Two weeks ago my ten+ year old site at http://www.alkenmrs.com was totally deindexed from Google with no warning.
During this time, and with the help of some wise people from this forum, who have gone through the site looking for anything that could have caused this deindexing, I have also posted two spam reports and two reinclusion requests. Neither seem to have had anything done about them.
The site has had a few fixes put in place although none were bad enough to cause a total deindexing.
It was discovered that parts of the site had been proxy hijacked with some of my pages coming up under the proxy URL. Steps were taken to block access to the proxy and it's associated IP's. Furthermore, I contacted both the proxy owner and the hosting company and the server seems to have been taken down. Pages from my site still show up un Google but only in the cache. The first spam and reinclusion requests were filed in respect of the proxy.
Other 'fixes' put in include 301 redirects fro the www vs non www of the site. Disallows in robots.txt for the likes of multiple Privacy Statements, Contact Us annd thank you pages. The site is set up with a number of sub directories each containing themed minisites with each one having it's own Privacy and Contact pages.
There was also one orphaned page that had been on the site since day one (10 years ago). That page has been removed and 301 redirected to another url within the site. I also discovered a couple of orphaned links within the index page code. They were links to other pages within the site and ended up in the HTML due to continually shifting things about on the page with Xsitepro. However, they have been removed and page code checked on other pages throughout the site.
I could at least hold my hands up to those problems and posted a further reinclusion request confessing my sins, if indeed that is considered such a hideous crime.
So here i am today, with no listings whatsoever in Google and it would seem the chances of getting back in are becoming less and less as each day passes.
During this time, Googlebot has continued to fetch all sitemaps on a daily basis and the PR on all pages has remained the same. The only thing that hasn't happened is any crawling. The last crawl date, according to webmaster tools was June 25.
I am really at the point now of not knowing what else I can do to get the site reindexed. I am however seriously considering shifting some of the minisites in the sub directories out to their own domains, putting in some 301 redirects and resubmitting the new sites. Not sure if that is a good idea or not but I really can't see another way out of this nightmare.
Any of you wise people here got any better ideas because I have run dry!!
I thought about that as well and even posted a thread about it. However, the concensus was that the translations were not the cause of the deindexing.
I have actually modified the translator script to look only in the cache on my site and not going to Google. Having said that, it only looks for a translation page if somebody actually clicks on the flag. To that end, it is not automated in the true sense of the word.
Even so, I would be interested in anybody else's view on this.
Alan I have exactly the same problem - again with a well used - well positioned site. It is the third time that it has happened - for no 'apparent' reason. On both previous occasions February - 10 days then April - 6 days, I did nothing other than to re-submit my site, and after the times I have quoted, normality came once again. This time I am just sitting tight after having removed an affiliate link that I set up on 37 of my pages (Naughty I understand, but they were all relevant to the Affiliate program). (I am not actually just sitting tight, for I have several other sites, which need to be bought up to spec, together with which - as a long term 'cushion' to the vagaries of the big G, I am aiming more at some of the other major search engines - Yahoo in particular, which still gives me top positions I once had with G. No help to you, but at least you know you are not alone! Regards Data
> I thought about that as well and even posted a thread about it. > However, the concensus was that the translations were not the cause of > the deindexing.
> I have actually modified the translator script to look only in the > cache on my site and not going to Google. Having said that, it only > looks for a translation page if somebody actually clicks on the flag. > To that end, it is not automated in the true sense of the word.
> Even so, I would be interested in anybody else's view on this.
> Alan
> On Jul 10, 5:57 pm, Burt wrote:
> > Dunno, but maybe google doesn't like automated translation queries.
> > On Jul 11, 12:30 am, alkenmrs wrote:
> > > At least it seems that way to me!!
> > > Two weeks ago my ten+ year old site athttp://www.alkenmrs.comwas > > > totally deindexed from Google with no warning.- Hide quoted text -
Thanks for the moral support David - Maybe it has something to do with being in the UK :-)
The only thing that has ever worried me about having so much on one domain was what would happen if the server went down for any length of time. I never thought in a million years about getting deindexed by Google especailly after playing by the rules and wearing the cleanest white hat that I could find.
I have now lost confidence in adding any more minisites to this domain and will be using a different one in future. Too many eggs in one basket and all that!!. I will certainly keep the site updated with new content as too much time, effort and money has gone into it to let it die plus the fact that Yahoo and MSN bots live on the site anyway.
> Alan > I have exactly the same problem - again with a well used - well > positioned site. It is the third time that it has happened - for no > 'apparent' reason. On both previous occasions February - 10 days then > April - 6 days, I did nothing other than to re-submit my site, and > after the times I have quoted, normality came once again. > This time I am just sitting tight after having removed an affiliate > link that I set up on 37 of my pages (Naughty I understand, but they > were all relevant to the Affiliate program). > (I am not actually just sitting tight, for I have several other sites, > which need to be bought up to spec, together with which - as a long > term 'cushion' to the vagaries of the big G, I am aiming more at some > of the other major search engines - Yahoo in particular, which still > gives me top positions I once had with G. > No help to you, but at least you know you are not alone! > Regards > Data
> On 10 Jul, 18:34, alkenmrs wrote:
> > Hi Burt
> > I thought about that as well and even posted a thread about it. > > However, the concensus was that the translations were not the cause of > > the deindexing.
