I have had to hire a separate security/consulting firm to get me back
online. It is costly. I need your help. Anything you could contribute
to help offset the cost - it's a lot of hours would be greatly
appreciated.
<<--
</Quote>
Googlenoia strikes again... or is it a case of plugging for
contributions to fuel the cause**?
For myself... I used to rank for "Sasch", but now I don't anymore!!!!
Could the fact that there's a major recording artist going by the name
of 'Sasch' have anything to do with it; or perhaps the growing number
of people launching sasch.tld domains?
No!! I DON'T THINK SO!!!!
Google obviously has it in for me. I'm being censored at every step!!
Google hates me and WILL NOT ALLOW ME TO SHOW at the top of any
'Sasch' related query. So it's obviously an evil conspiracy, carried
out by the 14 foot tall aliens who really rule the world.
Ah-hem... sorry... lost it there for a sec...
Seriously now, speaking as someone who's kept an eye on SE
developments for a while now, I'd have to refer you to the following
article:
Although it may have been written about competitors sabotaging sites,
it's message [over 18 months later] nevertheless holds true; if a site
gets dumped out of the rankings, there's usually a good reason.
Unmarked black helicopters and 14 foot aliens rarely feature with
Google's algorithms...
> DId google censor atlasshrugs.com content? I get no hits of articles
> on this site.
I had a look at your site and your google rant. You have no idea what
you are talking about. Ypou have no idea how search engines crawl,
index and rank pages.
How long do you think it will be before Google bans you from Adsense?
and it won't be for your paranoid reasons, it will be for deliberatly
and blatantly breaking the agreement you agreed to when you joined
adsense. It will be interesting to see the spin you put on this when
it happens.
> I had a look at your site and your google rant. You have no idea what
> you are talking about. Ypou have no idea how search engines crawl,
> index and rank pages.
Nope... It's a damn good means of wheedling a couple of bucks out of
fellow tinfoil hat wearers. :-Þ
> > DId google censor atlasshrugs.com content? I get no hits of articles
> > on this site.
> I had a look at your site and your google rant. You have no idea what
> you are talking about. Ypou have no idea how search engines crawl,
> index and rank pages.
> How long do you think it will be before Google bans you from Adsense?
> and it won't be for your paranoid reasons, it will be for deliberatly
> and blatantly breaking the agreement you agreed to when you joined
> adsense. It will be interesting to see the spin you put on this when
> it happens.
You miss the point big guy. You directly keyed in the site.
If a user knew exactly what site they wanted to go to they wouldn't
need google now would they?
The point is that when searching general search terms without regard
to site, atlasshrugs used to come up high on many terms. Now it does
not come up at all. That indexing has been altered intentionally.
Beside this your domain is 302-redirected to the typad blog instead of
301-permanently moved redirect, so that the value from some natural
links could genrate some benefit for the typepad subdomain you use.
So it's up to you to decide whether you need help regarding to ranking
of your site, or continue building more theories why Google filters
out your content.
I understand that the choice is not easy as the "I was spamming
Google, so I've lost some ranking" headline is much less exciting that
your current theory.
> You miss the point big guy. You directly keyed in the site.
> If a user knew exactly what site they wanted to go to they wouldn't
> need google now would they?
> The point is that when searching general search terms without regard
> to site, atlasshrugs used to come up high on many terms. Now it does
> not come up at all. That indexing has been altered intentionally.
> On Nov 26, 8:22 pm, Phil Payne wrote:
> > againstcensorship wrote:
> > > DId google censor atlasshrugs.com content? I get no hits of articles
> > > on this site.
Hi, we looked into this, and the blog in question was ranking lower in
our search results because of an algorithmic error that has now been
fixed; the site's drop in our search results had nothing to do with
the views expressed on the site. Essentially, our search algorithm saw
a large area on the blog that was due to an IFRAME included from
another site and that looked spammy to our automatic classifier. I
believe that this bug has been fixed now. We also added additional
safety checks to the relevant system that would escalate to an
engineer if this site had the same issue in the future.
The site should be ranking higher in Google within 24 hours according
to the people that I talked to. Thanks for mentioning the site on this
discussion group to give us feedback--I appreciate it.
