Still here and fighting for a cure as others have found the medicine!
I'd like to once again point out that many people inflicted with this same penalty are being released, one very obvious site was www.murraysworld.com which Mark (owner) posted asking for help on these very boards.
In a seperate blog where Matt Cutts posted (http:// www.seroundtable.com/archives/013423.html), Mark called out for help, and with the help of Matt kindly offerring to take a closer look, "I'll ask someone to check into the status of your reinclusion request." Well less then a day later Mark was fully out of the penalty as the thread reads. Keywords ranking back to where they were prior to the penalty, domain name search back in it's rightful #1 spot, etc. I can only imagine what he feels like.
Also, the likes of www.gtahotels.com and www.travel-ascending.com have been released from the penalty as well to name a few that the people on these help boards are familiar with, and do also contain affiliate links so being an affiliate is not a major issue. This leads me to believe that the penalty is 100% released MANUALLY.
Looking at my site, after 13.5 months.. why do I continue to be penalized? I've had half a dozen threads dissecting my site, applied every piece of advice, yet everyone is still stumped.
Considering that I did fit the thin-affiliate-site model 13.5 months ago, let's go over today according to the official Google guidelines just to make it crystal clear:
"Thin affiliate sites: These sites collect pay-per-click (PPC) revenue by sending visitors to the sites of affiliate programs, while providing little or no value-added content or service to the user. These sites usually have no original content and may be cookie-cutter sites or templates with no unique content."
- "Little or no value-added content or service": nearly to 300 original articles growing each week, every single product has real original reviews (1000's of combined reviews), advice and guides, newsletters, multiple retailers, multimedia downloads, galleries, email advice, etc. Much more value-added content and service than 99% of the affiliate sites on the internet in my opinion. [PASS]
- "No original content": every single page has original and highly useful content with all the aspects listed above. Bookmark rate over 38%, shows me I have plenty of value-added content and useful services that people deem worthy of bookmarking. [PASS]
- "Cookie cutter or template site": Never used a template or cookie cutter affiliate template-type site, each page is hand written over the past 5 years. [PASS]
- "No unique content": check first point once again, I use zero product feeds, affiliate feeds, etc and add original content daily with testimonials, articles etc. [PASS]
My site in my opinion shouldn't even have it's name and the words thin affiliate said in the same sentence at this point.
Like the other sites before me, some mentioned in this thread, I won't quit because in my opinion I don't deserve to be penalized - and like them I will be released from the penalty as well given a chance. I realize Matt doesn't post here, but if he does read the threads.. it would be great to get a fair, close look following a full year+ of effort to find the cause of the penalty and abide by the guidelines..
Your case is really weird. From what I know your site doesn't deserve a penalty. IIRC JohnMu came to the same conclusion. So you've at least 2 votes :)
Perhaps we should bump this thread until a Googler from the webspam team reads it ;)
> Still here and fighting for a cure as others have found the medicine!
> I'd like to once again point out that many people inflicted with this > same penalty are being released, one very obvious site waswww.murraysworld.com > which Mark (owner) posted asking for help on these very boards.
> In a seperate blog where Matt Cutts posted (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/013423.html), Mark called out for help, > and with the help of Matt kindly offerring to take a closer look, > "I'll ask someone to check into the status of your reinclusion > request." Well less then a day later Mark was fully out of the penalty > as the thread reads. Keywords ranking back to where they were prior to > the penalty, domain name search back in it's rightful #1 spot, etc. I > can only imagine what he feels like.
> Also, the likes ofwww.gtahotels.comandwww.travel-ascending.comhave > been released from the penalty as well to name a few that the people > on these help boards are familiar with, and do also contain affiliate > links so being an affiliate is not a major issue. This leads me to > believe that the penalty is 100% released MANUALLY.
> Looking at my site, after 13.5 months.. why do I continue to be > penalized? I've had half a dozen threads dissecting my site, applied > every piece of advice, yet everyone is still stumped.
> Considering that I did fit the thin-affiliate-site model 13.5 months > ago, let's go over today according to the official Google guidelines > just to make it crystal clear:
> "Thin affiliate sites: These sites collect pay-per-click (PPC) revenue > by sending visitors to the sites of affiliate programs, while > providing little or no value-added content or service to the user. > These sites usually have no original content and may be cookie-cutter > sites or templates with no unique content."
> - "Little or no value-added content or service": nearly to 300 > original articles growing each week, every single product has real > original reviews (1000's of combined reviews), advice and guides, > newsletters, multiple retailers, multimedia downloads, galleries, > email advice, etc. Much more value-added content and service than 99% > of the affiliate sites on the internet in my opinion. [PASS]
> - "No original content": every single page has original and highly > useful content with all the aspects listed above. Bookmark rate over > 38%, shows me I have plenty of value-added content and useful services > that people deem worthy of bookmarking. [PASS]
> - "Cookie cutter or template site": Never used a template or cookie > cutter affiliate template-type site, each page is hand written over > the past 5 years. [PASS]
> - "No unique content": check first point once again, I use zero > product feeds, affiliate feeds, etc and add original content daily > with testimonials, articles etc. [PASS]
> My site in my opinion shouldn't even have it's name and the words thin > affiliate said in the same sentence at this point.
> Like the other sites before me, some mentioned in this thread, I won't > quit because in my opinion I don't deserve to be penalized - and like > them I will be released from the penalty as well given a chance. I > realize Matt doesn't post here, but if he does read the threads.. it > would be great to get a fair, close look following a full year+ of > effort to find the cause of the penalty and abide by the guidelines..
Thanks Sebastian, much appreciated. I truly believe if the right people see my case, no question will it come out of the penalty.
Mark (as mentioned above) sent in the same re-inclusion request time after time, yet only after he sent the same one in and Matt brought some attention to it did it then finally get resolved.
> Your case is really weird. From what I know your site doesn't deserve > a penalty. IIRC JohnMu came to the same conclusion. So you've at least > 2 votes :)
> Perhaps we should bump this thread until a Googler from the webspam > team reads it ;)
> Sebastian
> On Jun 6, 2:20 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > Still here and fighting for a cure as others have found the medicine!
> > I'd like to once again point out that many people inflicted with this > > same penalty are being released, one very obvious site waswww.murraysworld.com > > which Mark (owner) posted asking for help on these very boards.
> > In a seperate blog where Matt Cutts posted (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/013423.html), Mark called out for help, > > and with the help of Matt kindly offerring to take a closer look, > > "I'll ask someone to check into the status of your reinclusion > > request." Well less then a day later Mark was fully out of the penalty > > as the thread reads. Keywords ranking back to where they were prior to > > the penalty, domain name search back in it's rightful #1 spot, etc. I > > can only imagine what he feels like.
> > Also, the likes ofwww.gtahotels.comandwww.travel-ascending.comhave > > been released from the penalty as well to name a few that the people > > on these help boards are familiar with, and do also contain affiliate > > links so being an affiliate is not a major issue. This leads me to > > believe that the penalty is 100% released MANUALLY.
> > Looking at my site, after 13.5 months.. why do I continue to be > > penalized? I've had half a dozen threads dissecting my site, applied > > every piece of advice, yet everyone is still stumped.
> > Considering that I did fit the thin-affiliate-site model 13.5 months > > ago, let's go over today according to the official Google guidelines > > just to make it crystal clear:
> > "Thin affiliate sites: These sites collect pay-per-click (PPC) revenue > > by sending visitors to the sites of affiliate programs, while > > providing little or no value-added content or service to the user. > > These sites usually have no original content and may be cookie-cutter > > sites or templates with no unique content."
> > - "Little or no value-added content or service": nearly to 300 > > original articles growing each week, every single product has real > > original reviews (1000's of combined reviews), advice and guides, > > newsletters, multiple retailers, multimedia downloads, galleries, > > email advice, etc. Much more value-added content and service than 99% > > of the affiliate sites on the internet in my opinion. [PASS]
> > - "No original content": every single page has original and highly > > useful content with all the aspects listed above. Bookmark rate over > > 38%, shows me I have plenty of value-added content and useful services > > that people deem worthy of bookmarking. [PASS]
> > - "Cookie cutter or template site": Never used a template or cookie > > cutter affiliate template-type site, each page is hand written over > > the past 5 years. [PASS]
> > - "No unique content": check first point once again, I use zero > > product feeds, affiliate feeds, etc and add original content daily > > with testimonials, articles etc. [PASS]
> > My site in my opinion shouldn't even have it's name and the words thin > > affiliate said in the same sentence at this point.
> > Like the other sites before me, some mentioned in this thread, I won't > > quit because in my opinion I don't deserve to be penalized - and like > > them I will be released from the penalty as well given a chance. I > > realize Matt doesn't post here, but if he does read the threads.. it > > would be great to get a fair, close look following a full year+ of > > effort to find the cause of the penalty and abide by the guidelines..
> Thanks Sebastian, much appreciated. I truly believe if the right > people see my case, no question will it come out of the penalty.
> Mark (as mentioned above) sent in the same re-inclusion request time > after time, yet only after he sent the same one in and Matt brought > some attention to it did it then finally get resolved.
> I am all for bumping it..
> Bump!
> On Jun 6, 9:03 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > Your case is really weird. From what I know your site doesn't deserve > > a penalty. IIRC JohnMu came to the same conclusion. So you've at least > > 2 votes :)
> > Perhaps we should bump this thread until a Googler from the webspam > > team reads it ;)
> > Sebastian
> > On Jun 6, 2:20 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > > Still here and fighting for a cure as others have found the medicine!
> > > I'd like to once again point out that many people inflicted with this > > > same penalty are being released, one very obvious site waswww.murraysworld.com > > > which Mark (owner) posted asking for help on these very boards.
> > > In a seperate blog where Matt Cutts posted (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/013423.html), Mark called out for help, > > > and with the help of Matt kindly offerring to take a closer look, > > > "I'll ask someone to check into the status of your reinclusion > > > request." Well less then a day later Mark was fully out of the penalty > > > as the thread reads. Keywords ranking back to where they were prior to > > > the penalty, domain name search back in it's rightful #1 spot, etc. I > > > can only imagine what he feels like.