> > I have actually modified the translator script to look only in the > > cache on my site and not going to Google. Having said that, it only > > looks for a translation page if somebody actually clicks on the flag. > > To that end, it is not automated in the true sense of the word.
> > Even so, I would be interested in anybody else's view on this.
> > Alan
> > On Jul 10, 5:57 pm, Burt wrote:
> > > Dunno, but maybe google doesn't like automated translation queries.
> > > On Jul 11, 12:30 am, alkenmrs wrote:
> > > > At least it seems that way to me!!
> > > > Two weeks ago my ten+ year old site athttp://www.alkenmrs.comwas > > > > totally deindexed from Google with no warning.- Hide quoted text -
> I thought about that as well and even posted a thread about it. > However, the concensus was that the translations were not the cause of > the deindexing.
> I have actually modified the translator script to look only in the > cache on my site and not going to Google. Having said that, it only > looks for a translation page if somebody actually clicks on the flag. > To that end, it is not automated in the true sense of the word.
> Even so, I would be interested in anybody else's view on this.
> Alan
> On Jul 10, 5:57 pm, Burt wrote:
> > Dunno, but maybe google doesn't like automated translation queries.
> > On Jul 11, 12:30 am, alkenmrs wrote:
> > > At least it seems that way to me!!
> > > Two weeks ago my ten+ year old site athttp://www.alkenmrs.comwas > > > totally deindexed from Google with no warning.- Hide quoted text -
> It still means that you use a service that you don't credit, cached or > not.
> If I had such a service, and you used it like that, I would ban you :)
> And, your translation script is a bit buggy;
> After translation links are pointing to the google translation > service, but results get redirected to your own site again.. ?
> My guess is that your translation thingie may be a problem.
> If you need translations, use some translation service, online or not, > and make them hardcoded.
> My suggestion is to remove the translation thingies, and wait a while > before adding them again, in a hardcoded way.
> If it takes to long before you get some listings again in G, then file > a re inclusion, explaining your previous translation "problem".
> What I say may not be "consensus", neither may it the "reason why", > but if I were G, I wouldn't like what your are doing.
> On Jul 11, 1:34 am, alkenmrs wrote:
> > Hi Burt
> > I thought about that as well and even posted a thread about it. > > However, the concensus was that the translations were not the cause of > > the deindexing.
> > I have actually modified the translator script to look only in the > > cache on my site and not going to Google. Having said that, it only > > looks for a translation page if somebody actually clicks on the flag. > > To that end, it is not automated in the true sense of the word.
> > Even so, I would be interested in anybody else's view on this.
> > Alan
> > On Jul 10, 5:57 pm, Burt wrote:
> > > Dunno, but maybe google doesn't like automated translation queries.
> > > On Jul 11, 12:30 am, alkenmrs wrote:
> > > > At least it seems that way to me!!
> > > > Two weeks ago my ten+ year old site athttp://www.alkenmrs.comwas > > > > totally deindexed from Google with no warning.- Hide quoted text -
> Do you host your site on your own web server? If you do, check the > logfiles to see if googlebot was there.
As I said above, Googlebot comes along every day and picks up all the site maps and robots.txt. It also goes to various pages within the site but hasn't done a proper crawl since June 25 (according to webmaster tools)
As the site is totally deindexed, searchenginegenie can't find any pages and therefore assumes the site is banned.
> Do you host your site on your own web server? If you do, check the > logfiles to see if googlebot was there.
> On Jul 10, 2:21 pm, Burt wrote:
> > Hmmm,
> > It still means that you use a service that you don't credit, cached or > > not.
> > If I had such a service, and you used it like that, I would ban you :)
> > And, your translation script is a bit buggy;
> > After translation links are pointing to the google translation > > service, but results get redirected to your own site again.. ?
> > My guess is that your translation thingie may be a problem.
> > If you need translations, use some translation service, online or not, > > and make them hardcoded.
> > My suggestion is to remove the translation thingies, and wait a while > > before adding them again, in a hardcoded way.
> > If it takes to long before you get some listings again in G, then file > > a re inclusion, explaining your previous translation "problem".
> > What I say may not be "consensus", neither may it the "reason why", > > but if I were G, I wouldn't like what your are doing.
> > On Jul 11, 1:34 am, alkenmrs wrote:
> > > Hi Burt
> > > I thought about that as well and even posted a thread about it. > > > However, the concensus was that the translations were not the cause of > > > the deindexing.
> > > I have actually modified the translator script to look only in the > > > cache on my site and not going to Google. Having said that, it only > > > looks for a translation page if somebody actually clicks on the flag. > > > To that end, it is not automated in the true sense of the word.
> > > Even so, I would be interested in anybody else's view on this.
> > > Alan
> > > On Jul 10, 5:57 pm, Burt wrote:
> > > > Dunno, but maybe google doesn't like automated translation queries.
> > > > On Jul 11, 12:30 am, alkenmrs wrote:
> > > > > At least it seems that way to me!!
