We are a small family business and we have just been dropped from the
serps due to a proxy hijack (I think that's the term). We have blocked
the IP for now while I look at ways of preventing this happening again
in the future. (Not techy at all)
When you searched on Google for a bunch of text on our page, his site
appeared and upon clicking on the link, it forwarded us to our site,
through a proxy site.
It seems that the proxy version of our page was re-crawled last night,
and, due to the IP ban, was de-indexed. Unfortunately, our ranking is
still stuck between the 40 - 60 mark for all keywords, phrases and
even our domain name. We used to rank really well and now we are at
the bottom of the pond. We have (what we think) is a good site which
we worked on for hours and hours every night to get just the way we
wanted it.
I have filed a re-inclusion form and a spam report when it first
dropped us from serps.
We have had the penalty for over 11 days now and it is really
affecting our business. We just can't afford to miss out on the
beginning of the spring season here in the UK. This is our only source
of income and as such this is causing my wife and me great stress and
sleepless nights. This is extremely serious for us, but we feel as if
Google has let us down as we have not even had an automated response
to say they are looking into it. We feel helpless and distraught. Why
does it take so long for Google to act on these people who literally
ruin honest people's lives? Why is there no-one to talk to even via
email?
Does anyone have any advice on this? The SEO guy we used for advice
ran out of ideas.
How do you know it was due to the proxy hijack and not the five pages
of links exchanges that you had and now deleted? Why did you not tell
us about them when posting here asking for help?
> We are a small family business and we have just been dropped from the
> serps due to a proxy hijack (I think that's the term). We have blocked
> the IP for now while I look at ways of preventing this happening again
> in the future. (Not techy at all)
> When you searched on Google for a bunch of text on our page, his site
> appeared and upon clicking on the link, it forwarded us to our site,
> through a proxy site.
> It seems that the proxy version of our page was re-crawled last night,
> and, due to the IP ban, was de-indexed. Unfortunately, our ranking is
> still stuck between the 40 - 60 mark for all keywords, phrases and
> even our domain name. We used to rank really well and now we are at
> the bottom of the pond. We have (what we think) is a good site which
> we worked on for hours and hours every night to get just the way we
> wanted it.
> I have filed a re-inclusion form and a spam report when it first
> dropped us from serps.
> We have had the penalty for over 11 days now and it is really
> affecting our business. We just can't afford to miss out on the
> beginning of the spring season here in the UK. This is our only source
> of income and as such this is causing my wife and me great stress and
> sleepless nights. This is extremely serious for us, but we feel as if
> Google has let us down as we have not even had an automated response
> to say they are looking into it. We feel helpless and distraught. Why
> does it take so long for Google to act on these people who literally
> ruin honest people's lives? Why is there no-one to talk to even via
> email?
> Does anyone have any advice on this? The SEO guy we used for advice
> ran out of ideas.
I had no idea what the cause is so removed everything that might have
caused the problem. After the drop, I sat down myself to read the
webmaster guidelines and decided that the links could also cause the
drop. I never thought reciprocal links were a problem as pretty much
all of our competitors have them. Much larger then ours at that.
Why would our site drop while all the rest still be up there? Some
competitors have over 100 pages of links. Thus, I discounted the idea
that it is the cause of my problem but removed just in case. Nothing
was done in bad faith as you seem to suggest. Thanks for your help.
> How do you know it was due to the proxy hijack and not the five pages
> of links exchanges that you had and now deleted? Why did you not tell
> us about them when posting here asking for help?
> > We are a small family business and we have just been dropped from the
> > serps due to a proxy hijack (I think that's the term). We have blocked
> > the IP for now while I look at ways of preventing this happening again
> > in the future. (Not techy at all)
> > When you searched on Google for a bunch of text on our page, his site
> > appeared and upon clicking on the link, it forwarded us to our site,
> > through a proxy site.
> > It seems that the proxy version of our page was re-crawled last night,
> > and, due to the IP ban, was de-indexed. Unfortunately, our ranking is
> > still stuck between the 40 - 60 mark for all keywords, phrases and
> > even our domain name. We used to rank really well and now we are at
> > the bottom of the pond. We have (what we think) is a good site which
> > we worked on for hours and hours every night to get just the way we
> > wanted it.
