I am working on a new project. The website is at position 965 for a keyword pair. Other keywords have this website on page one of google results. It certainly looks like a 950 penalty for that specific keyword. The site was full of spam. All it's web pages had the same title. All it's web page had a spammy alt image tag. Question: Now that I fixed most of the problems, should I submit a re-inclusion? OR Just wait and see? Recommendations are sincerely appreciated.
When one of my sites was filled with spam, and I mean real spam, links to porn sites etc (sort of hacked), I removed the links, and filed a re-inclusion request, site was back within 1 or 2 weeks.
Don't know if bad design can be considered spam.
I also have a -something for a keyword combination on a site, and I filed a re-inclusion for that, but no change, (although I made some changes in the links to the site)
People seem to be successful with reversing -something by de- optimizing for the penalized keyword (phrase)
> I am working on a new project. The website is at position 965 for a > keyword pair. Other keywords have this website on page one of google > results. It certainly looks like a 950 penalty for that specific > keyword. The site was full of spam. All it's web pages had the same > title. All it's web page had a spammy alt image tag. > Question: > Now that I fixed most of the problems, > should I submit a re-inclusion? OR > Just wait and see? > Recommendations are sincerely appreciated.
Unfortunately I can not de-optimize for the keyword pair. Thats what the site is ALL about. Right now the site isn't spammy at all. What bothers me is it in on the first page for example "one two three" but 965 for "two three" strange!!
> When one of my sites was filled with spam, and I mean real spam, links > to porn sites etc (sort of hacked), I removed the links, and filed a > re-inclusion request, site was back within 1 or 2 weeks.
> Don't know if bad design can be considered spam.
> I also have a -something for a keyword combination on a site, and I > filed a re-inclusion for that, but no change, (although I made some > changes in the links to the site)
> People seem to be successful with reversing -something by de- > optimizing for the penalized keyword (phrase)
> On Jul 6, 5:42 am, roysnj wrote:
> > I am working on a new project. The website is at position 965 for a > > keyword pair. Other keywords have this website on page one of google > > results. It certainly looks like a 950 penalty for that specific > > keyword. The site was full of spam. All it's web pages had the same > > title. All it's web page had a spammy alt image tag. > > Question: > > Now that I fixed most of the problems, > > should I submit a re-inclusion? OR > > Just wait and see? > > Recommendations are sincerely appreciated.
Yes, I am in sort of the same situation, but for me its ok for "one two three", and way down for "one two".
Still, de-optimizing seems a thing that works. I also read that internal linking with the penalized phrase may have influence, maybe you could try a bit there.
I haven't been trying with on page stuff to reverse things yet, but at some point I will have to do it. But slowly. I want to really know whats going on. Don't want to loose track of things because I made to many changes at once.
It will require some language skills, I guess in your case as well :)
> Unfortunately I can not de-optimize for the keyword pair. Thats what > the site is ALL about. Right now the site isn't spammy at all. What > bothers me is it in on the first page for example > "one two three" but 965 for "two three" > strange!!
> On Jul 5, 5:57 pm, Burt wrote:
> > When one of my sites was filled with spam, and I mean real spam, links > > to porn sites etc (sort of hacked), I removed the links, and filed a > > re-inclusion request, site was back within 1 or 2 weeks.
> > Don't know if bad design can be considered spam.
> > I also have a -something for a keyword combination on a site, and I > > filed a re-inclusion for that, but no change, (although I made some > > changes in the links to the site)
> > People seem to be successful with reversing -something by de- > > optimizing for the penalized keyword (phrase)
> > On Jul 6, 5:42 am, roysnj wrote:
> > > I am working on a new project. The website is at position 965 for a > > > keyword pair. Other keywords have this website on page one of google > > > results. It certainly looks like a 950 penalty for that specific > > > keyword. The site was full of spam. All it's web pages had the same > > > title. All it's web page had a spammy alt image tag. > > > Question: > > > Now that I fixed most of the problems, > > > should I submit a re-inclusion? OR > > > Just wait and see? > > > Recommendations are sincerely appreciated.