> > > > > Two weeks ago my ten+ year old site athttp://www.alkenmrs.comwas > > > > > totally deindexed from Google with no warning.- Hide quoted text -
That page translator script has been bugging me as well but I couldn't find anything written to say that it couldn't be used in this way. Moreover, there are a heck of a lot of sites out there using similar page translation scripts, so if this a cause of my problems, there is likely to be few more casualties.
regarding translated pages (only just found it) and Adam Lasnik seems to confirm your comments.
Do you think it best just to remove the links to the already cached pages or remove the pages as well. If the latter, I will have to put in some 301 redirects as most language pages are indexed in Yahoo and MSN and a lot of them were in Google until I got the boot!
> It still means that you use a service that you don't credit, cached or > not.
> If I had such a service, and you used it like that, I would ban you :)
> And, your translation script is a bit buggy;
> After translation links are pointing to the google translation > service, but results get redirected to your own site again.. ?
> My guess is that your translation thingie may be a problem.
> If you need translations, use some translation service, online or not, > and make them hardcoded.
> My suggestion is to remove the translation thingies, and wait a while > before adding them again, in a hardcoded way.
> If it takes to long before you get some listings again in G, then file > a re inclusion, explaining your previous translation "problem".
> What I say may not be "consensus", neither may it the "reason why", > but if I were G, I wouldn't like what your are doing.
> On Jul 11, 1:34 am, alkenmrs wrote:
> > Hi Burt
> > I thought about that as well and even posted a thread about it. > > However, the concensus was that the translations were not the cause of > > the deindexing.
> > I have actually modified the translator script to look only in the > > cache on my site and not going to Google. Having said that, it only > > looks for a translation page if somebody actually clicks on the flag. > > To that end, it is not automated in the true sense of the word.
> > Even so, I would be interested in anybody else's view on this.
> > Alan
> > On Jul 10, 5:57 pm, Burt wrote:
> > > Dunno, but maybe google doesn't like automated translation queries.
> > > On Jul 11, 12:30 am, alkenmrs wrote:
> > > > At least it seems that way to me!!
> > > > Two weeks ago my ten+ year old site athttp://www.alkenmrs.comwas > > > > totally deindexed from Google with no warning.- Hide quoted text -
> That page translator script has been bugging me as well but I couldn't > find anything written to say that it couldn't be used in this way. > Moreover, there are a heck of a lot of sites out there using similar > page translation scripts, so if this a cause of my problems, there is > likely to be few more casualties.
> regarding translated pages (only just found it) and Adam Lasnik seems > to confirm your comments.
> Do you think it best just to remove the links to the already cached > pages or remove the pages as well. If the latter, I will have to put > in some 301 redirects as most language pages are indexed in Yahoo and > MSN and a lot of them were in Google until I got the boot!
> Alan
> On Jul 10, 7:21 pm, Burt wrote:
> > Hmmm,
> > It still means that you use a service that you don't credit, cached or > > not.
> > If I had such a service, and you used it like that, I would ban you :)
> > And, your translation script is a bit buggy;
> > After translation links are pointing to the google translation > > service, but results get redirected to your own site again.. ?
> > My guess is that your translation thingie may be a problem.
> > If you need translations, use some translation service, online or not, > > and make them hardcoded.
> > My suggestion is to remove the translation thingies, and wait a while > > before adding them again, in a hardcoded way.
> > If it takes to long before you get some listings again in G, then file > > a re inclusion, explaining your previous translation "problem".
> > What I say may not be "consensus", neither may it the "reason why", > > but if I were G, I wouldn't like what your are doing.
> > On Jul 11, 1:34 am, alkenmrs wrote:
> > > Hi Burt
> > > I thought about that as well and even posted a thread about it. > > > However, the concensus was that the translations were not the cause of > > > the deindexing.
> > > I have actually modified the translator script to look only in the > > > cache on my site and not going to Google. Having said that, it only > > > looks for a translation page if somebody actually clicks on the flag. > > > To that end, it is not automated in the true sense of the word.
> > > Even so, I would be interested in anybody else's view on this.
> > > Alan
> > > On Jul 10, 5:57 pm, Burt wrote:
> > > > Dunno, but maybe google doesn't like automated translation queries.
> > > > On Jul 11, 12:30 am, alkenmrs wrote:
> > > > > At least it seems that way to me!!
> > > > > Two weeks ago my ten+ year old site athttp://www.alkenmrs.comwas > > > > > totally deindexed from Google with no warning.- Hide quoted text -
Imagine this scenario. You walk into a store and some guy -- surprisingly the owner -- grabs you by the shoulder.
"How'd you like some beer? Oh, hey, we also sell coffee. Hmm... you don't want something to drink? We specialize in air purifiers, too! And you know what... after you drink some beer next to your new air purifier, I bet you could use a date, right? No, no, not the eating kind... I'm talking a really nice lady! And if she ends up stealing your identity, well, no problem! I sell Identity Theft protection services... and... wait! Wait...come back!!!"
How much would you trust that guy? Or his store? Sure, he may have small leaflets on a zillion topics, but he's not an expert in any.
If you, as an independent observer, came across such a store online, would you trust it anymore? If not, why should Google see this as an important and relevant site?
The reductions in rankings you've experienced are not going to be reversed by simple technical or structural changes. You may wish to focus your efforts, add compelling, original, and substantive content or tools, and *then* file a reconsideration request.
