he's only five months old, how could he possibly know anything? SITE-MAPS ROCK!!! BEEFCAKE BEEEEFFFCAAAAKE!!!"

Age does play a role, no doubt. But how long should it play a role in comparison to other people in their own sector?

I physically can't bring myself to believe that google actively favors sites with little content and loaded with completely obvious spam and hidden text, over well designed sites... just because of age. First month or two maybe... but half a year?

Sites can easily outrank other sites with less links. See it every day, and you probably do to.

Thats why, in my previous posts (if you read them), I pointed out that it could very well be something on-site. Something simple, gone unnoticed by him, but tripped a filter.


BEEFCAKE!!!! 

Yes I read your post and your right it could be something on site.  Of course as I said above I don't feel it is.

Also if you feel that Google is not completely backlinks heavy in its algo you are wrong.  This example alone is proof of it isn't it?

I am big fan of content, but the days of "build it and they will come" never really existed on Google.  Once you build a great website you have to promote it and market it.  Syndication, social marketing, etc. whatever it takes to get the word out.  No sitting on hands here.

Thanks everyone on the feedback. I feel like I have been on a big learning curve and problem solving adventure. Maybe wake up some dead brain cells.

Not that I really think my site is that great and I will provide more valuable content as time goes. Been focusing attention on these issues on this thread. I mean I get really no visitors so..........

Not to whine further, but I know my link profile is very weak. I am having extreme difficulty in getting reciprocal links with my PR0. I remember about a year and a half ago I would not even acknowledge sites wanting to exchange links with a PR0 because I was a PR4! On bravenet.com with half the site I have now! I had more links then but the sites have disappeared or their current site owners will not return links to my new site (or get rid of the links to the old site).

I now what everyone is now thinking get oneway and other links elsewhere. That is what I will start focusing more on. I feel really bad now about being so snobbish and not trading with PR0s in the past (I was just trying to keep up my PR).

I will also try the 301 redirect from the old site. Maybe G will have some forgiveness, lol. I still would like to do what Northie recommended about using CSS. I would like to cease and desist on the java scripted pull down menus. Seems like few sites use them anymore. I am already attempting writing one style sheet now. Geez, I am not a programmer so I am a bit slow at learning it but seems like a totally cool tool that I should learn.

On the marketing side, yes thanks Atwhatcost. I understand that and will probably start writing articles about once a month, quality ones that can have use versus some of the blah, blah ones that are out there.

Thanks all for the feedback and now back to research and writing the CSSs. And to Site-Reference thanks for the articles yesterday on CSS. They were delicious and I ate every bit on my plate.

When you get your css figured out, look me up.

I'd be willing to trade some SEO work and some links for a couple of those boot cd's your selling.

MrStitch wrote:

When you get your css figured out, look me up.

I'd be willing to trade some SEO work and some links for a couple of those boot cd's your selling.

LOL. It's all freeware but I use alot of it. I have a list compiled but more than happy to send a hardcopy. I need to update some of it. But I buy no software, too cheap (actually can't afford any).

kimsuz wrote:

I have long suspected the problem may be in coding. I just don't know much about coding, especially CSS stuff which I know I should. I appreciate your post though Northie, now I just have to decipher it, as easy as you have explained it, I am just ignorantly lost. I will research it and learn CSS and source ordering.

I am a bit ignorant to CSS and source ordering too!  Northie, or anyone, do you have some good sources for understanding this?  I was doing some html transitional validation and it was recommended that I use CSS.

Here is our current line of code: <body bgcolor="#003399" leftmargin="0" topmargin="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">

I can't understand Dreamweaver.  Why does it let me select these attributes if they are not valid?!  Sorry, had to vent!

So, any help with this or references would be greatly appreciated so I can get my pages validated!

Sorry to interrupt.

I'm not that good in CSS but to overcome that error, you can insert these codes in <Head> section.

body {
    background-color: #003399;
    margin-top: 0px;
    margin-left: 0px;
    margin-width: 0px;
    margin-height: 0px;
}

(p/s: Now..where did I place my reference on CSS? )

wanassad wrote:

(p/s: Now..where did I place my reference on CSS? )

http://www.ilovejackdaniels.com/cheat-s … eat-sheet/