Well then give the url so we can take a look and see what guideline may have bene broken.
This kind of message ranges in meaning from site not respinding adequately to Googlebot, to broken links, to hidden text, to spam material, links farms and worse.
> Well then give the url so we can take a look and see what guideline > may have bene broken.
> This kind of message ranges in meaning from site not respinding > adequately to Googlebot, to broken links, to hidden text, to spam > material, links farms and worse.
> On Aug 18, 9:19 pm, Tennis iCoach wrote:
> > I don't know what we am doing wrong. I've checked the guidelines and > > can't work it out.
A quick check points to this from the webmaster guidelines, "Use robots.txt to prevent crawling of search results pages or other auto- generated pages that don't add much value for users coming from search engines."
Your links on the left hand menu point to autofilled search results, letting crawlers follow them. You definitely should think about making them static links to actual pages and blocking all search results pages by robots.txt.
> On Aug 19, 11:34 am, webado wrote: > > Well then give the url so we can take a look and see what guideline > > may have bene broken.
> > This kind of message ranges in meaning from site not respinding > > adequately to Googlebot, to broken links, to hidden text, to spam > > material, links farms and worse.
> > On Aug 18, 9:19 pm, Tennis iCoach wrote:
> > > I don't know what we am doing wrong. I've checked the guidelines and > > > can't work it out.
> > > We have already requested a reconsideration.
> A quick check points to this from the webmaster guidelines, "Use > robots.txt to prevent crawling of search results pages or other auto- > generated pages that don't add much value for users coming from search > engines."
> Your links on the left hand menu point to autofilled search results, > letting crawlers follow them. You definitely should think about > making them static links to actual pages and blocking all search > results pages by robots.txt.
> > On Aug 19, 11:34 am, webado wrote: > > > Well then give the url so we can take a look and see what guideline > > > may have bene broken.
> > > This kind of message ranges in meaning from site not respinding > > > adequately to Googlebot, to broken links, to hidden text, to spam > > > material, links farms and worse.
> > > On Aug 18, 9:19 pm, Tennis iCoach wrote:
> > > > I don't know what we am doing wrong. I've checked the guidelines and > > > > can't work it out.
> > > > We have already requested a reconsideration.
> > A quick check points to this from the webmaster guidelines, "Use > > robots.txt to prevent crawling of search results pages or other auto- > > generated pages that don't add much value for users coming from search > > engines."
> > Your links on the left hand menu point to autofilled search results, > > letting crawlers follow them. You definitely should think about > > making them static links to actual pages and blocking all search > > results pages by robots.txt.
> > > On Aug 19, 11:34 am, webado wrote: > > > > Well then give the url so we can take a look and see what guideline > > > > may have bene broken.
> > > > This kind of message ranges in meaning from site not respinding > > > > adequately to Googlebot, to broken links, to hidden text, to spam > > > > material, links farms and worse.
> > > > On Aug 18, 9:19 pm, Tennis iCoach wrote:
> > > > > I don't know what we am doing wrong. I've checked the guidelines and > > > > > can't work it out.
> > > > > We have already requested a reconsideration.
They make it pretty clear, don't let them index search results. They may be relevent but not what they want, its a way to spam the index by being able to automatically create an infinite amount of pages.
Are you letting Googlebot crawl logged in area's content as well? I saw some wanky things.
> > > A quick check points to this from the webmaster guidelines, "Use > > > robots.txt to prevent crawling of search results pages or other auto- > > > generated pages that don't add much value for users coming from search > > > engines."
> > > Your links on the left hand menu point to autofilled search results, > > > letting crawlers follow them. You definitely should think about > > > making them static links to actual pages and blocking all search > > > results pages by robots.txt.
> > > > On Aug 19, 11:34 am, webado wrote: > > > > > Well then give the url so we can take a look and see what guideline > > > > > may have bene broken.
> > > > > This kind of message ranges in meaning from site not respinding > > > > > adequately to Googlebot, to broken links, to hidden text, to spam > > > > > material, links farms and worse.
> > > > > On Aug 18, 9:19 pm, Tennis iCoach wrote:
> > > > > > I don't know what we am doing wrong. I've checked the guidelines and > > > > > > can't work it out.
> > > > > > We have already requested a reconsideration.
If what is normally controlled access areas are made available to bots while anyone else executing a search would be left out, without registration, that would not be good as it would effectively be a form of cloaking. A number of large sites had issues with that not too long ago.
I can't tell if that is what is happening although it may be happening but not something intended but it should be looked into to make sure.
As for the search links, other than the resulting snippets from an executed search being a bit shorter than an average blog's index page's abstracts of various articles, I don't see a lot of difference.
Just get rid of the ability to alter and resubmit the search and increase the length of the abstracted text for each article.
It would effectively be the same as a common index/category page with links abstracts of and links to the various listed articles.
>From a SERPs point of view, the likely result would be that the page
of abstracts might be the first search result and then the actual page indented off of that or vice versa.
There are a lot of searches executed for my cass-hacks site where the abstract page is listed as a parent of the page that has the actual information on it that one is searching for.
Although my entrance and "category" pages are not dynamic like your's are, they look very similar in content, other than yours having search type thingies on it instead of just looking like a category index. Get rid of the search thingies, beef up the abstract/snippets a bit and you should be good to go.
I doubt if the content on the search pages is the problem, just that they specifically mention not returning search results, and when they take the effort to lay out a specific guideline I think they mean business.
> If what is normally controlled access areas are made available to bots > while anyone else executing a search would be left out, without > registration, that would not be good as it would effectively be a form > of cloaking. A number of large sites had issues with that not too > long ago.
> I can't tell if that is what is happening although it may be happening > but not something intended but it should be looked into to make sure.
> As for the search links, other than the resulting snippets from an > executed search being a bit shorter than an average blog's index > page's abstracts of various articles, I don't see a lot of > difference.
> Just get rid of the ability to alter and resubmit the search and > increase the length of the abstracted text for each article.
> It would effectively be the same as a common index/category page with > links abstracts of and links to the various listed articles.
> >From a SERPs point of view, the likely result would be that the page
> of abstracts might be the first search result and then the actual page > indented off of that or vice versa.
> There are a lot of searches executed for my cass-hacks site where the > abstract page is listed as a parent of the page that has the actual > information on it that one is searching for.
> Although my entrance and "category" pages are not dynamic like your's > are, they look very similar in content, other than yours having search > type thingies on it instead of just looking like a category index. > Get rid of the search thingies, beef up the abstract/snippets a bit > and you should be good to go.