Thank you for your valuable insight and yes I do hear what you are saying
You are obviously saying that this removal from the Google index is all to do with site theming or the lack thereof. At least I now know the reason and can try and do something about it so I thank you for that.
Although I am not going to try and defend it, the idea was to create a sort of mini information site on a range of subjects but this has obviously not worked. Although this is my site and always has been, the subjects on there are not all down to me as I have two other people that research and write articles for some of the subjects on the site. That is the reason that each subject or minisite is contained in it's own sub directory.
I guess the only way out of this is to remove the minisites from this domain and 301 them somewhere else.
> I think it's time for some tough love here, Alan.
> Imagine this scenario. You walk into a store and some guy -- > surprisingly the owner -- grabs you by the shoulder.
> "How'd you like some beer? Oh, hey, we also sell coffee. Hmm... you > don't want something to drink? We specialize in air purifiers, too! > And you know what... after you drink some beer next to your new air > purifier, I bet you could use a date, right? No, no, not the eating > kind... I'm talking a really nice lady! And if she ends up stealing > your identity, well, no problem! I sell Identity Theft protection > services... and... wait! Wait...come back!!!"
> How much would you trust that guy? Or his store? Sure, he may have > small leaflets on a zillion topics, but he's not an expert in any.
> If you, as an independent observer, came across such a store online, > would you trust it anymore? If not, why should Google see this as an > important and relevant site?
> The reductions in rankings you've experienced are not going to be > reversed by simple technical or structural changes. You may wish to > focus your efforts, add compelling, original, and substantive content > or tools, and *then* file a reconsideration request.
I wonder if I could have some advice before I go transferring some of the 'off topic' minisites to other domains.
Would I be better off leaving these minisites where they are but removing any linking to them from the root index page. Ultimately, I am asking if they would be OK left where they are but as stand alone sites albeit in a sub directory.
Or, as an alternative, move them to different domain(s) and put in a 301 redirect(s) to their new home. If the latter, what is the best procedure for doing this. Do I load the site into it's new domain and leave the existing one where it is with a 301 redirect or do I delete the existing pages and rely on the 301 to do it's work.
Unfortunately, .htaccess directives baffle me, so apologies in advance for what may seem a dull question to some.
> Thank you for your valuable insight and yes I do hear what you are > saying
> You are obviously saying that this removal from the Google index is > all to do with site theming or the lack thereof. At least I now know > the reason and can try and do something about it so I thank you for > that.
> Although I am not going to try and defend it, the idea was to create a > sort of mini information site on a range of subjects but this has > obviously not worked. Although this is my site and always has been, > the subjects on there are not all down to me as I have two other > people that research and write articles for some of the subjects on > the site. That is the reason that each subject or minisite is > contained in it's own sub directory.
> I guess the only way out of this is to remove the minisites from this > domain and 301 them somewhere else.
> Alan
> On Jul 10, 8:43 pm, Adam Lasnik wrote:
> > I think it's time for some tough love here, Alan.
> > Imagine this scenario. You walk into a store and some guy -- > > surprisingly the owner -- grabs you by the shoulder.
> > "How'd you like some beer? Oh, hey, we also sell coffee. Hmm... you > > don't want something to drink? We specialize in air purifiers, too! > > And you know what... after you drink some beer next to your new air > > purifier, I bet you could use a date, right? No, no, not the eating > > kind... I'm talking a really nice lady! And if she ends up stealing > > your identity, well, no problem! I sell Identity Theft protection > > services... and... wait! Wait...come back!!!"
> > How much would you trust that guy? Or his store? Sure, he may have > > small leaflets on a zillion topics, but he's not an expert in any.
> > If you, as an independent observer, came across such a store online, > > would you trust it anymore? If not, why should Google see this as an > > important and relevant site?
> > The reductions in rankings you've experienced are not going to be > > reversed by simple technical or structural changes. You may wish to > > focus your efforts, add compelling, original, and substantive content > > or tools, and *then* file a reconsideration request.- Hide quoted text -
Alan, it's actually more an issue of "substantiveness" (if that's a word :-) of content. A terse article on a broad topic is unlikely to garner much user or Google appreciation, regardless of its neighbors (e.g., simply spinning off these sections without appreciably expanding them is unlikely to be useful).
My first impression of your site was: "made for Adsense". Forgive me for being blunt, but I just wanted to put it out there.
Now I don't know what the original goal of the site was, but the way it looks now appears to be a collection of articles with a big block of Adsense above the fold. Reading through some of the articles, they appear to be very, very broad and feel ... "unpersonal" (hard to put it into words).
My gut feeling is that Google is recognizing that the site consists of unrelated articles that do not have much merit of their own. Compared to say a Wikipedia your articles most likely do not have direct support through links from other sites.
Additionally, while I can't trace it directly, it appears as if your articles were either written by a "cheap" copywriter or copied from other sites, perhaps modified so as not to be full copies. Finding things like that is a bit hard for us "mortals" since we do not have access to the full datasets directly, but I am fairly certain that Google can determine "near duplicates" or "modified duplicates" of content (it would only make sense). You can see near duplicates with http://www.alkenmrs.com/vitamins/ vs http://vitamins-for-health.com/vitamins_and_minerals_facts.html -- I don't know who's content was up first or where the original content came from (perhaps from your site), but you can tell that they're more than just similar.