> > > Also, the likes ofwww.gtahotels.comandwww.travel-ascending.comhave > > > been released from the penalty as well to name a few that the people > > > on these help boards are familiar with, and do also contain affiliate > > > links so being an affiliate is not a major issue. This leads me to > > > believe that the penalty is 100% released MANUALLY.
> > > Looking at my site, after 13.5 months.. why do I continue to be > > > penalized? I've had half a dozen threads dissecting my site, applied > > > every piece of advice, yet everyone is still stumped.
> > > Considering that I did fit the thin-affiliate-site model 13.5 months > > > ago, let's go over today according to the official Google guidelines > > > just to make it crystal clear:
> > > "Thin affiliate sites: These sites collect pay-per-click (PPC) revenue > > > by sending visitors to the sites of affiliate programs, while > > > providing little or no value-added content or service to the user. > > > These sites usually have no original content and may be cookie-cutter > > > sites or templates with no unique content."
> > > - "Little or no value-added content or service": nearly to 300 > > > original articles growing each week, every single product has real > > > original reviews (1000's of combined reviews), advice and guides, > > > newsletters, multiple retailers, multimedia downloads, galleries, > > > email advice, etc. Much more value-added content and service than 99% > > > of the affiliate sites on the internet in my opinion. [PASS]
> > > - "No original content": every single page has original and highly > > > useful content with all the aspects listed above. Bookmark rate over > > > 38%, shows me I have plenty of value-added content and useful services > > > that people deem worthy of bookmarking. [PASS]
> > > - "Cookie cutter or template site": Never used a template or cookie > > > cutter affiliate template-type site, each page is hand written over > > > the past 5 years. [PASS]
> > > - "No unique content": check first point once again, I use zero > > > product feeds, affiliate feeds, etc and add original content daily > > > with testimonials, articles etc. [PASS]
> > > My site in my opinion shouldn't even have it's name and the words thin > > > affiliate said in the same sentence at this point.
> > > Like the other sites before me, some mentioned in this thread, I won't > > > quit because in my opinion I don't deserve to be penalized - and like > > > them I will be released from the penalty as well given a chance. I > > > realize Matt doesn't post here, but if he does read the threads.. it > > > would be great to get a fair, close look following a full year+ of > > > effort to find the cause of the penalty and abide by the guidelines..
With the next bump perhaps gather all info a Googler needs to investigate your case, like your site's URL, links to all the threads where we tried to find the cause of your unnatural ranking etc. Sebastian
> > Thanks Sebastian, much appreciated. I truly believe if the right > > people see my case, no question will it come out of the penalty.
> > Mark (as mentioned above) sent in the same re-inclusion request time > > after time, yet only after he sent the same one in and Matt brought > > some attention to it did it then finally get resolved.
> > I am all for bumping it..
> > Bump!
> > On Jun 6, 9:03 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > > Your case is really weird. From what I know your site doesn't deserve > > > a penalty. IIRC JohnMu came to the same conclusion. So you've at least > > > 2 votes :)
> > > Perhaps we should bump this thread until a Googler from the webspam > > > team reads it ;)
> > > Sebastian
> > > On Jun 6, 2:20 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > Still here and fighting for a cure as others have found the medicine!
> > > > I'd like to once again point out that many people inflicted with this > > > > same penalty are being released, one very obvious site waswww.murraysworld.com > > > > which Mark (owner) posted asking for help on these very boards.
> > > > In a seperate blog where Matt Cutts posted (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/013423.html), Mark called out for help, > > > > and with the help of Matt kindly offerring to take a closer look, > > > > "I'll ask someone to check into the status of your reinclusion > > > > request." Well less then a day later Mark was fully out of the penalty > > > > as the thread reads. Keywords ranking back to where they were prior to > > > > the penalty, domain name search back in it's rightful #1 spot, etc. I > > > > can only imagine what he feels like.
> > > > Also, the likes ofwww.gtahotels.comandwww.travel-ascending.comhave > > > > been released from the penalty as well to name a few that the people > > > > on these help boards are familiar with, and do also contain affiliate > > > > links so being an affiliate is not a major issue. This leads me to > > > > believe that the penalty is 100% released MANUALLY.
> > > > Looking at my site, after 13.5 months.. why do I continue to be > > > > penalized? I've had half a dozen threads dissecting my site, applied > > > > every piece of advice, yet everyone is still stumped.
> > > > Considering that I did fit the thin-affiliate-site model 13.5 months > > > > ago, let's go over today according to the official Google guidelines > > > > just to make it crystal clear:
> > > > "Thin affiliate sites: These sites collect pay-per-click (PPC) revenue > > > > by sending visitors to the sites of affiliate programs, while > > > > providing little or no value-added content or service to the user. > > > > These sites usually have no original content and may be cookie-cutter > > > > sites or templates with no unique content."
> > > > - "Little or no value-added content or service": nearly to 300 > > > > original articles growing each week, every single product has real > > > > original reviews (1000's of combined reviews), advice and guides, > > > > newsletters, multiple retailers, multimedia downloads, galleries, > > > > email advice, etc. Much more value-added content and service than 99% > > > > of the affiliate sites on the internet in my opinion. [PASS]
> > > > - "No original content": every single page has original and highly > > > > useful content with all the aspects listed above. Bookmark rate over > > > > 38%, shows me I have plenty of value-added content and useful services > > > > that people deem worthy of bookmarking. [PASS]
> > > > - "Cookie cutter or template site": Never used a template or cookie > > > > cutter affiliate template-type site, each page is hand written over > > > > the past 5 years. [PASS]
> > > > - "No unique content": check first point once again, I use zero > > > > product feeds, affiliate feeds, etc and add original content daily > > > > with testimonials, articles etc. [PASS]
> > > > My site in my opinion shouldn't even have it's name and the words thin > > > > affiliate said in the same sentence at this point.
> > > > Like the other sites before me, some mentioned in this thread, I won't > > > > quit because in my opinion I don't deserve to be penalized - and like > > > > them I will be released from the penalty as well given a chance. I > > > > realize Matt doesn't post here, but if he does read the threads.. it > > > > would be great to get a fair, close look following a full year+ of > > > > effort to find the cause of the penalty and abide by the guidelines..
> With the next bump perhaps gather all info a Googler needs to > investigate your case, like your site's URL, links to all the threads > where we tried to find the cause of your unnatural ranking etc. > Sebastian
> On Jun 6, 10:05 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > Bump!
> > On Jun 6, 11:58 am, Nate121 wrote:
> > > Thanks Sebastian, much appreciated. I truly believe if the right > > > people see my case, no question will it come out of the penalty.
> > > Mark (as mentioned above) sent in the same re-inclusion request time > > > after time, yet only after he sent the same one in and Matt brought > > > some attention to it did it then finally get resolved.
> > > I am all for bumping it..
> > > Bump!
> > > On Jun 6, 9:03 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > > > Your case is really weird. From what I know your site doesn't deserve > > > > a penalty. IIRC JohnMu came to the same conclusion. So you've at least > > > > 2 votes :)
> > > > Perhaps we should bump this thread until a Googler from the webspam > > > > team reads it ;)
> > > > Sebastian
> > > > On Jun 6, 2:20 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > Still here and fighting for a cure as others have found the medicine!
> > > > > I'd like to once again point out that many people inflicted with this > > > > > same penalty are being released, one very obvious site waswww.murraysworld.com > > > > > which Mark (owner) posted asking for help on these very boards.
> > > > > In a seperate blog where Matt Cutts posted (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/013423.html), Mark called out for help, > > > > > and with the help of Matt kindly offerring to take a closer look, > > > > > "I'll ask someone to check into the status of your reinclusion > > > > > request." Well less then a day later Mark was fully out of the penalty > > > > > as the thread reads. Keywords ranking back to where they were prior to > > > > > the penalty, domain name search back in it's rightful #1 spot, etc. I > > > > > can only imagine what he feels like.
> > > > > Also, the likes ofwww.gtahotels.comandwww.travel-ascending.comhave > > > > > been released from the penalty as well to name a few that the people > > > > > on these help boards are familiar with, and do also contain affiliate > > > > > links so being an affiliate is not a major issue. This leads me to > > > > > believe that the penalty is 100% released MANUALLY.
> > > > > Looking at my site, after 13.5 months.. why do I continue to be > > > > > penalized? I've had half a dozen threads dissecting my site, applied > > > > > every piece of advice, yet everyone is still stumped.
> > > > > Considering that I did fit the thin-affiliate-site model 13.5 months > > > > > ago, let's go over today according to the official Google guidelines > > > > > just to make it crystal clear:
> > > > > "Thin affiliate sites: These sites collect pay-per-click (PPC) revenue > > > > > by sending visitors to the sites of affiliate programs, while > > > > > providing little or no value-added content or service to the user. > > > > > These sites usually have no original content and may be cookie-cutter > > > > > sites or templates with no unique content."
> > > > > - "Little or no value-added content or service": nearly to 300 > > > > > original articles growing each week, every single product has real > > > > > original reviews (1000's of combined reviews), advice and guides, > > > > > newsletters, multiple retailers, multimedia downloads, galleries, > > > > > email advice, etc. Much more value-added content and service than 99% > > > > > of the affiliate sites on the internet in my opinion. [PASS]
> > > > > - "No original content": every single page has original and highly > > > > > useful content with all the aspects listed above. Bookmark rate over > > > > > 38%, shows me I have plenty of value-added content and useful services > > > > > that people deem worthy of bookmarking. [PASS]
> > > > > - "Cookie cutter or template site": Never used a template or cookie > > > > > cutter affiliate template-type site, each page is hand written over > > > > > the past 5 years. [PASS]
> > > > > - "No unique content": check first point once again, I use zero > > > > > product feeds, affiliate feeds, etc and add original content daily > > > > > with testimonials, articles etc. [PASS]
> > > > > My site in my opinion shouldn't even have it's name and the words thin > > > > > affiliate said in the same sentence at this point.
> > > > > Like the other sites before me, some mentioned in this thread, I won't > > > > > quit because in my opinion I don't deserve to be penalized - and like > > > > > them I will be released from the penalty as well given a chance. I > > > > > realize Matt doesn't post here, but if he does read the threads.. it > > > > > would be great to get a fair, close look following a full year+ of > > > > > effort to find the cause of the penalty and abide by the guidelines..