> > I have filed a re-inclusion form and a spam report when it first
> > dropped us from serps.
> > We have had the penalty for over 11 days now and it is really
> > affecting our business. We just can't afford to miss out on the
> > beginning of the spring season here in the UK. This is our only source
> > of income and as such this is causing my wife and me great stress and
> > sleepless nights. This is extremely serious for us, but we feel as if
> > Google has let us down as we have not even had an automated response
> > to say they are looking into it. We feel helpless and distraught. Why
> > does it take so long for Google to act on these people who literally
> > ruin honest people's lives? Why is there no-one to talk to even via
> > email?
> > Does anyone have any advice on this? The SEO guy we used for advice
> > ran out of ideas.
> > Sorry for the rant,
> > Shai- Hide quoted text -
Are there any results in google showing any of your URLS preceded by
'tylerschnaidt' in the url name ? If not I think seo101 is correct
that it was probably due to links or other problems on your site.
Google are pretty quick at removing proxy duplicates of a URL. If a
302 redirect is used the tendenacy is to index the destination URL in
preference to the source URL.
Hi silverstall. Yes, when you did a search for a chunk of text on my
front page, the tylerschnaidt showed up in the results instead of
farawayfurniture. This changed overnight last night after I blocked
his IP 3 days ago. I was hoping the serps will return after that
happened but it has not.
Actions taken so far:
1. Blocked IP of the proxy site as detailed above
2. Removed reciprocal link pages (they had a global nofollow on them
btw)
3. Added nofollow to the only two external links on my front page (one
was Unite Nations Env Program and the other was the website designers)
4. Files a re-inclusion and Spam report from WBT (done 10 days ago)
Is there anything else I can do? Seriously, I am not just saying this,
but this is a massive problem for us. Without exaggerating, this could
cost us our home if it carries on for more then a week or two.
This whole episode has taught me two valuable lessons. One is to never
trust someone else with your source of income without continually
checking up on them and checking for yourself that what they are doing
is 100% ok, and the other is that no business should be reliant so
much on one source of visitors. But, as it's a new business (3 years
old), we could not afford any other type of advertising.
Anyone else have any suggestions on what I can do next? Any idea on
how long if at all the site will come back into the search results?
> Are there any results in google showing any of your URLS preceded by
> 'tylerschnaidt' in the url name ? If not I think seo101 is correct
> that it was probably due to links or other problems on your site.
> Google are pretty quick at removing proxy duplicates of a URL. If a
> 302 redirect is used the tendenacy is to index the destination URL in
> preference to the source URL.
There is no mention of "wood", "wooden", "garden", "outdoor",
"furniture".
Phrases like "it is sure to become a topic of conversation amongst
your friends and family" may read well as marketing blurb but they are
irrelevant for search engine indexing of page content related to what
people might actually be searching for.
"benches" are used in all sorts of places indoors and outdoors;
churches, homes, offices; public spaces (eg parks, shopping centres/
malls, etc). Benches can be upholstered or not. Benches can be made
of wood, cast/wrought iron, aluminium, plastic/PVS, etc. The word
"bench" is used in other contexts too: work bench, tool bench, court/
jury bench, etc.
That "Bali bench" you are selling is, I think, specifically for
domestic use, outside in the back garden. Take away the words "bench"
and "teak" and the page leaves a great mystery: what are you selling!
On a minor note, even the product dimensions are presented in a way
that creates an obstacle: "Size: L150cm x W73cm x H86cm". Are you
sure that your product will be found if I search for [teak garden
bench 150 cm] ?
Finally, I see that you have a "Forum". Do you moderate all posts?
Are you confident that you have ways of preventing spam, obscenities,
and substantially irrelevant material from getting published and
indexed thus potentially damaging your site's profile?
> We are a small family business and we have just been dropped from the
> serps due to a proxy hijack (I think that's the term). We have blocked
> the IP for now while I look at ways of preventing this happening again
> in the future. (Not techy at all)
> When you searched on Google for a bunch of text on our page, his site
> appeared and upon clicking on the link, it forwarded us to our site,
> through a proxy site.