> > > Thanks in advance > > > roy- Hide quoted text -
I look at -whatever as a tweak of ranking rather than a penalty, a penalty infers punishement which means they want you to learn from it, the -whatever things don't make themselves known enough to have any behaviorial modification qualities. SOOO...I'd look at things that Google can't detect and fignore automatically, so they just derank the page. Hidden text, keyword stuffing etc.
> I am working on a new project. The website is at position 965 for a > keyword pair. Other keywords have this website on page one of google > results. It certainly looks like a 950 penalty for that specific > keyword. The site was full of spam. All it's web pages had the same > title. All it's web page had a spammy alt image tag. > Question: > Now that I fixed most of the problems, > should I submit a re-inclusion? OR > Just wait and see? > Recommendations are sincerely appreciated.
Thank you all verymuch. I havent been answering to many questions here bc I am up to my neck in alligators. I appreciate your advice. I have filed a reconsideration request for thesite in question roysnj ..
> I look at -whatever as a tweak of ranking rather than a penalty, a > penalty infers punishement which means they want you to learn from it, > the -whatever things don't make themselves known enough to have any > behaviorial modification qualities. SOOO...I'd look at things that > Google can't detect and fignore automatically, so they just derank the > page. Hidden text, keyword stuffing etc.
> On Jul 5, 4:42 pm, roysnj wrote:
> > I am working on a new project. The website is at position 965 for a > > keyword pair. Other keywords have this website on page one of google > > results. It certainly looks like a 950 penalty for that specific > > keyword. The site was full of spam. All it's web pages had the same > > title. All it's web page had a spammy alt image tag. > > Question: > > Now that I fixed most of the problems, > > should I submit a re-inclusion? OR > > Just wait and see? > > Recommendations are sincerely appreciated.
Why would it be penalized for some keywords and not others? If the site was full of spam, then it would have been penalized fully. Spam is spam. I'd think that after the spam got cleaned up maybe the site no longer was well optimized for those other keywords you mention, so that's why it's down in the boonies.
> I am working on a new project. The website is at position 965 for a > keyword pair. Other keywords have this website on page one of google > results. It certainly looks like a 950 penalty for that specific > keyword. The site was full of spam. All it's web pages had the same > title. All it's web page had a spammy alt image tag. > Question: > Now that I fixed most of the problems, > should I submit a re-inclusion? OR > Just wait and see? > Recommendations are sincerely appreciated.
Sorry webado I do respect your opinion..VERY MUCH . and also want to thank you with the redirect problem i was having with front page. There are many entries about a -950 penalty where only specific keywords might be penalized. For instance.. Every page about a site that is "baja ruins" that has the same title <tilte>baja ruins, baja ruins, baja ruins, look at baja ruins, see baja ruins, big baja ruins, baja ruins me"</title> on every page could be affected by this penalty, although if searching for "mexican baja ruins" the page might show up on number one. I am just trying to get a site out of this penalty. Hopefully I will. The site wasn't reaslly full of spam, just some alt image tags were, I would like to discuss other SEO approaches with you privately ( all white hat ) because I did find out what MANY seo people say isn't true. I will share this info with you if you email me at roysnj [@] comcast.net ..
> Why would it be penalized for some keywords and not others? If the > site was full of spam, then it would have been penalized fully. Spam > is spam. > I'd think that after the spam got cleaned up maybe the site no longer > was well optimized for those other keywords you mention, so that's why > it's down in the boonies.
> On Jul 5, 5:42 pm, roysnj wrote:
> > I am working on a new project. The website is at position 965 for a > > keyword pair. Other keywords have this website on page one of google > > results. It certainly looks like a 950 penalty for that specific > > keyword. The site was full of spam. All it's web pages had the same > > title. All it's web page had a spammy alt image tag. > > Question: > > Now that I fixed most of the problems, > > should I submit a re-inclusion? OR > > Just wait and see? > > Recommendations are sincerely appreciated.