Matt Cutts
Google Software Engineer
> Hi, we looked into this, and the blog in question was ranking lower in
> our search results because of an algorithmic error that has now been
> fixed; the site's drop in our search results had nothing to do with
> the views expressed on the site. Essentially, our search algorithm saw
> a large area on the blog that was due to an IFRAME included from
> another site and that looked spammy to our automatic classifier. I
> believe that this bug has been fixed now. We also added additional
> safety checks to the relevant system that would escalate to an
> engineer if this site had the same issue in the future.
> The site should be ranking higher in Google within 24 hours according
> to the people that I talked to. Thanks for mentioning the site on this
> discussion group to give us feedback--I appreciate it.
> Matt Cutts
> Google Software Engineer
> On Nov 26, 4:08 pm, againstcensorship wrote:
> > DId google censoratlasshrugs.comcontent? I get no hits of articles
> > on this site.
> Hi, we looked into this, and the blog in question was ranking lower in
> our search results because of an algorithmic error that has now been
> fixed; the site's drop in our search results had nothing to do with
> the views expressed on the site. Essentially, our search algorithm saw
> a large area on the blog that was due to an IFRAME included from
> another site and that looked spammy to our automatic classifier. I
> believe that this bug has been fixed now. We also added additional
> safety checks to the relevant system that would escalate to an
> engineer if this site had the same issue in the future.
> The site should be ranking higher in Google within 24 hours according
> to the people that I talked to. Thanks for mentioning the site on this
> discussion group to give us feedback--I appreciate it.
> Matt Cutts
> Google Software Engineer
> On Nov 26, 4:08 pm, againstcensorship wrote:
> > DId google censoratlasshrugs.comcontent? I get no hits of articles
> > on this site.
It is great you fixed his site but what about the other 1000's of
webmasters affected by the same bug?
Spammers go out inject iframes to gain links or whatever. Damaging
innocent webmasters sites and the innocent gets punished by google,
being delisted or loosing rankings. Even webmasters which did not get
hacked are being penalized for having iframes. Google suggests using
webmastertools, great right. Did it tell you your problem? NO of
course not. Now your guessing why did I get delisted, I didn't do
anything intentionally wrong. To find out it was not even your fault
it was a BUG.
I understand your concerns for the users, but if you care about users
then you wont remove sites which users enjoyed visiting. If you have a
iframe with a nofollow code, wouldn't that mean it was not used as a
injection and it is a legit iframe???
So Matt help out the other thousands of webmasters with the same
issues please.
> It is great you fixed his site but what about the other 1000's of
> webmasters affected by the same bug?
> Spammers go out inject iframes to gain links or whatever. Damaging
> innocent webmasters sites and the innocent gets punished by google,
> being delisted or loosing rankings. Even webmasters which did not get
> hacked are being penalized for having iframes. Google suggests using
> webmastertools, great right. Did it tell you your problem? NO of
> course not. Now your guessing why did I get delisted, I didn't do
> anything intentionally wrong. To find out it was not even your fault
> it was a BUG.
> I understand your concerns for the users, but if you care about users
> then you wont remove sites which users enjoyed visiting. If you have a
> iframe with a nofollow code, wouldn't that mean it was not used as a
> injection and it is a legit iframe???
> So Matt help out the other thousands of webmasters with the same
> issues please.
> > We also added additional
> > safety checks to the relevant system that would escalate to an
> > engineer if this site had the same issue in the future.
> > On Nov 26, 4:08 pm, againstcensorship wrote:
> > > DId google censoratlasshrugs.comcontent? I get no hits of articles
> > > on this site.- Hide quoted text -
> > It is great you fixed his site but what about the other 1000's of
> > webmasters affected by the same bug?
> SRobert, we adjusted the algorithm in question to make more robust, so
> the change also benefits any other sites there were affected.
> Matt
Thanks Matt for the clarification!
(Actually, That's what I thought you said the first time ;-))
> SRobert, we adjusted the algorithm in question to make more robust, so
> the change also benefits any other sites there were affected.