"Unique and compelling content" .... is your content really, really that compelling?
> Alan, it's actually more an issue of "substantiveness" (if that's a > word :-) of content. A terse article on a broad topic is unlikely to > garner much user or Google appreciation, regardless of its neighbors > (e.g., simply spinning off these sections without appreciably > expanding them is unlikely to be useful).
> > Alan, it's actually more an issue of "substantiveness" (if that's a > > word :-) of content. A terse article on a broad topic is unlikely to > > garner much user or Google appreciation, regardless of its neighbors > > (e.g., simply spinning off these sections without appreciably > > expanding them is unlikely to be useful).- Hide quoted text -
> Alan, it's actually more an issue of "substantiveness" (if that's a > word :-) of content.
Well, at least you could spell it which is more than I could :-)
I am not too sure what you are getting at in respect of the articles in the respective sections.
Some things have to start off in a broad sense but then the follow up articles hopefully expand the main subject further. A sort of history, why and how to scenario.
The different sections do start off smallish and broad in nature but do expand over time with other articles that go into deeper detail, or at least I hope they do. Having said that, from what you are saying, perhaps I am seeing it only from my perspective and not from the readers point of view.
One or two sections, namely the Coffee, Healthy Living and Sleep sections are fast outgrowing themselves because of the increasing amount of articles and sub categories that have been added over time. However, the more recent additions have less content (around 20 or so articles) but will grow over time, depending on the subject matter.
I would guess that it is these more recent additions that have triggered this total deindexing from Google, so it maybe best to shift them out of the way of this site and take it back to where it was some months ago with some sort of broad theme.
Theming sort of went out of the window recently. When the site first started, some 10 years ago, it was intitally the TV merchandise section and the video conversion service. Being in the UK with a large US customer base, video tapes from here could not be played in the US. To get over that, the video conversion service was offered to those customers to be able watch UK PAL tapes. Then DVD came along with the same US/UK compatibility problems. Consequently, the Region Free DVD section was born. Internet video and HDTV/HD DVD started to emerge, so sections were set up about those subjects. The problem with all of these subjects is trying to explain technical terminology in a reasonably simple manner which is not always easy, so it quite probably comes across and very matter of fact.
Some of the other parts of the site are self interest and I guess, on hindsight, shouldn't be all lumped together under the same domain.
> Alan, it's actually more an issue of "substantiveness" (if that's a > word :-) of content. A terse article on a broad topic is unlikely to > garner much user or Google appreciation, regardless of its neighbors > (e.g., simply spinning off these sections without appreciably > expanding them is unlikely to be useful).
> My first impression of your site was: "made for Adsense". Forgive me > for being blunt, but I just wanted to put it out there.
Thanks for your insights John - No offense taken.
This site is some 10 years old and was obviously around before adsense was even a glint in Google's eye. The original sections as in TV Merchandise and the Video Conversion service were all that was on the site until late 2005. It was also the time that adsense was added to give some monetization to the site.
> Now I don't know what the original goal of the site was, but the way > it looks now appears to be a collection of articles with a big block > of Adsense above the fold. Reading through some of the articles, they > appear to be very, very broad and feel ... "unpersonal" (hard to put > it into words).
I just tried to answer that in my previous response to Adam so rather than repeat, take a look at my previous post regarding the goal come site history.
> My gut feeling is that Google is recognizing that the site consists of > unrelated articles that do not have much merit of their own. Compared > to say a Wikipedia your articles most likely do not have direct > support through links from other sites.
Apart from the latter minisites, most do have incoming links although they are natural linking and not ones that I have gone out looking for. In fact, I have never gone out looking for links. I am more of the opinion that people will link to a page on it's merits or not as the case maybe.
> "Unique and compelling content" .... is your content really, really > that compelling?
> What could you do to make it more compelling?
A good question - what exactly is compelling content. I am more of 'History, Why and How'
> My first impression of your site was: "made for Adsense". Forgive me > for being blunt, but I just wanted to put it out there.
> Now I don't know what the original goal of the site was, but the way > it looks now appears to be a collection of articles with a big block > of Adsense above the fold. Reading through some of the articles, they > appear to be very, very broad and feel ... "unpersonal" (hard to put > it into words).
> My gut feeling is that Google is recognizing that the site consists of > unrelated articles that do not have much merit of their own. Compared > to say a Wikipedia your articles most likely do not have direct > support through links from other sites.
> Additionally, while I can't trace it directly, it appears as if your > articles were either written by a "cheap" copywriter or copied from > other sites, perhaps modified so as not to be full copies. Finding > things like that is a bit hard for us "mortals" since we do not have > access to the full datasets directly, but I am fairly certain that > Google can determine "near duplicates" or "modified duplicates" of > content (it would only make sense). You can see near duplicates withhttp://www.alkenmrs.com/vitamins/vshttp://vitamins-for-health.com/vit... > -- I don't know who's content was up first or where the original > content came from (perhaps from your site), but you can tell that > they're more than just similar.
> "Unique and compelling content" .... is your content really, really > that compelling?