Logic tells you cannot have a penalty for just some keywords. The penaltyis for the page, regardless what keywords might exist on the page. It just doesn't make sense to have it any other way. Page is spammy ... page gets thrown out of the index or just pushed way down.
However it's entirely likely that the page while being spammy mayy also suffer from broken code resulting in some content being unknown and unindexed - and maybe even that content is the spammy one. That kind of makes sense to me.
I'm not talking SEO here at all. Just common sense stuff.
Maybe you should give the url of the site, and the query and the page you expect to show up higher and isn't and we can see why.
One mistake is to assume a penalty when all that there is is just that the page simply doesn't deserve to be higher than it is.
> Sorry webado > I do respect your opinion..VERY MUCH . and also want to thank you with > the redirect problem i was having with front page. There are many > entries about a -950 penalty where only specific keywords might be > penalized. For instance.. > Every page about a site that is "baja ruins" that has the same title > <tilte>baja ruins, baja ruins, baja ruins, look at baja ruins, see > baja ruins, big baja ruins, baja ruins me"</title> on every page could > be affected by this penalty, although if searching for "mexican baja > ruins" the page might show up on number one. > I am just trying to get a site out of this penalty. Hopefully I will. > The site wasn't reaslly full of spam, just some alt image tags were, I > would like to discuss other SEO approaches with you privately ( all > white hat ) because I did find out what MANY seo people say isn't > true. I will share this info with you if you email me at roysnj [@] > comcast.net ..
> Again, > Respectfully,
> Roy
> On Jul 5, 9:42 pm, webado wrote:
> > Why would it be penalized for some keywords and not others? If the > > site was full of spam, then it would have been penalized fully. Spam > > is spam. > > I'd think that after the spam got cleaned up maybe the site no longer > > was well optimized for those other keywords you mention, so that's why > > it's down in the boonies.
> > On Jul 5, 5:42 pm, roysnj wrote:
> > > I am working on a new project. The website is at position 965 for a > > > keyword pair. Other keywords have this website on page one of google > > > results. It certainly looks like a 950 penalty for that specific > > > keyword. The site was full of spam. All it's web pages had the same > > > title. All it's web page had a spammy alt image tag. > > > Question: > > > Now that I fixed most of the problems, > > > should I submit a re-inclusion? OR > > > Just wait and see? > > > Recommendations are sincerely appreciated.
> > > Thanks in advance > > > roy- Hide quoted text -
> Logic tells you cannot have a penalty for just some keywords. The > penaltyis for the page, regardless what keywords might exist on the > page. > It just doesn't make sense to have it any other way. Page is > spammy ... page gets thrown out of the index or just pushed way > down.
> However it's entirely likely that the page while being spammy mayy > also suffer from broken code resulting in some content being unknown > and unindexed - and maybe even that content is the spammy one. That > kind of makes sense to me.
> I'm not talking SEO here at all. Just common sense stuff.
> Maybe you should give the url of the site, and the query and the page > you expect to show up higher and isn't and we can see why.
> One mistake is to assume a penalty when all that there is is just that > the page simply doesn't deserve to be higher than it is.
> On Jul 5, 9:52 pm, roysnj wrote:
> > Sorry webado > > I do respect your opinion..VERY MUCH . and also want to thank you with > > the redirect problem i was having with front page. There are many > > entries about a -950 penalty where only specific keywords might be > > penalized. For instance.. > > Every page about a site that is "baja ruins" that has the same title > > <tilte>baja ruins, baja ruins, baja ruins, look at baja ruins, see > > baja ruins, big baja ruins, baja ruins me"</title> on every page could > > be affected by this penalty, although if searching for "mexican baja > > ruins" the page might show up on number one. > > I am just trying to get a site out of this penalty. Hopefully I will. > > The site wasn't reaslly full of spam, just some alt image tags were, I > > would like to discuss other SEO approaches with you privately ( all > > white hat ) because I did find out what MANY seo people say isn't > > true. I will share this info with you if you email me at roysnj [@] > > comcast.net ..