> Matt
> On Dec 1, 3:54 pm, SRobert wrote:
> > It is great you fixed his site but what about the other 1000's of
> > webmasters affected by the same bug?
> > Spammers go out inject iframes to gain links or whatever. Damaging
> > innocent webmasters sites and the innocent gets punished by google,
> > being delisted or loosing rankings. Even webmasters which did not get
> > hacked are being penalized for having iframes. Google suggests using
> > webmastertools, great right. Did it tell you your problem? NO of
> > course not. Now your guessing why did I get delisted, I didn't do
> > anything intentionally wrong. To find out it was not even your fault
> > it was a BUG.
> > I understand your concerns for the users, but if you care about users
> > then you wont remove sites which users enjoyed visiting. If you have a
> > iframe with a nofollow code, wouldn't that mean it was not used as a
> > injection and it is a legit iframe???
> > So Matt help out the other thousands of webmasters with the same
> > issues please.
> > > We also added additional
> > > safety checks to the relevant system that would escalate to an
> > > engineer if this site had the same issue in the future.
> > > On Nov 26, 4:08 pm, againstcensorship wrote:
> > > > DId google censoratlasshrugs.comcontent? I get no hits of articles
> > > > on this site.- Hide quoted text -
> SRobert, we adjusted the algorithm in question to make more robust, so
> the change also benefits any other sites there were affected.
> Matt
> On Dec 1, 3:54 pm, SRobert wrote:
> > It is great you fixed his site but what about the other 1000's of
> > webmasters affected by the same bug?
> > Spammers go out inject iframes to gain links or whatever. Damaging
> > innocent webmasters sites and the innocent gets punished by google,
> > being delisted or loosing rankings. Even webmasters which did not get
> > hacked are being penalized for having iframes. Google suggests using
> > webmastertools, great right. Did it tell you your problem? NO of
> > course not. Now your guessing why did I get delisted, I didn't do
> > anything intentionally wrong. To find out it was not even your fault
> > it was a BUG.
> > I understand your concerns for the users, but if you care about users
> > then you wont remove sites which users enjoyed visiting. If you have a
> >iframewith a nofollow code, wouldn't that mean it was not used as a
> > injection and it is a legitiframe???
> > So Matt help out the other thousands of webmasters with the same
> > issues please.
> > > We also added additional
> > > safety checks to the relevant system that would escalate to an
> > > engineer if this site had the same issue in the future.
> > > On Nov 26, 4:08 pm, againstcensorship wrote:
> > > > DId google censoratlasshrugs.comcontent? I get no hits of articles
> > > > on this site.- Hide quoted text -
On the subject of iframes. If you have a long standing position with
Google then you add in an iframe on the main pages and several other
pages will this effect the ranking of that page by just adding the
iframe.
> SRobert, we adjusted the algorithm in question to make more robust, so
> the change also benefits any other sites there were affected.
> Matt
> On Dec 1, 3:54 pm, SRobert wrote:
> > It is great you fixed his site but what about the other 1000's of
> > webmasters affected by the same bug?
> > Spammers go out inject iframes to gain links or whatever. Damaging
> > innocent webmasters sites and the innocent gets punished by google,
> > being delisted or loosing rankings. Even webmasters which did not get
> > hacked are being penalized for having iframes. Google suggests using
> > webmastertools, great right. Did it tell you your problem? NO of
> > course not. Now your guessing why did I get delisted, I didn't do
> > anything intentionally wrong. To find out it was not even your fault
> > it was a BUG.
> > I understand your concerns for the users, but if you care about users
> > then you wont remove sites which users enjoyed visiting. If you have a
> > iframe with a nofollow code, wouldn't that mean it was not used as a
> > injection and it is a legit iframe???
> > So Matt help out the other thousands of webmasters with the same
> > issues please.
> > > We also added additional
> > > safety checks to the relevant system that would escalate to an
> > > engineer if this site had the same issue in the future.
> > > On Nov 26, 4:08 pm, againstcensorship wrote:
> > > > DId google censoratlasshrugs.comcontent? I get no hits of articles
> > > > on this site.- Hide quoted text -