> > With the next bump perhaps gather all info a Googler needs to > > investigate your case, like your site's URL, links to all the threads > > where we tried to find the cause of your unnatural ranking etc. > > Sebastian
> > On Jun 6, 10:05 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > > Bump!
> > > On Jun 6, 11:58 am, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > Thanks Sebastian, much appreciated. I truly believe if the right > > > > people see my case, no question will it come out of the penalty.
> > > > Mark (as mentioned above) sent in the same re-inclusion request time > > > > after time, yet only after he sent the same one in and Matt brought > > > > some attention to it did it then finally get resolved.
> > > > I am all for bumping it..
> > > > Bump!
> > > > On Jun 6, 9:03 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > > > > Your case is really weird. From what I know your site doesn't deserve > > > > > a penalty. IIRC JohnMu came to the same conclusion. So you've at least > > > > > 2 votes :)
> > > > > Perhaps we should bump this thread until a Googler from the webspam > > > > > team reads it ;)
> > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > On Jun 6, 2:20 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > > Still here and fighting for a cure as others have found the medicine!
> > > > > > I'd like to once again point out that many people inflicted with this > > > > > > same penalty are being released, one very obvious site waswww.murraysworld.com > > > > > > which Mark (owner) posted asking for help on these very boards.
> > > > > > In a seperate blog where Matt Cutts posted (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/013423.html), Mark called out for help, > > > > > > and with the help of Matt kindly offerring to take a closer look, > > > > > > "I'll ask someone to check into the status of your reinclusion > > > > > > request." Well less then a day later Mark was fully out of the penalty > > > > > > as the thread reads. Keywords ranking back to where they were prior to > > > > > > the penalty, domain name search back in it's rightful #1 spot, etc. I > > > > > > can only imagine what he feels like.
> > > > > > Also, the likes ofwww.gtahotels.comandwww.travel-ascending.comhave > > > > > > been released from the penalty as well to name a few that the people > > > > > > on these help boards are familiar with, and do also contain affiliate > > > > > > links so being an affiliate is not a major issue. This leads me to > > > > > > believe that the penalty is 100% released MANUALLY.
> > > > > > Looking at my site, after 13.5 months.. why do I continue to be > > > > > > penalized? I've had half a dozen threads dissecting my site, applied > > > > > > every piece of advice, yet everyone is still stumped.
> > > > > > Considering that I did fit the thin-affiliate-site model 13.5 months > > > > > > ago, let's go over today according to the official Google guidelines > > > > > > just to make it crystal clear:
> > > > > > "Thin affiliate sites: These sites collect pay-per-click (PPC) revenue > > > > > > by sending visitors to the sites of affiliate programs, while > > > > > > providing little or no value-added content or service to the user. > > > > > > These sites usually have no original content and may be cookie-cutter > > > > > > sites or templates with no unique content."
> > > > > > - "Little or no value-added content or service": nearly to 300 > > > > > > original articles growing each week, every single product has real > > > > > > original reviews (1000's of combined reviews), advice and guides, > > > > > > newsletters, multiple retailers, multimedia downloads, galleries, > > > > > > email advice, etc. Much more value-added content and service than 99% > > > > > > of the affiliate sites on the internet in my opinion. [PASS]
> > > > > > - "No original content": every single page has original and highly > > > > > > useful content with all the aspects listed above. Bookmark rate over > > > > > > 38%, shows me I have plenty of value-added content and useful services > > > > > > that people deem worthy of bookmarking. [PASS]
> > > > > > - "Cookie cutter or template site": Never used a template or cookie > > > > > > cutter affiliate template-type site, each page is hand written over > > > > > > the past 5 years. [PASS]
> > > > > > - "No unique content": check first point once again, I use zero > > > > > > product feeds, affiliate feeds, etc and add original content daily > > > > > > with testimonials, articles etc. [PASS]
> > > > > > My site in my opinion shouldn't even have it's name and the words thin > > > > > > affiliate said in the same sentence at this point.
> > > > > > Like the other sites before me, some mentioned in this thread, I won't > > > > > > quit because in my opinion I don't deserve to be penalized - and like > > > > > > them I will be released from the penalty as well given a chance. I > > > > > > realize Matt doesn't post here, but if he does read the threads.. it > > > > > > would be great to get a fair, close look following a full year+ of > > > > > > effort to find the cause of the penalty and abide by the guidelines..
> Also, the likes ofwww.gtahotels.comandwww.travel-ascending.comhave > been released from the penalty as well to name a few that the people > on these help boards are familiar with, and do also contain affiliate > links so being an affiliate is not a major issue. This leads me to > believe that the penalty is 100% released MANUALLY.
> > With the next bump perhaps gather all info a Googler needs to > > investigate your case, like your site's URL, links to all the threads > > where we tried to find the cause of your unnatural ranking etc. > > Sebastian
> > On Jun 6, 10:05 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > > Bump!
> > > On Jun 6, 11:58 am, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > Thanks Sebastian, much appreciated. I truly believe if the right > > > > people see my case, no question will it come out of the penalty.
> > > > Mark (as mentioned above) sent in the same re-inclusion request time > > > > after time, yet only after he sent the same one in and Matt brought > > > > some attention to it did it then finally get resolved.
> > > > I am all for bumping it..
> > > > Bump!
> > > > On Jun 6, 9:03 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > > > > Your case is really weird. From what I know your site doesn't deserve > > > > > a penalty. IIRC JohnMu came to the same conclusion. So you've at least > > > > > 2 votes :)
> > > > > Perhaps we should bump this thread until a Googler from the webspam > > > > > team reads it ;)
> > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > On Jun 6, 2:20 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > > Still here and fighting for a cure as others have found the medicine!
> > > > > > I'd like to once again point out that many people inflicted with this > > > > > > same penalty are being released, one very obvious site waswww.murraysworld.com > > > > > > which Mark (owner) posted asking for help on these very boards.
> > > > > > In a seperate blog where Matt Cutts posted (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/013423.html), Mark called out for help, > > > > > > and with the help of Matt kindly offerring to take a closer look, > > > > > > "I'll ask someone to check into the status of your reinclusion > > > > > > request." Well less then a day later Mark was fully out of the penalty > > > > > > as the thread reads. Keywords ranking back to where they were prior to > > > > > > the penalty, domain name search back in it's rightful #1 spot, etc. I > > > > > > can only imagine what he feels like.
> > > > > > Also, the likes ofwww.gtahotels.comandwww.travel-ascending.comhave > > > > > > been released from the penalty as well to name a few that the people > > > > > > on these help boards are familiar with, and do also contain affiliate > > > > > > links so being an affiliate is not a major issue. This leads me to > > > > > > believe that the penalty is 100% released MANUALLY.
> > > > > > Looking at my site, after 13.5 months.. why do I continue to be > > > > > > penalized? I've had half a dozen threads dissecting my site, applied > > > > > > every piece of advice, yet everyone is still stumped.
> > > > > > Considering that I did fit the thin-affiliate-site model 13.5 months > > > > > > ago, let's go over today according to the official Google guidelines > > > > > > just to make it crystal clear:
> > > > > > "Thin affiliate sites: These sites collect pay-per-click (PPC) revenue > > > > > > by sending visitors to the sites of affiliate programs, while > > > > > > providing little or no value-added content or service to the user. > > > > > > These sites usually have no original content and may be cookie-cutter > > > > > > sites or templates with no unique content."
> > > > > > - "Little or no value-added content or service": nearly to 300 > > > > > > original articles growing each week, every single product has real > > > > > > original reviews (1000's of combined reviews), advice and guides, > > > > > > newsletters, multiple retailers, multimedia downloads, galleries, > > > > > > email advice, etc. Much more value-added content and service than 99% > > > > > > of the affiliate sites on the internet in my opinion. [PASS]
> > > > > > - "No original content": every single page has original and highly > > > > > > useful content with all the aspects listed above. Bookmark rate over > > > > > > 38%, shows me I have plenty of value-added content and useful services > > > > > > that people deem worthy of bookmarking. [PASS]
> > > > > > - "Cookie cutter or template site": Never used a template or cookie > > > > > > cutter affiliate template-type site, each page is hand written over > > > > > > the past 5 years. [PASS]
> > > > > > - "No unique content": check first point once again, I use zero > > > > > > product feeds, affiliate feeds, etc and add original content daily > > > > > > with testimonials, articles etc. [PASS]
> > > > > > My site in my opinion shouldn't even have it's name and the words thin > > > > > > affiliate said in the same sentence at this point.
> > > > > > Like the other sites before me, some mentioned in this thread, I won't > > > > > > quit because in my opinion I don't deserve to be penalized - and like > > > > > > them I will be released from the penalty as well given a chance. I > > > > > > realize Matt doesn't post here, but if he does read the threads.. it > > > > > > would be great to get a fair, close look following a full year+ of > > > > > > effort to find the cause of the penalty and abide by the guidelines..
Nate, mayeb you've donall that was recommenede but then nobody may have recommended you fix the code. I'm seeing 99 errors on the homepage. Some are rather worrisome as they suggest broken code at the block level. http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://www.fitflex.com/
See the table which is not allowed to be there...
I'd put a little more effort into this aspect as well.
Then it seems that all or most of your pages have the same description snippet: #1 Online Source for REAL Supplement Reviews & Testimonials with Retailer Comparisons!
This should not be. It seems that the description meta tag you provide is being ignored in favor of that one snippet. All I can think if is that it may be because your actual description meta tag is too short... or it's been added lately and it hasn't had time to permeate and update the index.
> Still here.. nearly 14 MONTHS of penalty. Google / staff.. once again > I ask for a response for my show of good faith with the guidelines.
> Thank you, > Nate
> On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > Nate?
> > On Jun 6, 10:26 pm, Sebastian wrote:
> > > With the next bump perhaps gather all info a Googler needs to > > > investigate your case, like your site's URL, links to all the threads > > > where we tried to find the cause of your unnatural ranking etc. > > > Sebastian
> > > On Jun 6, 10:05 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > Bump!
