Hi All Guess what, lucky me has an EROL site that has been dropped like a stone. http://www.heroesforkids.co.uk Does anyone have any ideas for me or comments on the site. Write quick before I go out of buisness!! Vanessa
Oddly enough, I've just run into a similar wall with a new client of mine this past week...
It's been heartbreaking to explain to my client that if she's ever going to get anywhere in the engines, she'll have to try a 'slightly different approach' after she's already spent a stack of cash on a supposedly 'search engine friendly' database.
Seems Erol is not aware of these issues. They still sell SEO service packages for shopping cart applications which violate Google's quality guidelines, whilst their client's get banned one after the other. Vanessa, did you inform your software vendor that the reason for your troubles and all the banned sites as well is the shopping card software itself? The last client who asked Erol got a kinda weird answer ... something in the lines that Google search is incompatible to e-commerce at all or so. Sebastian
> Oddly enough, I've just run into a similar wall with a new client of > mine this past week...
> It's been heartbreaking to explain to my client that if she's ever > going to get anywhere in the engines, she'll have to try a 'slightly > different approach' after she's already spent a stack of cash on a > supposedly 'search engine friendly' database.
Maybe someone should collect links to these threads and post them to Erol's support forum. They're still claiming that "nobody knows" what's happening... :-(
I can understand a shop designer not knowing about these things, but they're also selling SEO services. (Sadly, this is the same with so many people who sell SEO services ....)
> Maybe someone should collect links to these threads and post them to > Erol's support forum. They're still claiming that "nobody knows" > what's happening... :-(
> I can understand a shop designer not knowing about these things, but > they're also selling SEO services. (Sadly, this is the same with so > many people who sell SEO services ....)
> Maybe someone should collect links to these threads and post them to > Erol's support forum. They're still claiming that "nobody knows" > what's happening... :-(
> I can understand a shop designer not knowing about these things, but > they're also selling SEO services. (Sadly, this is the same with so > many people who sell SEO services ....)
We went over to VPASP and then put a reinclusion request in to Google explaining that the javascript redirects were essential parts of the software and couldn't be removed. I also said that I saw their point regarding them and so had done something about it by going over to VPASP which is a pure database driven package.
Guess what, both our sites (www.temptationsdirect.co.uk and www.bondage-gear-direct.com) have now been re-included in the Google index, i.e. THE BAN HAS BEEN LIFTED, (sorry to shout but as you can probably understand I am happy about this).
> > Maybe someone should collect links to these threads and post them to > >Erol'ssupport forum. They're still claiming that "nobody knows" > > what's happening... :-(
> > I can understand a shop designer not knowing about these things, but > > they're also selling SEO services. (Sadly, this is the same with so > > many people who sell SEO services ....)
PS I have put this message on all the threads for EROL as I really want people to understand that their ecommerce problems are not always to do with SEO or link building, sometimes it is simly the wrong software (of course you then need to do the SEO and link building as well).
> We went over to VPASP and then put a reinclusion request in to Google > explaining that the javascript redirects were essential parts of the > software and couldn't be removed. I also said that I saw their point > regarding them and so had done something about it by going over to > VPASP which is a pure database driven package.
> Guess what, both our sites (www.temptationsdirect.co.ukandwww.bondage-gear-direct.com) have now been re-included in the Google > index, i.e. THE BAN HAS BEEN LIFTED, (sorry to shout but as you can > probably understand I am happy about this).
> > > Maybe someone should collect links to these threads and post them to > > >Erol'ssupport forum. They're still claiming that "nobody knows" > > > what's happening... :-(
> > > I can understand a shop designer not knowing about these things, but > > > they're also selling SEO services. (Sadly, this is the same with so > > > many people who sell SEO services ....)
Funnily enogh, yes EROL blamed Google and when we tried to post theories as to Google blocking EROL on their own chat forum, they failed to publish it. Strange that?!
> Seems Erol is not aware of these issues. They still sell SEO service > packages for shopping cart applications which violate Google's quality > guidelines, whilst their client's get banned one after the other. > Vanessa, did you inform your software vendor that the reason for your > troubles and all the banned sites as well is the shopping card > software itself? The last client who asked Erol got a kinda weird > answer ... something in the lines that Google search is incompatible > to e-commerce at all or so. > Sebastian
> On Mar 23, 2:19 am, IceGiant wrote:
> > Oddly enough, I've just run into a similar wall with a new client of > > mine this past week...
> > It's been heartbreaking to explain to my client that if she's ever > > going to get anywhere in the engines, she'll have to try a 'slightly > > different approach' after she's already spent a stack of cash on a > > supposedly 'search engine friendly' database.