Alan - I have a few sites on hobbies, for instance, water gardens, saltwater aquariums, composting and other things that I add "content" to by doing book reviews and helping people find products currently. The difference is that I actually have aquariums, water gardens and compost bins. I just got a good digital camera and will be taking pictures to do some "show and tell" type pages that others might link to in a natural way to reward their value. I bet people would like to understand the basics of a saltwater aquarium setup right? See where I am going with this?
Do you honestly enjoy "Hair Disorders"?
Are you a doctor?
The most evil thing I have seen is people trying to cash in on cancer, no joke!
> > My first impression of your site was: "made for Adsense". Forgive me > > for being blunt, but I just wanted to put it out there.
> Thanks for your insights John - No offense taken.
> This site is some 10 years old and was obviously around before adsense > was even a glint in Google's eye. > The original sections as in TV Merchandise and the Video Conversion > service were all that was on the site until late 2005. It was also the > time that adsense was added to give some monetization to the site.
> > Now I don't know what the original goal of the site was, but the way > > it looks now appears to be a collection of articles with a big block > > of Adsense above the fold. Reading through some of the articles, they > > appear to be very, very broad and feel ... "unpersonal" (hard to put > > it into words).
> I just tried to answer that in my previous response to Adam so rather > than repeat, take a look at my previous post regarding the goal come > site history.
> > My gut feeling is that Google is recognizing that the site consists of > > unrelated articles that do not have much merit of their own. Compared > > to say a Wikipedia your articles most likely do not have direct > > support through links from other sites.
> Apart from the latter minisites, most do have incoming links although > they are natural linking and not ones that I have gone out looking > for. In fact, I have never gone out looking for links. I am more of > the opinion that people will link to a page on it's merits or not as > the case maybe.
> > "Unique and compelling content" .... is your content really, really > > that compelling?
> > What could you do to make it more compelling?
> A good question - what exactly is compelling content. I am more of > 'History, Why and How'
> Alan
> On Jul 11, 12:30 am, JohnMu wrote:
> > My first impression of your site was: "made for Adsense". Forgive me > > for being blunt, but I just wanted to put it out there.
> > Now I don't know what the original goal of the site was, but the way > > it looks now appears to be a collection of articles with a big block > > of Adsense above the fold. Reading through some of the articles, they > > appear to be very, very broad and feel ... "unpersonal" (hard to put > > it into words).
> > My gut feeling is that Google is recognizing that the site consists of > > unrelated articles that do not have much merit of their own. Compared > > to say a Wikipedia your articles most likely do not have direct > > support through links from other sites.
> > Additionally, while I can't trace it directly, it appears as if your > > articles were either written by a "cheap" copywriter or copied from > > other sites, perhaps modified so as not to be full copies. Finding > > things like that is a bit hard for us "mortals" since we do not have > > access to the full datasets directly, but I am fairly certain that > > Google can determine "near duplicates" or "modified duplicates" of > > content (it would only make sense). You can see near duplicates withhttp://www.alkenmrs.com/vitamins/vshttp://vitamins-for-health.com/vit... > > -- I don't know who's content was up first or where the original > > content came from (perhaps from your site), but you can tell that > > they're more than just similar.
> > "Unique and compelling content" .... is your content really, really > > that compelling?
I'm not sure what to think on this one. Sure it's a MFA site, but that's the web today, most sites are made for adsense, or amazon affiliates, or commission junction, or ... you get the idea. To me it looks like a weak about.com with less obtrusive ads. Take a look at http://coffeetea.about.com/ vs. http://www.alkenmrs.com/coffee/ . Both are just general discussions on the subject with neither being an authority. Both are basically there to serve up ads. The basic premis of adsense on content is that you don't want the content to be authoritative, otherwise no one will have a reason to click the little ad.
So what's the primary differences between alkenmrs and about? I'm not sure, but here are a few.
1. Subfolders vs. subdomains. Is that a consideration? Do subdomains protect the main domain from being harmed by the diversification of information? About.com and blogspot do pretty good and neither are about any one subject, then again wiki is good for 2-3 of the top 10 on just about any search on google and they use subfolders.
2. Size? Since Google has given them the boot I'll have to use yahoo data, but alkenmrs has 15,600 pages listed and about has 7,400,000. Perhaps if he went the other way and just started adding content rather than narrowing the focus.
3. Links? 11,000,000 for about.com and our alkenmrs only has 8000 or so.
I haven't done any forensic research as to the originality of the content nor looks for the usual reindeer games, but a bit at a loss on this one. Is it the best site in the worlds? I don't know that's a matter of opinion, I hate the wiki thing more than expired ebay auctions but it seems to be doing pretty good, about.com has as much value but has the link advantage.
Have you seen any signals in your adsense? Increase of those PSA ads? Decrease in CTR? decrease in revenue (before the ban of course)? If it were truly a poor user experience you'd think the adsense department would have acted before the spam team.
If this ban is based purely on the quality of the site's information, who instigated the ban? The algorithm? Manual Review? A Complaint on search quality? A spam report? Adsense?
Those are my thoughts, not much help I know. If you've written the information yourself I know what I'd do, and I don't want to offend Adam here, but I'd repackage it and republish using subdomains on a fresh domain, new owner, new adsense account, and start over. As far as the old domain goes, not sure, it has some value perhaps.