> > > > On Jun 6, 11:58 am, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > Thanks Sebastian, much appreciated. I truly believe if the right > > > > > people see my case, no question will it come out of the penalty.
> > > > > Mark (as mentioned above) sent in the same re-inclusion request time > > > > > after time, yet only after he sent the same one in and Matt brought > > > > > some attention to it did it then finally get resolved.
> > > > > I am all for bumping it..
> > > > > Bump!
> > > > > On Jun 6, 9:03 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > > > > > Your case is really weird. From what I know your site doesn't deserve > > > > > > a penalty. IIRC JohnMu came to the same conclusion. So you've at least > > > > > > 2 votes :)
> > > > > > Perhaps we should bump this thread until a Googler from the webspam > > > > > > team reads it ;)
> > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > > On Jun 6, 2:20 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > > > Still here and fighting for a cure as others have found the medicine!
> > > > > > > I'd like to once again point out that many people inflicted with this > > > > > > > same penalty are being released, one very obvious site waswww.murraysworld.com > > > > > > > which Mark (owner) posted asking for help on these very boards.
> > > > > > > In a seperate blog where Matt Cutts posted (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/013423.html), Mark called out for help, > > > > > > > and with the help of Matt kindly offerring to take a closer look, > > > > > > > "I'll ask someone to check into the status of your reinclusion > > > > > > > request." Well less then a day later Mark was fully out of the penalty > > > > > > > as the thread reads. Keywords ranking back to where they were prior to > > > > > > > the penalty, domain name search back in it's rightful #1 spot, etc. I > > > > > > > can only imagine what he feels like.
> > > > > > > Also, the likes ofwww.gtahotels.comandwww.travel-ascending.comhave > > > > > > > been released from the penalty as well to name a few that the people > > > > > > > on these help boards are familiar with, and do also contain affiliate > > > > > > > links so being an affiliate is not a major issue. This leads me to > > > > > > > believe that the penalty is 100% released MANUALLY.
> > > > > > > Looking at my site, after 13.5 months.. why do I continue to be > > > > > > > penalized? I've had half a dozen threads dissecting my site, applied > > > > > > > every piece of advice, yet everyone is still stumped.
> > > > > > > Considering that I did fit the thin-affiliate-site model 13.5 months > > > > > > > ago, let's go over today according to the official Google guidelines > > > > > > > just to make it crystal clear:
> > > > > > > "Thin affiliate sites: These sites collect pay-per-click (PPC) revenue > > > > > > > by sending visitors to the sites of affiliate programs, while > > > > > > > providing little or no value-added content or service to the user. > > > > > > > These sites usually have no original content and may be cookie-cutter > > > > > > > sites or templates with no unique content."
> > > > > > > - "Little or no value-added content or service": nearly to 300 > > > > > > > original articles growing each week, every single product has real > > > > > > > original reviews (1000's of combined reviews), advice and guides, > > > > > > > newsletters, multiple retailers, multimedia downloads, galleries, > > > > > > > email advice, etc. Much more value-added content and service than 99% > > > > > > > of the affiliate sites on the internet in my opinion. [PASS]
> > > > > > > - "No original content": every single page has original and highly > > > > > > > useful content with all the aspects listed above. Bookmark rate over > > > > > > > 38%, shows me I have plenty of value-added content and useful services > > > > > > > that people deem worthy of bookmarking. [PASS]
> > > > > > > - "Cookie cutter or template site": Never used a template or cookie > > > > > > > cutter affiliate template-type site, each page is hand written over > > > > > > > the past 5 years. [PASS]
> > > > > > > - "No unique content": check first point once again, I use zero > > > > > > > product feeds, affiliate feeds, etc and add original content daily > > > > > > > with testimonials, articles etc. [PASS]
> > > > > > > My site in my opinion shouldn't even have it's name and the words thin > > > > > > > affiliate said in the same sentence at this point.
> > > > > > > Like the other sites before me, some mentioned in this thread, I won't > > > > > > > quit because in my opinion I don't deserve to be penalized - and like > > > > > > > them I will be released from the penalty as well given a chance. I > > > > > > > realize Matt doesn't post here, but if he does read the threads.. it > > > > > > > would be great to get a fair, close look following a full year+ of > > > > > > > effort to find the cause of the penalty and abide by the guidelines..
The code is not an issue, especially the aspects that I have. This has been confirm by Adam Lasnik himself a few times, specifically with causing a penalty. Sure if there are major items such as a missing body tag, etc.. then there MIGHT be a penalty. So I feel confident to rule that out on that basis.
Yes that snipplet is on every page, many sites have this aspect (repeated content / snipplets on page that fit with layout etc that is NOT spam-based). From what I have been told, Google doesn't penalize this aspect, as it is not spam, simply part of the layout. I will do a bit more research into it however.
I've had short, long and no meta tags - makes no difference. This penalty was in my opinion and a few others based on my site bing a very thin affiliate site 14 months ago.
> Nate, mayeb you've donall that was recommenede but then nobody may > have recommended you fix the code. > I'm seeing 99 errors on the homepage. Some are rather worrisome as > they suggest broken code at the block level.http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://www.fitflex.com/
> See the table which is not allowed to be there...
> I'd put a little more effort into this aspect as well.
> Then it seems that all or most of your pages have the same description > snippet: > #1 Online Source for REAL Supplement Reviews & Testimonials with > Retailer Comparisons!
> This should not be. It seems that the description meta tag you provide > is being ignored in favor of that one snippet. > All I can think if is that it may be because your actual description > meta tag is too short... or it's been added lately and it hasn't had > time to permeate and update the index.
> On Jun 25, 12:21 am, Nate121 wrote:
> > Still here.. nearly 14 MONTHS of penalty. Google / staff.. once again > > I ask for a response for my show of good faith with the guidelines.
> > Thank you, > > Nate
> > On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > > Nate?
> > > On Jun 6, 10:26 pm, Sebastian wrote:
> > > > With the next bump perhaps gather all info a Googler needs to > > > > investigate your case, like your site's URL, links to all the threads > > > > where we tried to find the cause of your unnatural ranking etc. > > > > Sebastian
> > > > On Jun 6, 10:05 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > Bump!
> > > > > On Jun 6, 11:58 am, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > > Thanks Sebastian, much appreciated. I truly believe if the right > > > > > > people see my case, no question will it come out of the penalty.
> > > > > > Mark (as mentioned above) sent in the same re-inclusion request time > > > > > > after time, yet only after he sent the same one in and Matt brought > > > > > > some attention to it did it then finally get resolved.
> > > > > > I am all for bumping it..
> > > > > > Bump!
> > > > > > On Jun 6, 9:03 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > > > > > > Your case is really weird. From what I know your site doesn't deserve > > > > > > > a penalty. IIRC JohnMu came to the same conclusion. So you've at least > > > > > > > 2 votes :)
> > > > > > > Perhaps we should bump this thread until a Googler from the webspam > > > > > > > team reads it ;)
> > > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2:20 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > > > > Still here and fighting for a cure as others have found the medicine!
> > > > > > > > I'd like to once again point out that many people inflicted with this > > > > > > > > same penalty are being released, one very obvious site waswww.murraysworld.com > > > > > > > > which Mark (owner) posted asking for help on these very boards.
> > > > > > > > In a seperate blog where Matt Cutts posted (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/013423.html), Mark called out for help, > > > > > > > > and with the help of Matt kindly offerring to take a closer look, > > > > > > > > "I'll ask someone to check into the status of your reinclusion > > > > > > > > request." Well less then a day later Mark was fully out of the penalty > > > > > > > > as the thread reads. Keywords ranking back to where they were prior to > > > > > > > > the penalty, domain name search back in it's rightful #1 spot, etc. I > > > > > > > > can only imagine what he feels like.
> > > > > > > > Also, the likes ofwww.gtahotels.comandwww.travel-ascending.comhave > > > > > > > > been released from the penalty as well to name a few that the people > > > > > > > > on these help boards are familiar with, and do also contain affiliate > > > > > > > > links so being an affiliate is not a major issue. This leads me to > > > > > > > > believe that the penalty is 100% released MANUALLY.
> > > > > > > > Looking at my site, after 13.5 months.. why do I continue to be > > > > > > > > penalized? I've had half a dozen threads dissecting my site, applied > > > > > > > > every piece of advice, yet everyone is still stumped.
> > > > > > > > Considering that I did fit the thin-affiliate-site model 13.5 months > > > > > > > > ago, let's go over today according to the official Google guidelines > > > > > > > > just to make it crystal clear:
> > > > > > > > "Thin affiliate sites: These sites collect pay-per-click (PPC) revenue > > > > > > > > by sending visitors to the sites of affiliate programs, while > > > > > > > > providing little or no value-added content or service to the user. > > > > > > > > These sites usually have no original content and may be cookie-cutter > > > > > > > > sites or templates with no unique content."
> > > > > > > > - "Little or no value-added content or service": nearly to 300 > > > > > > > > original articles growing each week, every single product has real > > > > > > > > original reviews (1000's of combined reviews), advice and guides, > > > > > > > > newsletters, multiple retailers, multimedia downloads, galleries, > > > > > > > > email advice, etc. Much more value-added content and service than 99% > > > > > > > > of the affiliate sites on the internet in my opinion. [PASS]
> > > > > > > > - "No original content": every single page has original and highly > > > > > > > > useful content with all the aspects listed above. Bookmark rate over > > > > > > > > 38%, shows me I have plenty of value-added content and useful services > > > > > > > > that people deem worthy of bookmarking. [PASS]
> > > > > > > > - "Cookie cutter or template site": Never used a template or cookie > > > > > > > > cutter affiliate template-type site, each page is hand written over > > > > > > > > the past 5 years. [PASS]
> > > > > > > > - "No unique content": check first point once again, I use zero > > > > > > > > product feeds, affiliate feeds, etc and add original content daily > > > > > > > > with testimonials, articles etc. [PASS]
> > > > > > > > My site in my opinion shouldn't even have it's name and the words thin > > > > > > > > affiliate said in the same sentence at this point.