> It seems that the proxy version of our page was re-crawled last night,
> and, due to the IP ban, was de-indexed. Unfortunately, our ranking is
> still stuck between the 40 - 60 mark for all keywords, phrases and
> even our domain name. We used to rank really well and now we are at
> the bottom of the pond. We have (what we think) is a good site which
> we worked on for hours and hours every night to get just the way we
> wanted it.
> I have filed a re-inclusion form and a spam report when it first
> dropped us from serps.
> We have had the penalty for over 11 days now and it is really
> affecting our business. We just can't afford to miss out on the
> beginning of the spring season here in the UK. This is our only source
> of income and as such this is causing my wife and me great stress and
> sleepless nights. This is extremely serious for us, but we feel as if
> Google has let us down as we have not even had an automated response
> to say they are looking into it. We feel helpless and distraught. Why
> does it take so long for Google to act on these people who literally
> ruin honest people's lives? Why is there no-one to talk to even via
> email?
> Does anyone have any advice on this? The SEO guy we used for advice
> ran out of ideas.
Thanks Robbo. As mentioned, we are not great at SEO but I am
learning.
The problems you mentioned are noted, but the fact of the matter is
that we ranked extremely well as is for the important keywords we were
concerned with. At the moment, I am spending my time investigating the
problem and trying to come to some sort of solution. I will however
look into these issues once the main problem is solved.
Just to reitirate, we ranked in the top 5 for phrases such as 'garden
furniture' 'teak garden furniture' 'teak sets' 'dining furniture' etc
for over a year and a half now. Solidly.
I understand that some descriptions are less than adequate from a seo
point of view, but we designed the site with the user/buyer in mind. I
will look into this further when the penalty is lifted.
p.s thanks for the compliment about the pictures. Cheered me up a
bit. :-)
> There is no mention of "wood", "wooden", "garden", "outdoor",
> "furniture".
> Phrases like "it is sure to become a topic of conversation amongst
> your friends and family" may read well as marketing blurb but they are
> irrelevant for search engine indexing of page content related to what
> people might actually be searching for.
> "benches" are used in all sorts of places indoors and outdoors;
> churches, homes, offices; public spaces (eg parks, shopping centres/
> malls, etc). Benches can be upholstered or not. Benches can be made
> of wood, cast/wrought iron, aluminium, plastic/PVS, etc. The word
> "bench" is used in other contexts too: work bench, tool bench, court/
> jury bench, etc.
> That "Bali bench" you are selling is, I think, specifically for
> domestic use, outside in the back garden. Take away the words "bench"
> and "teak" and the page leaves a great mystery: what are you selling!
> On a minor note, even the product dimensions are presented in a way
> that creates an obstacle: "Size: L150cm x W73cm x H86cm". Are you
> sure that your product will be found if I search for [teak garden
> bench 150 cm] ?
> Finally, I see that you have a "Forum". Do you moderate all posts?
> Are you confident that you have ways of preventing spam, obscenities,
> and substantially irrelevant material from getting published and
> indexed thus potentially damaging your site's profile?
> Robbo
> On Feb 22, 7:36 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > We are a small family business and we have just been dropped from the
> > serps due to a proxy hijack (I think that's the term). We have blocked
> > the IP for now while I look at ways of preventing this happening again
> > in the future. (Not techy at all)
> > When you searched on Google for a bunch of text on our page, his site
> > appeared and upon clicking on the link, it forwarded us to our site,
> > through a proxy site.
> > It seems that the proxy version of our page was re-crawled last night,
> > and, due to the IP ban, was de-indexed. Unfortunately, our ranking is
> > still stuck between the 40 - 60 mark for all keywords, phrases and
> > even our domain name. We used to rank really well and now we are at
> > the bottom of the pond. We have (what we think) is a good site which
> > we worked on for hours and hours every night to get just the way we
> > wanted it.
> > I have filed a re-inclusion form and a spam report when it first
> > dropped us from serps.
> > We have had the penalty for over 11 days now and it is really
> > affecting our business. We just can't afford to miss out on the
> > beginning of the spring season here in the UK. This is our only source
> > of income and as such this is causing my wife and me great stress and
> > sleepless nights. This is extremely serious for us, but we feel as if
> > Google has let us down as we have not even had an automated response
> > to say they are looking into it. We feel helpless and distraught. Why
> > does it take so long for Google to act on these people who literally
> > ruin honest people's lives? Why is there no-one to talk to even via
> > email?