I'm just confused and don't know what to think, as I said before. The domain doesn't have a lot of theme, in that it's not just about one thing, but then again neither are millions of blogs, wiki, about, ebay, amazon, or google for that matter. Have you syndicated your content? Could this be caught in some sort of dragnet on the aritcle publishing industry? Sort of like the assault on the realtors recently launched?
> Alan - I have a few sites on hobbies, for instance, water gardens, > saltwater aquariums, composting and other things that I add "content" > to by doing book reviews and helping people find products currently. > The difference is that I actually have aquariums, water gardens and > compost bins. I just got a good digital camera and will be taking > pictures to do some "show and tell" type pages that others might link > to in a natural way to reward their value. I bet people would like to > understand the basics of a saltwater aquarium setup right? See where I > am going with this?
> Do you honestly enjoy "Hair Disorders"?
> Are you a doctor?
> The most evil thing I have seen is people trying to cash in on cancer, > no joke!
> This post is a good lesson for all, nice!
> On Jul 10, 8:46 pm, alkenmrs wrote:
> > > My first impression of your site was: "made for Adsense". Forgive me > > > for being blunt, but I just wanted to put it out there.
> > Thanks for your insights John - No offense taken.
> > This site is some 10 years old and was obviously around before adsense > > was even a glint in Google's eye. > > The original sections as in TV Merchandise and the Video Conversion > > service were all that was on the site until late 2005. It was also the > > time that adsense was added to give some monetization to the site.
> > > Now I don't know what the original goal of the site was, but the way > > > it looks now appears to be a collection of articles with a big block > > > of Adsense above the fold. Reading through some of the articles, they > > > appear to be very, very broad and feel ... "unpersonal" (hard to put > > > it into words).
> > I just tried to answer that in my previous response to Adam so rather > > than repeat, take a look at my previous post regarding the goal come > > site history.
> > > My gut feeling is that Google is recognizing that the site consists of > > > unrelated articles that do not have much merit of their own. Compared > > > to say a Wikipedia your articles most likely do not have direct > > > support through links from other sites.
> > Apart from the latter minisites, most do have incoming links although > > they are natural linking and not ones that I have gone out looking > > for. In fact, I have never gone out looking for links. I am more of > > the opinion that people will link to a page on it's merits or not as > > the case maybe.
> > > "Unique and compelling content" .... is your content really, really > > > that compelling?
> > > What could you do to make it more compelling?
> > A good question - what exactly is compelling content. I am more of > > 'History, Why and How'
> > Alan
> > On Jul 11, 12:30 am, JohnMu wrote:
> > > My first impression of your site was: "made for Adsense". Forgive me > > > for being blunt, but I just wanted to put it out there.
> > > Now I don't know what the original goal of the site was, but the way > > > it looks now appears to be a collection of articles with a big block > > > of Adsense above the fold. Reading through some of the articles, they > > > appear to be very, very broad and feel ... "unpersonal" (hard to put > > > it into words).
> > > My gut feeling is that Google is recognizing that the site consists of > > > unrelated articles that do not have much merit of their own. Compared > > > to say a Wikipedia your articles most likely do not have direct > > > support through links from other sites.
> > > Additionally, while I can't trace it directly, it appears as if your > > > articles were either written by a "cheap" copywriter or copied from > > > other sites, perhaps modified so as not to be full copies. Finding > > > things like that is a bit hard for us "mortals" since we do not have > > > access to the full datasets directly, but I am fairly certain that > > > Google can determine "near duplicates" or "modified duplicates" of > > > content (it would only make sense). You can see near duplicates withhttp://www.alkenmrs.com/vitamins/vshttp://vitamins-for-health.com/vit... > > > -- I don't know who's content was up first or where the original > > > content came from (perhaps from your site), but you can tell that > > > they're more than just similar.
> > > "Unique and compelling content" .... is your content really, really > > > that compelling?
> > > What could you do to make it more compelling?
Yes, it looks like MFA, and it smells like MFA, and it is possibly a lot of rewritten content found somewhere else.
Adam says:
"The reductions in rankings you've experienced are not going to be reversed by simple technical or structural changes"
But with all respect Adam, we are not talking reduction of rankings here, which would be appropriate may be.
We are talking about a ban.
If lack of originality causes a ban, I have some better suggestions :) proxies?
I haven't looked at the back link structure, I only saw the translation scraping, and "funny" redirects from google translated pages after the scrape. I would ban him for that.
> Do you honestly enjoy "Hair Disorders"? > Are you a doctor?
No I am not a doctor and have never professed to be one. Hair removal/disorders is not 'medical' anyway, at least not here in the UK.
That being said, the hair guide is more inspired by my wife who spends half her life having her legs, underarms etc waxed. That is more a vanity thing I would guess - it is not something that I am in to myself :-)
At the end of the day, I am running a business here which consists of myself and two others that research and write content on different subjects.
Personally, my main forte in life is radio communications and electronics which encompasses numerous sub topics. Up until recently, I spent half my life travelling around the UK and Europe servicing equipment on ships, which covered a lot of things, I can assure you.