> > > > > > > > Like the other sites before me, some mentioned in this thread, I won't > > > > > > > > quit because in my opinion I don't deserve to be penalized - and like > > > > > > > > them I will be released from the penalty as well given a chance. I > > > > > > > > realize Matt doesn't post here, but if he does read the threads.. it > > > > > > > > would be great to get a fair, close look following a full year+ of > > > > > > > > effort to find the cause of the penalty and abide by the guidelines..
Yes, maybe 3 years ago I actually had that in my robots.txt (or was it htaccess, I don't remember). It was a script I had that gave that message to robots or website downloaders that tried to download my content. I had that error message show up if they tried to steal my content:
"Accessed denied your IP has been Traced and recorded"
I had it for maybe 6 months, then removed it, like I said easily 2 years ago if not longer now. I have no idea why Alexa is still using this in my profile.
Please explain how Google can perceive this as cloaking - very interesting.
Cloaking is serving different content to different users... It's completely debatable... I suspect I damaged a site temporarily by serving different content to the GoogleBot exclusively... I should really take notes... but from what I remember the problem is real... ( then again I was serving blank pages to Googlebot... so that could have been it too... )
If you've still got the script running then I guess your banning an IP range...
Your site looks nearly identical throughout the internet archive history... Maybe one of your affiliates tanked and took you down with them?
Maybe your number of outbound links to affiliates on your mainpage is doing you damage...
Have you cross referenced noticeable upgrades with your downfall in mid 2006? If I were Google... I wouldn't be tipping anyone off to a major change in the algorithm though... If I had the resources... I would introduce new upgrades over a period of time sporadically to different portions of the web... make it undetectable... reverse engineering is impossible when time is the unknown factor...
Much like the site: operator no longer grouping pages together as similar in the .com Google's while it still does with the Canadian Google's... I suspect eventually the Canadian Google's will stop returning grouped together as similar results when using the site: operator soon enough...
Sorry... drinking espresso... hope this helps...
If I were you I would go for broke and drop some of the affiliates... just for a few months and see how it goes... but it might not get you anywhere... don't put all of your eggs in one basket... get some more eggs... some more baskets... don't dwell on the past... think about how much of your time your potentially wasting... it's like chasing an ex-girlfriend...
I'm not saying the bad coe wil lcause a penalty, only that it may impact on the depth of indexing. Thats' nto a penalt, it's a consequence, like flunking a test in school because your performed poorly and couldn't answer the questions and solve the problems. If you'd cheated and been caught then you'd have had a penalty. There's a big difference, though you'd think the end resutl is the same, the site cannot be found in searches.
Adam and most Googlers dont' seem to want peopel to think that invalid code is ever an issue. But they miss saying that the issue realy is that some bad code prevents a robots from getting to all the content. Ironically they say it actually but well disguised under quality guidelines.
Of course the text is not actually invisible, but badly defined css or whatever is being used to style the text results in an appearance of this text being hidden. The culprint is the font color used as: color="#c0c0000"
It's an invalid color code. It should have been color="#C00000" to give the red color. IE is forgiving and guesses "right". A robot won't. The robot assumes that it is #000000 - which is the same color as the backgound of that table, black.
It's the kind of thing you have to be careful with.
> The code is not an issue, especially the aspects that I have. This has > been confirm by Adam Lasnik himself a few times, specifically with > causing a penalty. Sure if there are major items such as a missing > body tag, etc.. then there MIGHT be a penalty. So I feel confident to > rule that out on that basis.
> Yes that snipplet is on every page, many sites have this aspect > (repeated content / snipplets on page that fit with layout etc that is > NOT spam-based). From what I have been told, Google doesn't penalize > this aspect, as it is not spam, simply part of the layout. I will do a > bit more research into it however.
> I've had short, long and no meta tags - makes no difference. This > penalty was in my opinion and a few others based on my site bing a > very thin affiliate site 14 months ago.
> Nate
> On Jun 25, 12:38 am, webado wrote:
> > Nate, mayeb you've donall that was recommenede but then nobody may > > have recommended you fix the code. > > I'm seeing 99 errors on the homepage. Some are rather worrisome as > > they suggest broken code at the block level.http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://www.fitflex.com/
> > See the table which is not allowed to be there...
> > I'd put a little more effort into this aspect as well.
> > Then it seems that all or most of your pages have the same description > > snippet: > > #1 Online Source for REAL Supplement Reviews & Testimonials with > > Retailer Comparisons!
> > This should not be. It seems that the description meta tag you provide > > is being ignored in favor of that one snippet. > > All I can think if is that it may be because your actual description > > meta tag is too short... or it's been added lately and it hasn't had > > time to permeate and update the index.
> > On Jun 25, 12:21 am, Nate121 wrote:
> > > Still here.. nearly 14 MONTHS of penalty. Google / staff.. once again > > > I ask for a response for my show of good faith with the guidelines.
> > > Thank you, > > > Nate
> > > On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > > > Nate?
> > > > On Jun 6, 10:26 pm, Sebastian wrote:
> > > > > With the next bump perhaps gather all info a Googler needs to > > > > > investigate your case, like your site's URL, links to all the threads > > > > > where we tried to find the cause of your unnatural ranking etc. > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > On Jun 6, 10:05 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > > Bump!
> > > > > > On Jun 6, 11:58 am, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > > > Thanks Sebastian, much appreciated. I truly believe if the right > > > > > > > people see my case, no question will it come out of the penalty.
> > > > > > > Mark (as mentioned above) sent in the same re-inclusion request time > > > > > > > after time, yet only after he sent the same one in and Matt brought > > > > > > > some attention to it did it then finally get resolved.
> > > > > > > I am all for bumping it..
> > > > > > > Bump!
> > > > > > > On Jun 6, 9:03 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > > > > > > > Your case is really weird. From what I know your site doesn't deserve > > > > > > > > a penalty. IIRC JohnMu came to the same conclusion. So you've at least > > > > > > > > 2 votes :)
> > > > > > > > Perhaps we should bump this thread until a Googler from the webspam > > > > > > > > team reads it ;)
> > > > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2:20 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Still here and fighting for a cure as others have found the medicine!
> > > > > > > > > I'd like to once again point out that many people inflicted with this > > > > > > > > > same penalty are being released, one very obvious site waswww.murraysworld.com > > > > > > > > > which Mark (owner) posted asking for help on these very boards.
> > > > > > > > > In a seperate blog where Matt Cutts posted (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/013423.html), Mark called out for help, > > > > > > > > > and with the help of Matt kindly offerring to take a closer look, > > > > > > > > > "I'll ask someone to check into the status of your reinclusion > > > > > > > > > request." Well less then a day later Mark was fully out of the penalty > > > > > > > > > as the thread reads. Keywords ranking back to where they were prior to > > > > > > > > > the penalty, domain name search back in it's rightful #1 spot, etc. I > > > > > > > > > can only imagine what he feels like.
> > > > > > > > > Also, the likes ofwww.gtahotels.comandwww.travel-ascending.comhave > > > > > > > > > been released from the penalty as well to name a few that the people > > > > > > > > > on these help boards are familiar with, and do also contain affiliate > > > > > > > > > links so being an affiliate is not a major issue. This leads me to > > > > > > > > > believe that the penalty is 100% released MANUALLY.
> > > > > > > > > Looking at my site, after 13.5 months.. why do I continue to be > > > > > > > > > penalized? I've had half a dozen threads dissecting my site, applied > > > > > > > > > every piece of advice, yet everyone is still stumped.
> > > > > > > > > Considering that I did fit the thin-affiliate-site model 13.5 months > > > > > > > > > ago, let's go over today according to the official Google guidelines > > > > > > > > > just to make it crystal clear:
> > > > > > > > > "Thin affiliate sites: These sites collect pay-per-click (PPC) revenue > > > > > > > > > by sending visitors to the sites of affiliate programs, while > > > > > > > > > providing little or no value-added content or service to the user. > > > > > > > > > These sites usually have no original content and may be cookie-cutter > > > > > > > > > sites or templates with no unique content."
> > > > > > > > > - "Little or no value-added content or service": nearly to 300 > > > > > > > > > original articles growing each week, every single product has real > > > > > > > > > original reviews (1000's of combined reviews), advice and guides, > > > > > > > > > newsletters, multiple retailers, multimedia downloads, galleries, > > > > > > > > > email advice, etc. Much more value-added content and service than 99% > > > > > > > > > of the affiliate sites on the internet in my opinion. [PASS]
> > > > > > > > > - "No original content": every single page has original and highly
> Cloaking is serving different content to different users... It's > completely debatable... I suspect I damaged a site temporarily by > serving different content to the GoogleBot exclusively... I should > really take notes... but from what I remember the problem is real... > ( then again I was serving blank pages to Googlebot... so that could > have been it too... )
> If you've still got the script running then I guess your banning an IP > range...
> Your site looks nearly identical throughout the internet archive > history... Maybe one of your affiliates tanked and took you down with > them?
> Maybe your number of outbound links to affiliates on your mainpage is > doing you damage...
> Have you cross referenced noticeable upgrades with your downfall in > mid 2006? If I were Google... I wouldn't be tipping anyone off to a > major change in the algorithm though... If I had the resources... I > would introduce new upgrades over a period of time sporadically to > different portions of the web... make it undetectable... reverse > engineering is impossible when time is the unknown factor...
> Much like the site: operator no longer grouping pages together as > similar in the .com Google's while it still does with the Canadian > Google's... I suspect eventually the Canadian Google's will stop > returning grouped together as similar results when using the site: > operator soon enough...
> Sorry... drinking espresso... hope this helps...
> If I were you I would go for broke and drop some of the affiliates... > just for a few months and see how it goes... but it might not get you > anywhere... don't put all of your eggs in one basket... get some more > eggs... some more baskets... don't dwell on the past... think about > how much of your time your potentially wasting... it's like chasing an > ex-girlfriend...
Yes it's been a while since I've run xenu, didn't realize that so many new issues have risen. However, in my 14 months of requests I have submitted them with perfect xenu runs and no penalty removal. But I will fix them up either way, can't hurt.
Very nice find with the color code, of course I have never had hidden text, those that do should be banned for life. I've never heard that IE shows the correct color yet robots may not. This may actually be a great find, yet pretty sad that robots cannot go around issues like this and cause harmful penalties. I'll do more on this, thanks.