> > Does anyone have any advice on this? The SEO guy we used for advice
> > ran out of ideas.
> > Sorry for the rant,
> > Shai- Hide quoted text -
Sorry Robbo, yes, the forum is moderated and all users have to be
approved first. We delete all spam on a daily basis if/when it
happens.
Thanks again.
On Feb 22, 12:30 pm, ShyBoy wrote:
> Thanks Robbo. As mentioned, we are not great at SEO but I am
> learning.
> The problems you mentioned are noted, but the fact of the matter is
> that we ranked extremely well as is for the important keywords we were
> concerned with. At the moment, I am spending my time investigating the
> problem and trying to come to some sort of solution. I will however
> look into these issues once the main problem is solved.
> Just to reitirate, we ranked in the top 5 for phrases such as 'garden
> furniture' 'teak garden furniture' 'teak sets' 'dining furniture' etc
> for over a year and a half now. Solidly.
> I understand that some descriptions are less than adequate from a seo
> point of view, but we designed the site with the user/buyer in mind. I
> will look into this further when the penalty is lifted.
> p.s thanks for the compliment about the pictures. Cheered me up a
> bit. :-)
> On Feb 22, 12:03 pm, Robbo wrote:
> > Shai
> > I cannot add anything useful about dealing with proxy hijacks, but I
> > can see some issues on your site itself.
> > There is no mention of "wood", "wooden", "garden", "outdoor",
> > "furniture".
> > Phrases like "it is sure to become a topic of conversation amongst
> > your friends and family" may read well as marketing blurb but they are
> > irrelevant for search engine indexing of page content related to what
> > people might actually be searching for.
> > "benches" are used in all sorts of places indoors and outdoors;
> > churches, homes, offices; public spaces (eg parks, shopping centres/
> > malls, etc). Benches can be upholstered or not. Benches can be made
> > of wood, cast/wrought iron, aluminium, plastic/PVS, etc. The word
> > "bench" is used in other contexts too: work bench, tool bench, court/
> > jury bench, etc.
> > That "Bali bench" you are selling is, I think, specifically for
> > domestic use, outside in the back garden. Take away the words "bench"
> > and "teak" and the page leaves a great mystery: what are you selling!
> > On a minor note, even the product dimensions are presented in a way
> > that creates an obstacle: "Size: L150cm x W73cm x H86cm". Are you
> > sure that your product will be found if I search for [teak garden
> > bench 150 cm] ?
> > Finally, I see that you have a "Forum". Do you moderate all posts?
> > Are you confident that you have ways of preventing spam, obscenities,
> > and substantially irrelevant material from getting published and
> > indexed thus potentially damaging your site's profile?
> > Robbo
> > On Feb 22, 7:36 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > We are a small family business and we have just been dropped from the
> > > serps due to a proxy hijack (I think that's the term). We have blocked
> > > the IP for now while I look at ways of preventing this happening again
> > > in the future. (Not techy at all)
> > > When you searched on Google for a bunch of text on our page, his site
> > > appeared and upon clicking on the link, it forwarded us to our site,
> > > through a proxy site.
> > > It seems that the proxy version of our page was re-crawled last night,
> > > and, due to the IP ban, was de-indexed. Unfortunately, our ranking is
> > > still stuck between the 40 - 60 mark for all keywords, phrases and
> > > even our domain name. We used to rank really well and now we are at
> > > the bottom of the pond. We have (what we think) is a good site which
> > > we worked on for hours and hours every night to get just the way we
> > > wanted it.
> > > I have filed a re-inclusion form and a spam report when it first
> > > dropped us from serps.
> > > We have had the penalty for over 11 days now and it is really
> > > affecting our business. We just can't afford to miss out on the
> > > beginning of the spring season here in the UK. This is our only source
> > > of income and as such this is causing my wife and me great stress and
> > > sleepless nights. This is extremely serious for us, but we feel as if
> > > Google has let us down as we have not even had an automated response
> > > to say they are looking into it. We feel helpless and distraught. Why
> > > does it take so long for Google to act on these people who literally
> > > ruin honest people's lives? Why is there no-one to talk to even via
> > > email?
