I did a search for a company name that is also the company site url
and what i saw was very strange. At exactly the number 61 spot I saw
the site links you would usually see for a site at the number 1 spot.
This site obviously has a penalty but does this mean anything? Like
the site is on the brink of coming back or something of that nature. I
have seen it on a few occassions for this penalized site.
I got 2 screenshots already, actually two from different dates. If
were to search for vacationrealty.com, you would see the same
sitelinks I see when I searched for vacation realty. Only difference
is that for the domain search they are at #1 and the name search its
61. This did not happen everytime, but I have seen it quite a few
times.
Its a partial penalty which is better than a full one. We are just
working towards checking out the google webmaster information on the
site and trying to eliminate backlinks from sites that we dont want
linking to us. We have emailed a bunch of them and we are working
towards cleaning up the incoming links.
Here is a screenshot of a search for vacation realty. the company
name.
> Its a partial penalty which is better than a full one. We are just
> working towards checking out the google webmaster information on the
> site and trying to eliminate backlinks from sites that we dont want
> linking to us. We have emailed a bunch of them and we are working
> towards cleaning up the incoming links.
> Here is a screenshot of a search for vacation realty. the company
> name.
Webado, I have talked to quite a few big time SEO's I know there is a
penalty, that is not a competitive term, we ranked #1 for that as long
as the site has been online., Its our url and company name. Everyone
says that the site is the authority for the term, but there is a
penalty which is either taking away the trust or actually moving the
site back past #60 spot. That is why you see the sitelinks, it happens
sometimes but not all the time when I search for it.
> Webado, I have talked to quite a few big time SEO's I know there is a
> penalty, that is not a competitive term, we ranked #1 for that as long
> as the site has been online., Its our url and company name. Everyone
> says that the site is the authority for the term, but there is a
> penalty which is either taking away the trust or actually moving the
> site back past #60 spot. That is why you see the sitelinks, it happens
> sometimes but not all the time when I search for it.
I am going to close this discussion and leave it alone as its not
going anywhere. It appears that we are not seeing things the same. I
just want to know what site you have seen with sitelinks shown at any
spot besides the #1 spot. No need to answer, just think about it and
then you will understand. Thank you for everyone's time.
> The terms are used by everybody and their uncle.
> On Apr 24, 12:26 am, vr wrote:
> > Webado, I have talked to quite a few big time SEO's I know there is a
> > penalty, that is not a competitive term, we ranked #1 for that as long
> > as the site has been online., Its our url and company name. Everyone
> > says that the site is the authority for the term, but there is a
> > penalty which is either taking away the trust or actually moving the
> > site back past #60 spot. That is why you see the sitelinks, it happens
> > sometimes but not all the time when I search for it.
Son of a gun; long reply just seems to have disappeared into thin
air?!
jaanis, I don't know why you'd think that's what John is implying. The
other thread had nothing to do with the site actually having spammy
links on their own site. It was all about them plugging their site all
over the internet on other sites. Wordpress template sponsoring, blog
commenting on irrelevant sites etc. etc. That thread spans 113 posts
or so and takes quite a few turns. Best thing vr can do is seriously
read it from beginning to end and do something similar to shyboy.
Especially read the posts by the Googlers. There's a lot coming
through in those!
vr, you definitely have an interesting case with the site links at
position 61. Never seen that before!! Oh, and of course you have a
penalty. Some people just don't believe penalties exist, no matter how
many times Googlers have confirmed them here over and over and over
again.
An answer like this from a Googler is something you should read very
very closely vr. Please don't take note of the post by webado about
not having a penalty. Some people don't believe penalties exist, even
though Googlers have confirmed them time and time and time again right
here on the groups (and offered advice on how to reverse them). No
matter how much proof is offered, they will just never ever believe
this until it happens to them. I'm not saying a penalty has a name or
not, but they certainly exist to different degrees. Your case is VERY
interesting though with the sitelinks at spot 61; never seen that
before!!
From what I remember from the thread that John points to, the issue
has to do with incoming links, specifically posting links all over the
web on unrelated sites. It was a really interesting case/thread and
that poster had made a lot of mistakes, so read the entire thing
because it takes a few turns. Then get to work replicating what shyboy
did. Once you've done your bit, file a reinclusion request and in my
experience you can be back in very little time, especially if you do a
follow up post here explaining what you've done, how sorry you are and
what you've filed. If John is subscribed to this thread, you have a
better than average shot. And don't forget to thank John :)
Clearly this last post was the one that I lost and supposed to be
higher up in this thread. Not sure what happened here as time stamp is
actually before previous posts....
> An answer like this from a Googler is something you should read very
> very closely vr. Please don't take note of the post by webado about
> not having a penalty. Some people don't believe penalties exist, even
> though Googlers have confirmed them time and time and time again right
> here on the groups (and offered advice on how to reverse them). No
> matter how much proof is offered, they will just never ever believe
> this until it happens to them. I'm not saying a penalty has a name or
> not, but they certainly exist to different degrees. Your case is VERY
> interesting though with the sitelinks at spot 61; never seen that
> before!!
> From what I remember from the thread that John points to, the issue
> has to do with incoming links, specifically posting links all over the
> web on unrelated sites. It was a really interesting case/thread and
> that poster had made a lot of mistakes, so read the entire thing
> because it takes a few turns. Then get to work replicating what shyboy
> did. Once you've done your bit, file a reinclusion request and in my
> experience you can be back in very little time, especially if you do a
> follow up post here explaining what you've done, how sorry you are and
> what you've filed. If John is subscribed to this thread, you have a
> better than average shot. And don't forget to thank John :)
John I have read over this post you mentioned quite a few times and I
see what our problem is, we are going through all our backlinks in
webmaster tools and have already started emailing the owners to remove
our links. I truly appreciate your help on this because you have
pointed us in the right direction and now we can fix what we have
foolishly done wrong. I will be providing an update as to the progress
of our work later today.
If checking backlinks... I don't know if G will show all the relevant
ones...
Maybe worth using Yahoo to check links too (as it woudl suck to miss
any that need remedying).
> From what I remember from the thread that John points to, the issue
> has to do with incoming links, specifically posting links all over the
> web on unrelated sites. It was a really interesting case/thread and
> that poster had made a lot of mistakes, so read the entire thing
> because it takes a few turns.
It's interesting. And it's maded me speculate.
Suppose I put up an automatic link exchange script and it generates me
a few thousand reciprocal links from mostly unrelated sites.
Then I purge all of the links placed on my site so there is no longer
a reciprocal linking situation but I retain by default all of the
unrelated inbounds.
Does Google 'remember', for each of my now non-reciprocal inbound
links, that it was once part of a reciprocal pair obtained by the
[deprecated] link exchange method?
Even more thought-provoking - would my removal of the links from my
site suggest to Google that I was trying to game it - to create a
bunch of apparently non-reciprocal inbound links - and reduce Google's
trust in my site?
|