> I'm not saying the bad coe wil lcause a penalty, only that it may > impact on the depth of indexing. Thats' nto a penalt, it's a > consequence, like flunking a test in school because your performed > poorly and couldn't answer the questions and solve the problems. If > you'd cheated and been caught then you'd have had a penalty. > There's a big difference, though you'd think the end resutl is the > same, the site cannot be found in searches.
> Adam and most Googlers dont' seem to want peopel to think that > invalid code is ever an issue. But they miss saying that the issue > realy is that some bad code prevents a robots from getting to all the > content. Ironically they say it actually but well disguised under > quality guidelines.
> Of course the text is not actually invisible, but badly defined css or > whatever is being used to style the text results in an appearance of > this text being hidden. > The culprint is the font color used as: > color="#c0c0000"
> It's an invalid color code. It should have been color="#C00000" to > give the red color. IE is forgiving and guesses "right". A robot > won't. The robot assumes that it is #000000 - which is the same color > as the backgound of that table, black.
> It's the kind of thing you have to be careful with.
> On Jun 25, 12:49 am, Nate121 wrote:
> > Thanks webado - I appreciate the visit!
> > The code is not an issue, especially the aspects that I have. This has > > been confirm by Adam Lasnik himself a few times, specifically with > > causing a penalty. Sure if there are major items such as a missing > > body tag, etc.. then there MIGHT be a penalty. So I feel confident to > > rule that out on that basis.
> > Yes that snipplet is on every page, many sites have this aspect > > (repeated content / snipplets on page that fit with layout etc that is > > NOT spam-based). From what I have been told, Google doesn't penalize > > this aspect, as it is not spam, simply part of the layout. I will do a > > bit more research into it however.
> > I've had short, long and no meta tags - makes no difference. This > > penalty was in my opinion and a few others based on my site bing a > > very thin affiliate site 14 months ago.
> > Nate
> > On Jun 25, 12:38 am, webado wrote:
> > > Nate, mayeb you've donall that was recommenede but then nobody may > > > have recommended you fix the code. > > > I'm seeing 99 errors on the homepage. Some are rather worrisome as > > > they suggest broken code at the block level.http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://www.fitflex.com/
> > > See the table which is not allowed to be there...
> > > I'd put a little more effort into this aspect as well.
> > > Then it seems that all or most of your pages have the same description > > > snippet: > > > #1 Online Source for REAL Supplement Reviews & Testimonials with > > > Retailer Comparisons!
> > > This should not be. It seems that the description meta tag you provide > > > is being ignored in favor of that one snippet. > > > All I can think if is that it may be because your actual description > > > meta tag is too short... or it's been added lately and it hasn't had > > > time to permeate and update the index.
> > > On Jun 25, 12:21 am, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > Still here.. nearly 14 MONTHS of penalty. Google / staff.. once again > > > > I ask for a response for my show of good faith with the guidelines.
> > > > Thank you, > > > > Nate
> > > > On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > > > > Nate?
> > > > > On Jun 6, 10:26 pm, Sebastian wrote:
> > > > > > With the next bump perhaps gather all info a Googler needs to > > > > > > investigate your case, like your site's URL, links to all the threads > > > > > > where we tried to find the cause of your unnatural ranking etc. > > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > > On Jun 6, 10:05 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > > > Bump!
> > > > > > > On Jun 6, 11:58 am, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > > > > Thanks Sebastian, much appreciated. I truly believe if the right > > > > > > > > people see my case, no question will it come out of the penalty.
> > > > > > > > Mark (as mentioned above) sent in the same re-inclusion request time > > > > > > > > after time, yet only after he sent the same one in and Matt brought > > > > > > > > some attention to it did it then finally get resolved.
> > > > > > > > I am all for bumping it..
> > > > > > > > Bump!
> > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 9:03 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Your case is really weird. From what I know your site doesn't deserve > > > > > > > > > a penalty. IIRC JohnMu came to the same conclusion. So you've at least > > > > > > > > > 2 votes :)
> > > > > > > > > Perhaps we should bump this thread until a Googler from the webspam > > > > > > > > > team reads it ;)
> > > > > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2:20 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Still here and fighting for a cure as others have found the medicine!
> > > > > > > > > > I'd like to once again point out that many people inflicted with this > > > > > > > > > > same penalty are being released, one very obvious site waswww.murraysworld.com > > > > > > > > > > which Mark (owner) posted asking for help on these very boards.
> > > > > > > > > > In a seperate blog where Matt Cutts posted (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/013423.html), Mark called out for help, > > > > > > > > > > and with the help of Matt kindly offerring to take a closer look, > > > > > > > > > > "I'll ask someone to check into the status of your reinclusion > > > > > > > > > > request." Well less then a day later Mark was fully out of the penalty > > > > > > > > > > as the thread reads. Keywords ranking back to where they were prior to > > > > > > > > > > the penalty, domain name search back in it's rightful #1 spot, etc. I > > > > > > > > > > can only imagine what he feels like.
> > > > > > > > > > Also, the likes ofwww.gtahotels.comandwww.travel-ascending.comhave > > > > > > > > > > been released from the penalty as well to name a few that the people > > > > > > > > > > on these help boards are familiar with, and do also contain affiliate > > > > > > > > > > links so being an affiliate is not a major issue. This leads me to > > > > > > > > > > believe that the penalty is 100% released MANUALLY.
> > > > > > > > > > Looking at my site, after 13.5 months.. why do I continue to be > > > > > > > > > > penalized? I've had half a dozen threads dissecting my site, applied > > > > > > > > > > every piece of advice, yet everyone is still stumped.
> > > > > > > > > > Considering that I did fit the thin-affiliate-site model 13.5 months > > > > > > > > > > ago, let's go over
> I'm not saying the bad coe wil lcause a penalty, only that it may > impact on the depth of indexing. Thats' nto a penalt, it's a > consequence, like flunking a test in school because your performed > poorly and couldn't answer the questions and solve the problems. If > you'd cheated and been caught then you'd have had a penalty. > There's a big difference, though you'd think the end resutl is the > same, the site cannot be found in searches.
> Adam and most Googlers dont' seem to want peopel to think that > invalid code is ever an issue. But they miss saying that the issue > realy is that some bad code prevents a robots from getting to all the > content. Ironically they say it actually but well disguised under > quality guidelines.
> Of course the text is not actually invisible, but badly defined css or > whatever is being used to style the text results in an appearance of > this text being hidden. > The culprint is the font color used as: > color="#c0c0000"
> It's an invalid color code. It should have been color="#C00000" to > give the red color. IE is forgiving and guesses "right". A robot > won't. The robot assumes that it is #000000 - which is the same color > as the backgound of that table, black.
> It's the kind of thing you have to be careful with.
> On Jun 25, 12:49 am, Nate121 wrote:
> > Thanks webado - I appreciate the visit!
> > The code is not an issue, especially the aspects that I have. This has > > been confirm by Adam Lasnik himself a few times, specifically with > > causing a penalty. Sure if there are major items such as a missing > > body tag, etc.. then there MIGHT be a penalty. So I feel confident to > > rule that out on that basis.
> > Yes that snipplet is on every page, many sites have this aspect > > (repeated content / snipplets on page that fit with layout etc that is > > NOT spam-based). From what I have been told, Google doesn't penalize > > this aspect, as it is not spam, simply part of the layout. I will do a > > bit more research into it however.
> > I've had short, long and no meta tags - makes no difference. This > > penalty was in my opinion and a few others based on my site bing a > > very thin affiliate site 14 months ago.
> > Nate
> > On Jun 25, 12:38 am, webado wrote:
> > > Nate, mayeb you've donall that was recommenede but then nobody may > > > have recommended you fix the code. > > > I'm seeing 99 errors on the homepage. Some are rather worrisome as > > > they suggest broken code at the block level.http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://www.fitflex.com/
> > > See the table which is not allowed to be there...
> > > I'd put a little more effort into this aspect as well.
> > > Then it seems that all or most of your pages have the same description > > > snippet: > > > #1 Online Source for REAL Supplement Reviews & Testimonials with > > > Retailer Comparisons!
> > > This should not be. It seems that the description meta tag you provide > > > is being ignored in favor of that one snippet. > > > All I can think if is that it may be because your actual description > > > meta tag is too short... or it's been added lately and it hasn't had > > > time to permeate and update the index.
> > > On Jun 25, 12:21 am, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > Still here.. nearly 14 MONTHS of penalty. Google / staff.. once again > > > > I ask for a response for my show of good faith with the guidelines.
> > > > Thank you, > > > > Nate
> > > > On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > > > > Nate?
> > > > > On Jun 6, 10:26 pm, Sebastian wrote:
> > > > > > With the next bump perhaps gather all info a Googler needs to > > > > > > investigate your case, like your site's URL, links to all the threads > > > > > > where we tried to find the cause of your unnatural ranking etc. > > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > > On Jun 6, 10:05 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > > > Bump!
> > > > > > > On Jun 6, 11:58 am, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > > > > Thanks Sebastian, much appreciated. I truly believe if the right > > > > > > > > people see my case, no question will it come out of the penalty.
> > > > > > > > Mark (as mentioned above) sent in the same re-inclusion request time > > > > > > > > after time, yet only after he sent the same one in and Matt brought > > > > > > > > some attention to it did it then finally get resolved.
> > > > > > > > I am all for bumping it..
> > > > > > > > Bump!
> > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 9:03 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Your case is really weird. From what I know your site doesn't deserve > > > > > > > > > a penalty. IIRC JohnMu came to the same conclusion. So you've at least > > > > > > > > > 2 votes :)
> > > > > > > > > Perhaps we should bump this thread until a Googler from the webspam > > > > > > > > > team reads it ;)
> > > > > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2:20 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Still here and fighting for a cure as others have found the medicine!
> > > > > > > > > > I'd like to once again point out that many people inflicted with this > > > > > > > > > > same penalty are being released, one very obvious site waswww.murraysworld.com > > > > > > > > > > which Mark (owner) posted asking for help on these very boards.