> > > Does anyone have any advice on this? The SEO guy we used for advice
> > > ran out of ideas.
> > > Sorry for the rant,
> > > Shai- Hide quoted text -
I should have also noted that a search on my domain name
farawayfurniture does not bring up our site anymore so definitely
looks like a penalty. It was never a gradual drop. One day we received
1600 visits and the next 200. Its been like that ever since (11 days)
> Sorry Robbo, yes, the forum is moderated and all users have to be
> approved first. We delete all spam on a daily basis if/when it
> happens.
> Thanks again.
> On Feb 22, 12:30 pm, ShyBoy wrote:
> > Thanks Robbo. As mentioned, we are not great at SEO but I am
> > learning.
> > The problems you mentioned are noted, but the fact of the matter is
> > that we ranked extremely well as is for the important keywords we were
> > concerned with. At the moment, I am spending my time investigating the
> > problem and trying to come to some sort of solution. I will however
> > look into these issues once the main problem is solved.
> > Just to reitirate, we ranked in the top 5 for phrases such as 'garden
> > furniture' 'teak garden furniture' 'teak sets' 'dining furniture' etc
> > for over a year and a half now. Solidly.
> > I understand that some descriptions are less than adequate from a seo
> > point of view, but we designed the site with the user/buyer in mind. I
> > will look into this further when the penalty is lifted.
> > p.s thanks for the compliment about the pictures. Cheered me up a
> > bit. :-)
> > On Feb 22, 12:03 pm, Robbo wrote:
> > > Shai
> > > I cannot add anything useful about dealing with proxy hijacks, but I
> > > can see some issues on your site itself.
> > > There is no mention of "wood", "wooden", "garden", "outdoor",
> > > "furniture".
> > > Phrases like "it is sure to become a topic of conversation amongst
> > > your friends and family" may read well as marketing blurb but they are
> > > irrelevant for search engine indexing of page content related to what
> > > people might actually be searching for.
> > > "benches" are used in all sorts of places indoors and outdoors;
> > > churches, homes, offices; public spaces (eg parks, shopping centres/
> > > malls, etc). Benches can be upholstered or not. Benches can be made
> > > of wood, cast/wrought iron, aluminium, plastic/PVS, etc. The word
> > > "bench" is used in other contexts too: work bench, tool bench, court/
> > > jury bench, etc.
> > > That "Bali bench" you are selling is, I think, specifically for
> > > domestic use, outside in the back garden. Take away the words "bench"
> > > and "teak" and the page leaves a great mystery: what are you selling!
> > > On a minor note, even the product dimensions are presented in a way
> > > that creates an obstacle: "Size: L150cm x W73cm x H86cm". Are you
> > > sure that your product will be found if I search for [teak garden
> > > bench 150 cm] ?
> > > Finally, I see that you have a "Forum". Do you moderate all posts?
> > > Are you confident that you have ways of preventing spam, obscenities,
> > > and substantially irrelevant material from getting published and
> > > indexed thus potentially damaging your site's profile?
> > > Robbo
> > > On Feb 22, 7:36 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > We are a small family business and we have just been dropped from the
> > > > serps due to a proxy hijack (I think that's the term). We have blocked
> > > > the IP for now while I look at ways of preventing this happening again
> > > > in the future. (Not techy at all)
> > > > When you searched on Google for a bunch of text on our page, his site
> > > > appeared and upon clicking on the link, it forwarded us to our site,
> > > > through a proxy site.
> > > > It seems that the proxy version of our page was re-crawled last night,
> > > > and, due to the IP ban, was de-indexed. Unfortunately, our ranking is
> > > > still stuck between the 40 - 60 mark for all keywords, phrases and
> > > > even our domain name. We used to rank really well and now we are at
> > > > the bottom of the pond. We have (what we think) is a good site which
> > > > we worked on for hours and hours every night to get just the way we
> > > > wanted it.
> > > > I have filed a re-inclusion form and a spam report when it first
> > > > dropped us from serps.