Hi There Of course the million dollar question is how on earth did you manage to contact Google?????!! Please could you give me some help here as I am having the www.heroesforkids.co.uk site redesigned (without Erol of course) and I would like to follow your course of action to get the site back with Google where it should be. Thanks Vanessa
> We went over to VPASP and then put a reinclusion request in to Google > explaining that the javascript redirects were essential parts of the > software and couldn't be removed. I also said that I saw their point > regarding them and so had done something about it by going over to > VPASP which is a pure database driven package.
> Guess what, both our sites (www.temptationsdirect.co.ukandwww.bondage-gear-direct.com) have now been re-included in the Google > index, i.e. THE BAN HAS BEEN LIFTED, (sorry to shout but as you can > probably understand I am happy about this).
> I repeat what I said before get out of EROL now.
> > > Maybe someone should collect links to these threads and post them to > > >Erol'ssupport forum. They're still claiming that "nobody knows" > > > what's happening... :-(
> > > I can understand a shop designer not knowing about these things, but > > > they're also selling SEO services. (Sadly, this is the same with so > > > many people who sell SEO services ....)
Hi Vanessa Go to your webmaster central account and click on the "+ tools" link on top - then choose "reinclusion request". Supply as much information as you can.
One thing though. I tried the re-inclusion request while the site was still in EROL and I had no joy. So don't bother until the site is ready.
Also remember that your old urls will no longer work and will eventually be dropped by G so your rankings will not return to what they were originally. You will need to do some SEO on the site. Moving away from EROL is a long term solution but you will NOT see a quick fix.
> Hi Vanessa > Go to your webmaster central account and click on the "+ tools" link > on top - then choose "reinclusion request". Supply as much information > as you can.
> Funnily enogh, yes EROL blamed Google and when we tried to post > theories as to Google blocking EROL on their own chat forum, they > failed to publish it. Strange that?!
Just curious: Did you remove the link to my blog post in Erol's support forum yourself, respectively did someone ask you to unlink it?
>From the referrers I've counted before the delinking today, many site
owners are interested in learning more about the causes of their Google troubles before Erol sues me over that article ;)
> Funnily enogh, yes EROL blamed Google and when we tried to post > theories as to Google blocking EROL on their own chat forum, they > failed to publish it. Strange that?!
> On Mar 23, 12:05 pm, Sebastian wrote:
> > Seems Erol is not aware of these issues. They still sell SEO service > > packages for shopping cart applications which violate Google's quality > > guidelines, whilst their client's get banned one after the other. > > Vanessa, did you inform your software vendor that the reason for your > > troubles and all the banned sites as well is the shopping card > > software itself? The last client who asked Erol got a kinda weird > > answer ... something in the lines that Google search is incompatible > > to e-commerce at all or so. > > Sebastian
> > On Mar 23, 2:19 am, IceGiant wrote:
> > > Oddly enough, I've just run into a similar wall with a new client of > > > mine this past week...
> > > It's been heartbreaking to explain to my client that if she's ever > > > going to get anywhere in the engines, she'll have to try a 'slightly > > > different approach' after she's already spent a stack of cash on a > > > supposedly 'search engine friendly' database.
> > Funnily enogh, yes EROL blamed Google and when we tried to post > > theories as to Google blocking EROL on their own chat forum, they > > failed to publish it. Strange that?!
> Just curious: Did you remove the link to my blog post in Erol's > support forum yourself, respectively did someone ask you to unlink it?>From the referrers I've counted before the delinking today, many site
> owners are interested in learning more about the causes of their > Google troubles before Erol sues me over that article ;)
> > Funnily enogh, yes EROL blamed Google and when we tried to post > > theories as to Google blocking EROL on their own chat forum, they > > failed to publish it. Strange that?!
> > On Mar 23, 12:05 pm, Sebastian wrote:
> > > Seems Erol is not aware of these issues. They still sell SEO service > > > packages for shopping cart applications which violate Google's quality > > > guidelines, whilst their client's get banned one after the other. > > > Vanessa, did you inform your software vendor that the reason for your > > > troubles and all the banned sites as well is the shopping card > > > software itself? The last client who asked Erol got a kinda weird > > > answer ... something in the lines that Google search is incompatible > > > to e-commerce at all or so. > > > Sebastian
> > > On Mar 23, 2:19 am, IceGiant wrote:
> > > > Oddly enough, I've just run into a similar wall with a new client of > > > > mine this past week...
> > > > It's been heartbreaking to explain to my client that if she's ever > > > > going to get anywhere in the engines, she'll have to try a 'slightly > > > > different approach' after she's already spent a stack of cash on a > > > > supposedly 'search engine friendly' database.