> > > > > > > > > > In a seperate blog where Matt Cutts posted (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/013423.html), Mark called out for help, > > > > > > > > > > and with the help of Matt kindly offerring to take a closer look, > > > > > > > > > > "I'll ask someone to check into the status of your reinclusion > > > > > > > > > > request." Well less then a day later Mark was fully out of the penalty > > > > > > > > > > as the thread reads. Keywords ranking back to where they were prior to > > > > > > > > > > the penalty, domain name search back in it's rightful #1 spot, etc. I > > > > > > > > > > can only imagine what he feels like.
> > > > > > > > > > Also, the likes ofwww.gtahotels.comandwww.travel-ascending.comhave > > > > > > > > > > been released from the penalty as well to name a few that the people > > > > > > > > > > on these help boards are familiar with, and do also contain affiliate > > > > > > > > > > links so being an affiliate is not a major issue. This leads me to > > > > > > > > > > believe that the penalty is 100% released MANUALLY.
> > > > > > > > > > Looking at my site, after 13.5 months.. why do I continue to be > > > > > > > > > > penalized? I've had half a dozen threads dissecting my site, applied > > > > > > > > > > every piece of advice, yet everyone is still stumped.
> > > > > > > > > > Considering that I did fit the thin-affiliate-site model 13.5 months > > > > > > > > > > ago, let's go over today according to the official Google guidelines > > > > > > > > > > just to make it crystal clear:
Hacking is a distinct possibility, IMO. Though usually one woudl think there are other symptoms if hacking is involved. Maybe you've just not run into them yet.
Your server has this version of Frontpage extensions: FrontPage/ 5.0.2.2635.SR1.2
> Is missing. Now contact.html was uploaded and was never erased by me, > ever. Since it had dissapeared what could have caused this?
> Hack? Bad Server/Hosting company?
> I am 110% sure that I never removed it, that just wouldn't make any > sense, very odd!
> It has now been returned.
> Nate
> On Jun 25, 1:14 am, webado wrote:
> > I'm not saying the bad coe wil lcause a penalty, only that it may > > impact on the depth of indexing. Thats' nto a penalt, it's a > > consequence, like flunking a test in school because your performed > > poorly and couldn't answer the questions and solve the problems. If > > you'd cheated and been caught then you'd have had a penalty. > > There's a big difference, though you'd think the end resutl is the > > same, the site cannot be found in searches.
> > Adam and most Googlers dont' seem to want peopel to think that > > invalid code is ever an issue. But they miss saying that the issue > > realy is that some bad code prevents a robots from getting to all the > > content. Ironically they say it actually but well disguised under > > quality guidelines.
> > Of course the text is not actually invisible, but badly defined css or > > whatever is being used to style the text results in an appearance of > > this text being hidden. > > The culprint is the font color used as: > > color="#c0c0000"
> > It's an invalid color code. It should have been color="#C00000" to > > give the red color. IE is forgiving and guesses "right". A robot > > won't. The robot assumes that it is #000000 - which is the same color > > as the backgound of that table, black.
> > It's the kind of thing you have to be careful with.
> > On Jun 25, 12:49 am, Nate121 wrote:
> > > Thanks webado - I appreciate the visit!
> > > The code is not an issue, especially the aspects that I have. This has > > > been confirm by Adam Lasnik himself a few times, specifically with > > > causing a penalty. Sure if there are major items such as a missing > > > body tag, etc.. then there MIGHT be a penalty. So I feel confident to > > > rule that out on that basis.
> > > Yes that snipplet is on every page, many sites have this aspect > > > (repeated content / snipplets on page that fit with layout etc that is > > > NOT spam-based). From what I have been told, Google doesn't penalize > > > this aspect, as it is not spam, simply part of the layout. I will do a > > > bit more research into it however.
> > > I've had short, long and no meta tags - makes no difference. This > > > penalty was in my opinion and a few others based on my site bing a > > > very thin affiliate site 14 months ago.
> > > Nate
> > > On Jun 25, 12:38 am, webado wrote:
> > > > Nate, mayeb you've donall that was recommenede but then nobody may > > > > have recommended you fix the code. > > > > I'm seeing 99 errors on the homepage. Some are rather worrisome as > > > > they suggest broken code at the block level.http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://www.fitflex.com/
> > > > See the table which is not allowed to be there...
> > > > I'd put a little more effort into this aspect as well.
> > > > Then it seems that all or most of your pages have the same description > > > > snippet: > > > > #1 Online Source for REAL Supplement Reviews & Testimonials with > > > > Retailer Comparisons!
> > > > This should not be. It seems that the description meta tag you provide > > > > is being ignored in favor of that one snippet. > > > > All I can think if is that it may be because your actual description > > > > meta tag is too short... or it's been added lately and it hasn't had > > > > time to permeate and update the index.
> > > > On Jun 25, 12:21 am, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > Still here.. nearly 14 MONTHS of penalty. Google / staff.. once again > > > > > I ask for a response for my show of good faith with the guidelines.
> > > > > Thank you, > > > > > Nate
> > > > > On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > > > > > Nate?
> > > > > > On Jun 6, 10:26 pm, Sebastian wrote:
> > > > > > > With the next bump perhaps gather all info a Googler needs to > > > > > > > investigate your case, like your site's URL, links to all the threads > > > > > > > where we tried to find the cause of your unnatural ranking etc. > > > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > > > On Jun 6, 10:05 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > > > > Bump!
> > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 11:58 am, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Thanks Sebastian, much appreciated. I truly believe if the right > > > > > > > > > people see my case, no question will it come out of the penalty.
> > > > > > > > > Mark (as mentioned above) sent in the same re-inclusion request time > > > > > > > > > after time, yet only after he sent the same one in and Matt brought > > > > > > > > > some attention to it did it then finally get resolved.
> > > > > > > > > I am all for bumping it..
> > > > > > > > > Bump!
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 9:03 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Your case is really weird. From what I know your site doesn't deserve > > > > > > > > > > a penalty. IIRC JohnMu came to the same conclusion. So you've at least > > > > > > > > > > 2 votes :)
> > > > > > > > > > Perhaps we should bump this thread until a Googler from the webspam > > > > > > > > > > team reads it ;)
> > > > > > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2:20 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Still here and fighting for a cure as others have found the medicine!
> > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to once again point out that many people inflicted with this > > > > > > > > > > > same penalty are being released, one very obvious site waswww.murraysworld.com > > > > > > > > > > > which Mark (owner) posted asking for help on these very boards.
> > > > > > > > > > > In a seperate blog where Matt Cutts posted (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/013423.html), Mark called out for help, > > > > > > > > > > > and with the help of Matt kindly offerring to take a closer look, > > > > > > > > > > > "I'll ask someone to check into the status of your reinclusion > > > > > > > > > > > request." Well less then a day later Mark was fully out of the penalty > > > > > > > > > > > as the thread reads. Keywords ranking back to where they were prior to > > > > > > > > > > > the penalty, domain name search back in it's rightful #1 spot, etc. I > > > > > > > > > > > can only imagine what he feels like.
> > > > > > > > > > > Also, the likes ofwww.gtahotels.comandwww.travel-ascending.comhave > > > > > > > > > > > been released from the penalty as well to name a few that the people > > > > > > > > > > > on these help boards are familiar with, and do also contain
I don't think it's the color code - it would be crazy to penalize a site this long for specifying an invalid HTML attribute. I agree, fixing the code and keeping 404's from happening would be a good thing, but I can't imagine that it would be penalty-worthy. Is there anything broken that could be misinterpreted as an attempt to do something bad? I didn't see anything like that...
It might not be the greatest site on the web, but I didn't see any real reason why it should be treated like this. It would have been so much easier for the owner to throw away the domain and start over new.. is that really how people should handle long-term penalties? Would the penalty transfer with a 301? (if so: it would be a simple way to penalize someone else's site) I can't imagine that Google would prefer people to do that, but if I were the site owner, I would have done it by now. 14 months? Come on, who would hold out so long and try so much to get rid of the penalty?
This is the only way I found to ask you a question.
Can you please see this thread - [http://groups.google.com/group/ Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_thread/thread/ 073cd3bd622ff6a7/0bfe9553944f253a#0bfe9553944f253a] I have a question about how the search results appear. See if you can answer this for me.
> I don't think it's the color code - it would be crazy to penalize a > site this long for specifying an invalid HTML attribute. I agree, > fixing the code and keeping 404's from happening would be a good > thing, but I can't imagine that it would be penalty-worthy. Is there > anything broken that could be misinterpreted as an attempt to do > something bad? I didn't see anything like that...
> It might not be the greatest site on the web, but I didn't see any > real reason why it should be treated like this. It would have been so > much easier for the owner to throw away the domain and start over > new.. is that really how people should handle long-term penalties? > Would the penalty transfer with a 301? (if so: it would be a simple > way to penalize someone else's site) I can't imagine that Google would > prefer people to do that, but if I were the site owner, I would have > done it by now. 14 months? Come on, who would hold out so long and try > so much to get rid of the penalty?
Attempted to get an educated reponse on Matt's blog regarding my case, but there are too many conspiracy theorist on there that can't comprehend that such a penalty does exist. Quite a dissapointment.
Can anyone comment on John's question?
"Would the penalty transfer with a 301? (if so: it would be a simple way to penalize someone else's site) I can't imagine that Google would prefer people to do that, but if I were the site owner, I would have done it by now."
Thanks for all the support you guys, good or bad it's much appreciated!
> This is the only way I found to ask you a question.
> Can you please see this thread - [http://groups.google.com/group/ > Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_thread/thread/ > 073cd3bd622ff6a7/0bfe9553944f253a#0bfe9553944f253a] > I have a question about how the search results appear. See if you can > answer this for me.
> Thanks, > Swordmouth
> On Jun 25, 11:55 am, JohnMu wrote:
> > I don't think it's the color code - it would be crazy to penalize a > > site this long for specifying an invalid HTML attribute. I agree, > > fixing the code and keeping 404's from happening would be a good > > thing, but I can't imagine that it would be penalty-worthy. Is there > > anything broken that could be misinterpreted as an attempt to do > > something bad? I didn't see anything like that...
> > It might not be the greatest site on the web, but I didn't see any > > real reason why it should be treated like this. It would have been so > > much easier for the owner to throw away the domain and start over > > new.. is that really how people should handle long-term penalties? > > Would the penalty transfer with a 301? (if so: it would be a simple > > way to penalize someone else's site) I can't imagine that Google would > > prefer people to do that, but if I were the site owner, I would have > > done it by now. 14 months? Come on, who would hold out so long and try > > so much to get rid of the penalty?