> > > > We have had the penalty for over 11 days now and it is really
> > > > affecting our business. We just can't afford to miss out on the
> > > > beginning of the spring season here in the UK. This is our only source
> > > > of income and as such this is causing my wife and me great stress and
> > > > sleepless nights. This is extremely serious for us, but we feel as if
> > > > Google has let us down as we have not even had an automated response
> > > > to say they are looking into it. We feel helpless and distraught. Why
> > > > does it take so long for Google to act on these people who literally
> > > > ruin honest people's lives? Why is there no-one to talk to even via
> > > > email?
> > > > Does anyone have any advice on this? The SEO guy we used for advice
> > > > ran out of ideas.
> > > > Sorry for the rant,
> > > > Shai- Hide quoted text -
As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
for the loss in the serps.
Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
the proxy link that was indexed.
A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
elsewhere
I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
deterrant from further attack.
As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
really necessary to have one?
This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
it)
Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
up and included in the reconsideration request.
> As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> for the loss in the serps.
> Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> the proxy link that was indexed.
> A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> elsewhere
> I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> deterrant from further attack.
> As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> really necessary to have one?
> This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> it)
> Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> up and included in the reconsideration request.
> On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > for the loss in the serps.
> > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > elsewhere
> > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > deterrant from further attack.
> > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > really necessary to have one?
Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
can I take that as a definite?
> > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > it)
> > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > elsewhere
> > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
I wouldn't remove the forum I would just make sure you remove all the
spam then monitor each comment allowing it only to be posted after you
approve just like in blogs.
Those spam links surely are not doing you any good!
> Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> can I take that as a definite?
> Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > indexed:
> > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > it)
> > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > elsewhere
> > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
gotten.
Matt
> Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> can I take that as a definite?
> Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > indexed:
> > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > it)
> > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > elsewhere
> > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
products etc with some extra pictures.
Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
Removed the forum
Removed reciprocal links
Got rid of the proxy site
Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
Anything else you can suggest?
Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> gotten.
> Matt
> On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > can I take that as a definite?
> > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > indexed:
> > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > it)
> > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
I can just see it now, from some SEO blog/forum a new post appears
reading "Matt Cutts confirms the -60 penalty"!!!
Great advice on "unusual" link building Matt, do pay attention to
increased rankings from "unusual" comment linking, for some reason you
guys might be currently missing that area. It goes something like
this:
1.) I sell a type of "garden rake".
2.) I have Google Alerts ping me when someone posts content about
"garden rakes".
3.) I go to the blogs/forums and link back to my "garden rake" saying
my product kicks major booty.
The above is self promotion that should be seen as a "noisy signal" in
search engines and not rewarded but currently is.
> ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> gotten.
> Matt
> On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > can I take that as a definite?
> > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > indexed:
> > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > it)
> > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
I don't want to put words into Matt Cutts' mouth here, but I will
anyway :)
Matt said, "For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank
via paid links
on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well."
Which to me means that the site may have been ranking higher than it
should have been before. Now that they've discovered and subsequently
devalued the paid links it has sunk to its appropriate rankings. The
reason I bring this up, that if I am correct in my reading of Matt's
comment, then even after a reconsideration request is filed and looked
at, you may not see a regain in rankings since the higher rankings you
were enjoying before were false to begin with. What appears like a
penalty is really not, and therefore there is nothing to be removed.
I just want to prepare you for that possibility.
I'm not buying the paid link ignorance after looking at how prolific
it was, looks like a lot of the buying started in September. I feel
duped on this one.
> ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> products etc with some extra pictures.
> Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> Removed the forum
> Removed reciprocal links
> Got rid of the proxy site
> Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> Anything else you can suggest?
> Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > gotten.
> > Matt
> > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > indexed:
> > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > it)
> > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
Well, it's your right not to buy into anything. Unfortunately, I had
no idea it was wrong. Why would I risk our only source of income if I
did? It's not like the site is some spam site. It is a site which took
us ages to build and maintain. I have taken all the pictures on the
sites, written all the text, we work over 10 hours each day, drive
around the country delivering and more. The testimonials you see on
the site are real, we have really begun to build a reputation for
ourselves. All of our competitors have some form of link building in
place, all designed to 'artificially inflate' their rankings. We just
competed. One site has over 264,000 links and they are still in the
top 10. All from themes and blogs and other type links. I write
articles about teak, how to maintain it and how to work with it.