> > Again, > > Respectfully,
> > Roy
> > On Jul 5, 9:42 pm, webado wrote:
> > > Why would it be penalized for some keywords and not others? If the > > > site was full of spam, then it would have been penalized fully. Spam > > > is spam. > > > I'd think that after the spam got cleaned up maybe the site no longer > > > was well optimized for those other keywords you mention, so that's why > > > it's down in the boonies.
> > > On Jul 5, 5:42 pm, roysnj wrote:
> > > > I am working on a new project. The website is at position 965 for a > > > > keyword pair. Other keywords have this website on page one of google > > > > results. It certainly looks like a 950 penalty for that specific > > > > keyword. The site was full of spam. All it's web pages had the same > > > > title. All it's web page had a spammy alt image tag. > > > > Question: > > > > Now that I fixed most of the problems, > > > > should I submit a re-inclusion? OR > > > > Just wait and see? > > > > Recommendations are sincerely appreciated.
> > > > Thanks in advance > > > > roy- Hide quoted text -
LOL, well it seems the highest penalty short of total banning of a site is to push the pages returned for any queries from where they might be down by 950 spots or so to spot 950 or some such thing, keeping in mind Google only returns no more than 1000 results for a query.
> k, please help an old dawg out... what is a "950 penalty"?
> O-Dog
> ^..^
> On Jul 5, 10:30 pm, webado wrote:
> > Roy I am only using logic. My logic ;)
> > Logic tells you cannot have a penalty for just some keywords. The > > penaltyis for the page, regardless what keywords might exist on the > > page. > > It just doesn't make sense to have it any other way. Page is > > spammy ... page gets thrown out of the index or just pushed way > > down.
> > However it's entirely likely that the page while being spammy mayy > > also suffer from broken code resulting in some content being unknown > > and unindexed - and maybe even that content is the spammy one. That > > kind of makes sense to me.
> > I'm not talking SEO here at all. Just common sense stuff.
> > Maybe you should give the url of the site, and the query and the page > > you expect to show up higher and isn't and we can see why.
> > One mistake is to assume a penalty when all that there is is just that > > the page simply doesn't deserve to be higher than it is.
> > On Jul 5, 9:52 pm, roysnj wrote:
> > > Sorry webado > > > I do respect your opinion..VERY MUCH . and also want to thank you with > > > the redirect problem i was having with front page. There are many > > > entries about a -950 penalty where only specific keywords might be > > > penalized. For instance.. > > > Every page about a site that is "baja ruins" that has the same title > > > <tilte>baja ruins, baja ruins, baja ruins, look at baja ruins, see > > > baja ruins, big baja ruins, baja ruins me"</title> on every page could > > > be affected by this penalty, although if searching for "mexican baja > > > ruins" the page might show up on number one. > > > I am just trying to get a site out of this penalty. Hopefully I will. > > > The site wasn't reaslly full of spam, just some alt image tags were, I > > > would like to discuss other SEO approaches with you privately ( all > > > white hat ) because I did find out what MANY seo people say isn't > > > true. I will share this info with you if you email me at roysnj [@] > > > comcast.net ..
> > > Again, > > > Respectfully,
> > > Roy
> > > On Jul 5, 9:42 pm, webado wrote:
> > > > Why would it be penalized for some keywords and not others? If the > > > > site was full of spam, then it would have been penalized fully. Spam > > > > is spam. > > > > I'd think that after the spam got cleaned up maybe the site no longer > > > > was well optimized for those other keywords you mention, so that's why > > > > it's down in the boonies.
> > > > On Jul 5, 5:42 pm, roysnj wrote:
> > > > > I am working on a new project. The website is at position 965 for a > > > > > keyword pair. Other keywords have this website on page one of google > > > > > results. It certainly looks like a 950 penalty for that specific > > > > > keyword. The site was full of spam. All it's web pages had the same > > > > > title. All it's web page had a spammy alt image tag. > > > > > Question: > > > > > Now that I fixed most of the problems, > > > > > should I submit a re-inclusion? OR > > > > > Just wait and see? > > > > > Recommendations are sincerely appreciated.
> > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > > roy- Hide quoted text -