If you just dump traffic from a banned site to one URL on a clean site, that shouldn't hurt, but don't expect this URL will show a terrific performance on the SERPs.
If you OTOH create a mirror on an (old and formerly trusted / new / other) domain and 301 the banned stuff page by page to the clean domain, that might assign a dirty smack, regardless the owner info, because contents and structure of both sites are well known to Google.
If you 301 your banned sites to your competitor that's probably a waste of time and resources, as long as your competitors site lacks other negative signals. It may however work to some extent when you pedantically redirect your penalized pages to a somewhat related page on your competitors site, and your competitor's site is not squeaky clean, and you throw out a gazillion of spammy links pointing to your competitor's stuff, and ...
Of course, that's speculation. I'm fairly sure that Google is well aware of tactics like that, and I can think of a couple of ways to detect them.
> Attempted to get an educated reponse on Matt's blog regarding my case, > but there are too many conspiracy theorist on there that can't > comprehend that such a penalty does exist. Quite a dissapointment.
> Can anyone comment on John's question?
> "Would the penalty transfer with a 301? (if so: it would be a simple > way to penalize someone else's site) I can't imagine that Google would > prefer people to do that, but if I were the site owner, I would have > done it by now."
> Thanks for all the support you guys, good or bad it's much > appreciated!
> Nate
> On Jun 25, 5:45 am, SwordMouth wrote:
> > Hey John,
> > This is the only way I found to ask you a question.
> > Can you please see this thread - [http://groups.google.com/group/ > > Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_thread/thread/ > > 073cd3bd622ff6a7/0bfe9553944f253a#0bfe9553944f253a] > > I have a question about how the search results appear. See if you can > > answer this for me.
> > Thanks, > > Swordmouth
> > On Jun 25, 11:55 am, JohnMu wrote:
> > > I don't think it's the color code - it would be crazy to penalize a > > > site this long for specifying an invalid HTML attribute. I agree, > > > fixing the code and keeping 404's from happening would be a good > > > thing, but I can't imagine that it would be penalty-worthy. Is there > > > anything broken that could be misinterpreted as an attempt to do > > > something bad? I didn't see anything like that...
> > > It might not be the greatest site on the web, but I didn't see any > > > real reason why it should be treated like this. It would have been so > > > much easier for the owner to throw away the domain and start over > > > new.. is that really how people should handle long-term penalties? > > > Would the penalty transfer with a 301? (if so: it would be a simple > > > way to penalize someone else's site) I can't imagine that Google would > > > prefer people to do that, but if I were the site owner, I would have > > > done it by now. 14 months? Come on, who would hold out so long and try > > > so much to get rid of the penalty?
Thanks Sebastian for the detailed response, very interesting.
I would rather not take the 301 path, and rather fix/improve my site to get back to good standings and regained trust instead. Might seem like a losing battle but I have recently come across a site that was 18 months in the hole with this penalty/filter and was recently released, and they claim that it was without a reinclusion request.
> If you just dump traffic from a banned site to one URL on a clean > site, that shouldn't hurt, but don't expect this URL will show a > terrific performance on the SERPs.
> If you OTOH create a mirror on an (old and formerly trusted / new / > other) domain and 301 the banned stuff page by page to the clean > domain, that might assign a dirty smack, regardless the owner info, > because contents and structure of both sites are well known to Google.
> If you 301 your banned sites to your competitor that's probably a > waste of time and resources, as long as your competitors site lacks > other negative signals. It may however work to some extent when you > pedantically redirect your penalized pages to a somewhat related page > on your competitors site, and your competitor's site is not squeaky > clean, and you throw out a gazillion of spammy links pointing to your > competitor's stuff, and ...
> Of course, that's speculation. I'm fairly sure that Google is well > aware of tactics like that, and I can think of a couple of ways to > detect them.
> Sebastian
> On Jul 10, 3:11 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > Still here.. bump!
> > Attempted to get an educated reponse on Matt's blog regarding my case, > > but there are too many conspiracy theorist on there that can't > > comprehend that such a penalty does exist. Quite a dissapointment.
> > Can anyone comment on John's question?
> > "Would the penalty transfer with a 301? (if so: it would be a simple > > way to penalize someone else's site) I can't imagine that Google would > > prefer people to do that, but if I were the site owner, I would have > > done it by now."
> > Thanks for all the support you guys, good or bad it's much > > appreciated!
> > Nate
> > On Jun 25, 5:45 am, SwordMouth wrote:
> > > Hey John,
> > > This is the only way I found to ask you a question.
> > > Can you please see this thread - [http://groups.google.com/group/ > > > Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_thread/thread/ > > > 073cd3bd622ff6a7/0bfe9553944f253a#0bfe9553944f253a] > > > I have a question about how the search results appear. See if you can > > > answer this for me.
> > > Thanks, > > > Swordmouth
> > > On Jun 25, 11:55 am, JohnMu wrote:
> > > > I don't think it's the color code - it would be crazy to penalize a > > > > site this long for specifying an invalid HTML attribute. I agree, > > > > fixing the code and keeping 404's from happening would be a good > > > > thing, but I can't imagine that it would be penalty-worthy. Is there > > > > anything broken that could be misinterpreted as an attempt to do > > > > something bad? I didn't see anything like that...
> > > > It might not be the greatest site on the web, but I didn't see any > > > > real reason why it should be treated like this. It would have been so > > > > much easier for the owner to throw away the domain and start over > > > > new.. is that really how people should handle long-term penalties? > > > > Would the penalty transfer with a 301? (if so: it would be a simple > > > > way to penalize someone else's site) I can't imagine that Google would > > > > prefer people to do that, but if I were the site owner, I would have > > > > done it by now. 14 months? Come on, who would hold out so long and try > > > > so much to get rid of the penalty?
Gretting everyone.. I continue to add useful content daily and hope for the a release of the penalty/filter.. never give up!
I just went through a search here and found many of the old threads dealing with this topic have been erased, I even had them in my Google Groups favorites and they have all dissapeared. Hmmmm
I did manage to come across a discussion that I missed when it was active in May:
It seems that this individual had all the classic symptoms (4th page+ positioning, domain.com search, pr dropped to n/a, etc) and has now been released and with a quick glance traffic has returned pre-penalty stages and beyond. Since the thread is no longer giving access to reply to it or carry on a discussion, does anyone know what steps this person took to be released from the penalty? Seems he had found some poor outbound links - seems simple! Also, the fact that it contains many affiliate links along with adult content makes me re-evaluate how this penalty is imposed.
I hope everyone is doing well, I do come here almost daily and read the informative posts.
> Thanks Sebastian for the detailed response, very interesting.
> I would rather not take the 301 path, and rather fix/improve my site > to get back to good standings and regained trust instead. Might seem > like a losing battle but I have recently come across a site that was > 18 months in the hole with this penalty/filter and was recently > released, and they claim that it was without a reinclusion request.
> Thanks as usual for your input.
> Nate
> On Jul 10, 11:10 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > Theory:
> > If you just dump traffic from a banned site to one URL on a clean > > site, that shouldn't hurt, but don't expect this URL will show a > > terrific performance on the SERPs.
> > If you OTOH create a mirror on an (old and formerly trusted / new / > > other) domain and 301 the banned stuff page by page to the clean > > domain, that might assign a dirty smack, regardless the owner info, > > because contents and structure of both sites are well known to Google.
> > If you 301 your banned sites to your competitor that's probably a > > waste of time and resources, as long as your competitors site lacks > > other negative signals. It may however work to some extent when you > > pedantically redirect your penalized pages to a somewhat related page > > on your competitors site, and your competitor's site is not squeaky > > clean, and you throw out a gazillion of spammy links pointing to your > > competitor's stuff, and ...
> > Of course, that's speculation. I'm fairly sure that Google is well > > aware of tactics like that, and I can think of a couple of ways to > > detect them.
> > Sebastian
> > On Jul 10, 3:11 pm, Nate121 wrote:
> > > Still here.. bump!
> > > Attempted to get an educated reponse on Matt's blog regarding my case, > > > but there are too many conspiracy theorist on there that can't > > > comprehend that such a penalty does exist. Quite a dissapointment.
> > > Can anyone comment on John's question?
> > > "Would the penalty transfer with a 301? (if so: it would be a simple > > > way to penalize someone else's site) I can't imagine that Google would > > > prefer people to do that, but if I were the site owner, I would have > > > done it by now."
> > > Thanks for all the support you guys, good or bad it's much > > > appreciated!
> > > Nate
> > > On Jun 25, 5:45 am, SwordMouth wrote:
> > > > Hey John,
> > > > This is the only way I found to ask you a question.
> > > > Can you please see this thread - [http://groups.google.com/group/ > > > > Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_thread/thread/ > > > > 073cd3bd622ff6a7/0bfe9553944f253a#0bfe9553944f253a] > > > > I have a question about how the search results appear. See if you can > > > > answer this for me.
> > > > Thanks, > > > > Swordmouth
> > > > On Jun 25, 11:55 am, JohnMu wrote:
> > > > > I don't think it's the color code - it would be crazy to penalize a > > > > > site this long for specifying an invalid HTML attribute. I agree, > > > > > fixing the code and keeping 404's from happening would be a good > > > > > thing, but I can't imagine that it would be penalty-worthy. Is there > > > > > anything broken that could be misinterpreted as an attempt to do > > > > > something bad? I didn't see anything like that...
> > > > > It might not be the greatest site on the web, but I didn't see any > > > > > real reason why it should be treated like this. It would have been so > > > > > much easier for the owner to throw away the domain and start over > > > > > new.. is that really how people should handle long-term penalties? > > > > > Would the penalty transfer with a 301? (if so: it would be a simple > > > > > way to penalize someone else's site) I can't imagine that Google would > > > > > prefer people to do that, but if I were the site owner, I would have > > > > > done it by now. 14 months? Come on, who would hold out so long and try > > > > > so much to get rid of the penalty?
> > > > > What would you do if this was your site?