Please don't judge me or our business just by quickly checking the
links pointing to our site.
Thanks everyone, im going to give this some thought.
> I don't want to put words into Matt Cutts' mouth here, but I will
> anyway :)
> Matt said, "For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank
> via paid links
> on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well."
> Which to me means that the site may have been ranking higher than it
> should have been before. Now that they've discovered and subsequently
> devalued the paid links it has sunk to its appropriate rankings. The
> reason I bring this up, that if I am correct in my reading of Matt's
> comment, then even after a reconsideration request is filed and looked
> at, you may not see a regain in rankings since the higher rankings you
> were enjoying before were false to begin with. What appears like a
> penalty is really not, and therefore there is nothing to be removed.
> I just want to prepare you for that possibility.
> I'm not buying the paid link ignorance after looking at how prolific
> it was, looks like a lot of the buying started in September. I feel
> duped on this one.
> On Feb 22, 12:50 pm, ShyBoy wrote:
> > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > Removed the forum
> > Removed reciprocal links
> > Got rid of the proxy site
> > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > Anything else you can suggest?
> > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > gotten.
> > > Matt
> > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > it)
> > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> I don't want to put words into Matt Cutts' mouth here, but I will
> anyway :)
> Matt said, "For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank
> via paid links
> on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well."
> Which to me means that the site may have been ranking higher than it
> should have been before. Now that they've discovered and subsequently
> devalued the paid links it has sunk to its appropriate rankings. The
> reason I bring this up, that if I am correct in my reading of Matt's
> comment, then even after a reconsideration request is filed and looked
> at, you may not see a regain in rankings since the higher rankings you
> were enjoying before were false to begin with. What appears like a
> penalty is really not, and therefore there is nothing to be removed.
> I just want to prepare you for that possibility.
> I'm not buying the paid link ignorance after looking at how prolific
> it was, looks like a lot of the buying started in September. I feel
> duped on this one.
> On Feb 22, 12:50 pm, ShyBoy wrote:
> > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > Removed the forum
> > Removed reciprocal links
> > Got rid of the proxy site
> > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > Anything else you can suggest?
> > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > gotten.
> > > Matt
> > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > it)
> > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
reconsideration request.
Matt
> ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> products etc with some extra pictures.
> Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> Removed the forum
> Removed reciprocal links
> Got rid of the proxy site
> Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> Anything else you can suggest?
> Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > gotten.
> > Matt
> > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > indexed:
> > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > it)
> > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
> Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> reconsideration request.
> Matt
> On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > Removed the forum
> > Removed reciprocal links
> > Got rid of the proxy site
> > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > Anything else you can suggest?
> > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > gotten.
> > > Matt
> > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > it)
> > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> are already out there?
> On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > reconsideration request.
> > Matt
> > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > Removed the forum
> > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > gotten.
> > > > Matt
> > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > > > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > > > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > > > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > > > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > > > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > > > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > > > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> > are already out there?
> > On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > > reconsideration request.
> > > Matt
> > > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > > Removed the forum
> > > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > > gotten.
> > > > > Matt
> > > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > > > > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > > > > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > > > > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > > > > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > > > > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > > > > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > > > > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
What is your problem? Why the high and mighty attitude and bullying? I
suppose you never did anything wrong out of ignorance? Not everyone is
as well versed in SEO as you but that is no reason to resort to
sarcasm. Do you have any idea what we are going through here? Why the
smug arrogance?
Also, why tricked? They chose the designs with the link at the bottom.
They CHOSE to use the designs. I tried to sponsor themes that are
related to the links I wanted. I know it's wrong now, but did not
consider it paid links, just sponsored themes.
If all you have to add is sarcasm then thanks for your help thus far,
hope you had plenty of fun at my expense. Jeez.
> > Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> > are already out there?
> > On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > > reconsideration request.
> > > Matt
> > > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > > Removed the forum
> > > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > > gotten.
> > > > > Matt
> > > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > > > > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > > > > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > > > > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > > > > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > > > > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > > > > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > > > > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