> Alan - I have a few sites on hobbies, for instance, water gardens, > saltwater aquariums, composting and other things that I add "content" > to by doing book reviews and helping people find products currently. > The difference is that I actually have aquariums, water gardens and > compost bins. I just got a good digital camera and will be taking > pictures to do some "show and tell" type pages that others might link > to in a natural way to reward their value. I bet people would like to > understand the basics of a saltwater aquarium setup right? See where I > am going with this?
> Do you honestly enjoy "Hair Disorders"?
> Are you a doctor?
> The most evil thing I have seen is people trying to cash in on cancer, > no joke!
> This post is a good lesson for all, nice!
> On Jul 10, 8:46 pm, alkenmrs wrote:
> > > My first impression of your site was: "made for Adsense". Forgive me > > > for being blunt, but I just wanted to put it out there.
> > Thanks for your insights John - No offense taken.
> > This site is some 10 years old and was obviously around before adsense > > was even a glint in Google's eye. > > The original sections as in TV Merchandise and the Video Conversion > > service were all that was on the site until late 2005. It was also the > > time that adsense was added to give some monetization to the site.
> > > Now I don't know what the original goal of the site was, but the way > > > it looks now appears to be a collection of articles with a big block > > > of Adsense above the fold. Reading through some of the articles, they > > > appear to be very, very broad and feel ... "unpersonal" (hard to put > > > it into words).
> > I just tried to answer that in my previous response to Adam so rather > > than repeat, take a look at my previous post regarding the goal come > > site history.
> > > My gut feeling is that Google is recognizing that the site consists of > > > unrelated articles that do not have much merit of their own. Compared > > > to say a Wikipedia your articles most likely do not have direct > > > support through links from other sites.
> > Apart from the latter minisites, most do have incoming links although > > they are natural linking and not ones that I have gone out looking > > for. In fact, I have never gone out looking for links. I am more of > > the opinion that people will link to a page on it's merits or not as > > the case maybe.
> > > "Unique and compelling content" .... is your content really, really > > > that compelling?
> > > What could you do to make it more compelling?
> > A good question - what exactly is compelling content. I am more of > > 'History, Why and How'
> > Alan
> > On Jul 11, 12:30 am, JohnMu wrote:
> > > My first impression of your site was: "made for Adsense". Forgive me > > > for being blunt, but I just wanted to put it out there.
> > > Now I don't know what the original goal of the site was, but the way > > > it looks now appears to be a collection of articles with a big block > > > of Adsense above the fold. Reading through some of the articles, they > > > appear to be very, very broad and feel ... "unpersonal" (hard to put > > > it into words).
> > > My gut feeling is that Google is recognizing that the site consists of > > > unrelated articles that do not have much merit of their own. Compared > > > to say a Wikipedia your articles most likely do not have direct > > > support through links from other sites.
> > > Additionally, while I can't trace it directly, it appears as if your > > > articles were either written by a "cheap" copywriter or copied from > > > other sites, perhaps modified so as not to be full copies. Finding > > > things like that is a bit hard for us "mortals" since we do not have > > > access to the full datasets directly, but I am fairly certain that > > > Google can determine "near duplicates" or "modified duplicates" of > > > content (it would only make sense). You can see near duplicates withhttp://www.alkenmrs.com/vitamins/vshttp://vitamins-for-health.com/vit... > > > -- I don't know who's content was up first or where the original > > > content came from (perhaps from your site), but you can tell that > > > they're more than just similar.
> > > "Unique and compelling content" .... is your content really, really > > > that compelling?
> > > What could you do to make it more compelling?
I looked at this site yesterday, checked a few potential issues WRT crawlability and such, found a lot of content shared with the rest of the Web, probably inserted by cheap copywriters, hated the prominent AdSense spots forcing me to scroll down, thought just a somewhat exotic scraper site, got distracted in IM and moved on. Actually, it perfectly fits the profile of a MFA-scraper site, although it's guilty for just "manual scraping" and the professional scraper would never risk to lose focus that way.
The problem is a site wide issue, and I doubt it is repairable with reasonable efforts. I'd develop a somewhat intelligent watering can testing referrer, user location, broker etcetera to find a somewhat related page and feed it with low cost traffic while I start over creating a content rich and better focused new site on another domain.
I know it's hard to give up a site after 10 years, but a clear cut might be the best medicine.
> Yes, it looks like MFA, and it smells like MFA, and it is possibly a > lot of rewritten content found somewhere else.
> Adam says:
> "The reductions in rankings you've experienced are not going to be > reversed by simple technical or structural changes"
> But with all respect Adam, we are not talking reduction of rankings > here, which would be appropriate may be.
> We are talking about a ban.
> If lack of originality causes a ban, I have some better > suggestions :) proxies?
> I haven't looked at the back link structure, I only saw the > translation scraping, and "funny" redirects from google translated > pages after the scrape. I would ban him for that.
> On Jul 11, 7:10 pm, JLH wrote:
> > I'm not sure what to think on this one. Sure it's a MFA site, but
seems rather terse and lacking in substantiveness if you ask me ...however google clearly appreciates it. The fact that anyone can edit gives it a lack of expertness as well.
> Alan, it's actually more an issue of "substantiveness" (if that's a > word :-) of content. A terse article on a broad topic is unlikely to > garner much user or Google appreciation, regardless of its neighbors > (e.g., simply spinning off these sections without appreciably > expanding them is unlikely to be useful).
|