Well I suppose that is one way to respond: remove all links to anything critical.
>Google's last update does seem to have affected a lot of people.
.....
>It is generally thought that 200 words is the minimum amount of content required for search engines to think the page has useful information - go below this threshold and the page may go unindexed.
That's a new one for me.
>Each of these x.html pages have a redirect that loads the page into the store frameset automatically when the page is requested.
I know at least one person who saw how bad of an idea that is, her site is now redirect-less.
>You are never redirected to another html page or URL.
Ummm, yes or no?
I like the idea behind erol's shops, but they just aren't what you would call search engine friendly. If your site does not depend on search engine traffic then that's fine, heck make it in Flash, Java or VBScript if you prefer. While I agree that their content is not significantly different than the content displayed, I feel that the redirect should still not be on those pages. Any user who does not have javascript enabled will not be able to do much of anything with those pages. Should Google refer those visitors to a page that is useless to them? (of course this would also include Flash files/pages and non-standard document types like MS-Word-Documents)
Well, they've banned me so I wasn't able to reply to this textbook example of disinformation. Hence here is what I was not allowed to post at Erol's support forum: http://sebastianx.blogspot.com/2007/03/beware-of-narrow-minded-coders... " With all respect, if I understand your post correctly that's not going to solve the problem.
As long as a crawlable URL like http://www.example.com/x123.html or http://www.example.com/product-name-123.html resolves to http://www.example.com/erol.html#123x0&& or whatever that's a violation of Google's quality guidelines. Whether you call that redirect sneaky (Google's language) or not that's not the point. It's Google's search engine, so their rules apply. These rules state clearly that pages which do a JS redirect to another URL (on the same server or not, delivering the same contents or not) do not get indexed, or, if discovered later on, get deindexed.
The fact that many x-pages are still indexed and may even rank for their targeted keywords means nothing. Google cannot discover and delist all pages utilizing a particular disliked technique overnight, and never has. Sometimes that's a process lasting months or even years.
The problem is, that these redirects put your customers at risk. Again, Google didn't change its Webmaster guidelines which forbid JS redirects since the stone age, it has recently changed its ability to discover violations in the search index. Google does frequently improve its algos, so please don't expect to get away with it. Quite the opposite, expect each and every page with these redirects vanishing over the years.
A good approach to avoid Google's cloaking penalties is utilizing one single URL as spider fodder as well as content presentation to browsers. When a Googler loads such a page with a browser and compares the URL to the spidered one, you get away with nearly everything CSS and JS can accomplish -- as long as the URLs are identical. If OTOH the JS code changes the location you're toast. "
The real issue is that Erol's "SEO experts" don't get that their silly approach puts their customers at risk. Where's the point of discussing their subjective view on obfuscated content delivery when Google's filters deindex JS redirects automatically? Their victims suffer from Google's penalties, so they should provide help, not lame excuses and shitloads of weird speculations. It is possible to achieve everything Erol does with regard to browser optimization (served by the rewritten URL) with the URL shown to crawlers. I admit that's a little tricky, but it's doable.
> Well I suppose that is one way to respond: remove all links to > anything critical.
> >Google's last update does seem to have affected a lot of people.
> .....
> >It is generally thought that 200 words is the minimum amount of content required for search engines to think the page has useful information - go below this threshold and the page may go unindexed.
> That's a new one for me.
> >Each of these x.html pages have a redirect that loads the page into the store frameset automatically when the page is requested.
> I know at least one person who saw how bad of an idea that is, her > site is now redirect-less.
> >You are never redirected to another html page or URL.
> Ummm, yes or no?
> I like the idea behind erol's shops, but they just aren't what you > would call search engine friendly. If your site does not depend on > search engine traffic then that's fine, heck make it in Flash, Java or > VBScript if you prefer. While I agree that their content is not > significantly different than the content displayed, I feel that the > redirect should still not be on those pages. Any user who does not > have javascript enabled will not be able to do much of anything with > those pages. Should Google refer those visitors to a page that is > useless to them? (of course this would also include Flash files/pages > and non-standard document types like MS-Word-Documents)
I looked closely at a trial version of Erol about 2 years ago (still can't remove some of their entries from my windows registry!) and i remember the initial cost was £400 with a further £600 required for a 2 day course in Brighton. To be honest it was one of the few shopping carts programs that enabled you to make changes to the code. Their trial package came with clear instructions on how to change templates in dreamweaver or any external HTML Editor as well as the ability to delete or edit the javascript, although i couldn't find anyway round the frameset that was integral to the whole design of the site.
|
