If you guys remember, this happened for my other site awhile back and everything just magically returned in a day or two.
What causes this?
Anyhow, you could say the site doesn't have any real backlinks other that from my own sites but I thought it was about keeping it real and taking time to write useful content? It just so happens people would rarely link to lawn care product sites, those doing the best in this area own HUGE networks of sites and crosslink in a greedy way, I don't BUT am tempted to do so if Google lets it continue.
If my ranking also does not return it is proof that those who play by the "guidelines" are being foolish.
Am I a fool? Can anyone find anything wrong with my site? I am very fond of it even if it only currently has a few pages, writing is tough work.
I know the source code is OK but as you can see the css is getting obliterated by the manner of showing a cached copy (which introduces some serious bugs in rendering).
Oddly your homepage is listed third in a site query, after /sitemap/ and /lawn-edgers/ . This may be significant... or not.
> If you guys remember, this happened for my other site awhile back and > everything just magically returned in a day or two.
> What causes this?
> Anyhow, you could say the site doesn't have any real backlinks other > that from my own sites but I thought it was about keeping it real and > taking time to write useful content? It just so happens people would > rarely link to lawn care product sites, those doing the best in this > area own HUGE networks of sites and crosslink in a greedy way, I don't > BUT am tempted to do so if Google lets it continue.
> If my ranking also does not return it is proof that those who play by > the "guidelines" are being foolish.
> Am I a fool? Can anyone find anything wrong with my site? I am very > fond of it even if it only currently has a few pages, writing is tough > work.
> I know the source code is OK but as you can see the css is getting > obliterated by the manner of showing a cached copy (which introduces > some serious bugs in rendering).
> Oddly your homepage is listed third in a site query, after /sitemap/ > and /lawn-edgers/ . > This may be significant... or not.
> On Jul 9, 9:37 pm, Admin Aaron wrote:
> > My most white hat / rule following site on lawn care products has > > currently lost all rankings.
> > If you guys remember, this happened for my other site awhile back and > > everything just magically returned in a day or two.
> > What causes this?
> > Anyhow, you could say the site doesn't have any real backlinks other > > that from my own sites but I thought it was about keeping it real and > > taking time to write useful content? It just so happens people would > > rarely link to lawn care product sites, those doing the best in this > > area own HUGE networks of sites and crosslink in a greedy way, I don't > > BUT am tempted to do so if Google lets it continue.
> > If my ranking also does not return it is proof that those who play by > > the "guidelines" are being foolish.
> > Am I a fool? Can anyone find anything wrong with my site? I am very > > fond of it even if it only currently has a few pages, writing is tough > > work.
> I know the source code is OK but as you can see the css is getting > obliterated by the manner of showing a cached copy (which introduces > some serious bugs in rendering).
Not surprising, it only gets mangled in IE6 and IE7, in Firefox, Opera, and Safari look fine. But then again, it looks fine in all those browsers when not viewed in Google's cache div.
Have you tried the same query across multiple Data Centers using the mult-DC search tool at oy-oy.eu? Along with that, what search terms are you expecting to do well with and what page(s) do you think most applicable or have shown up in the past?
> > I know the source code is OK but as you can see the css is getting > > obliterated by the manner of showing a cached copy (which introduces > > some serious bugs in rendering).
> Not surprising, it only gets mangled in IE6 and IE7, in Firefox, > Opera, and Safari look fine. But then again, it looks fine in all > those browsers when not viewed in Google's cache div.
> Have you tried the same query across multiple Data Centers using the > mult-DC search tool at oy-oy.eu? Along with that, what search terms > are you expecting to do well with and what page(s) do you think most > applicable or have shown up in the past?
I'm seeing your entrance page show up, across all Data Centers I checked, about 20 of them, for "Lawn maintenance tips" show up at #40. And since your site has pretty good PageRank, at least what is displayed, #40 is not too good.
I also did a single search for "Weed Hound - Lawn Maintenance Tips" and your site was not anywhere in the first 150.
About the only thing I can see is that checking copyscape, it seems the same 5 spam sites had copies of your pages at one point although when checking the actual pages, your content is no longer there. In any event though, those spam sites scrapping your content shouldn't have caused you any trouble.
I can't really see any reason for the problems you are having. :-(
> > > I know the source code is OK but as you can see the css is getting > > > obliterated by the manner of showing a cached copy (which introduces > > > some serious bugs in rendering).
> > Not surprising, it only gets mangled in IE6 and IE7, in Firefox, > > Opera, and Safari look fine. But then again, it looks fine in all > > those browsers when not viewed in Google's cache div.
> > Have you tried the same query across multiple Data Centers using the > > mult-DC search tool at oy-oy.eu? Along with that, what search terms > > are you expecting to do well with and what page(s) do you think most > > applicable or have shown up in the past?
> I'm seeing your entrance page show up, across all Data Centers I > checked, about 20 of them, for "Lawn maintenance tips" show up at > #40. And since your site has pretty good PageRank, at least what is > displayed, #40 is not too good.
> I also did a single search for "Weed Hound - Lawn Maintenance Tips" > and your site was not anywhere in the first 150.
> About the only thing I can see is that checking copyscape, it seems > the same 5 spam sites had copies of your pages at one point although > when checking the actual pages, your content is no longer there. In > any event though, those spam sites scrapping your content shouldn't > have caused you any trouble.
> I can't really see any reason for the problems you are having. :-(
> Craig
> On Jul 10, 8:19 pm, Admin Aaron wrote:
> > Craig - I was showing up on page #1 for pretty much all my page > > titles.
> > Now I am not even showing up for "Lawn maintenance tips" which is the > > name of the site.
> > Something is really wrong. :(
> > Having my sitemap indexed as the most important page sure is an > > indicator.
> > > > I know the source code is OK but as you can see the css is getting > > > > obliterated by the manner of showing a cached copy (which introduces > > > > some serious bugs in rendering).
> > > Not surprising, it only gets mangled in IE6 and IE7, in Firefox, > > > Opera, and Safari look fine. But then again, it looks fine in all > > > those browsers when not viewed in Google's cache div.
> > > Have you tried the same query across multiple Data Centers using the > > > mult-DC search tool at oy-oy.eu? Along with that, what search terms > > > are you expecting to do well with and what page(s) do you think most > > > applicable or have shown up in the past?
Did you check your server access logs to see if there were no errors when Googlebot accessed your home page and if the page size downloaded was the correct one?
I wouldn't know how to check server logs (well I have never looked) BUT I can tell you that things look good in webmaster tools and I just installed a fresh copy of wordpress with my chosen plugins after I tried to fix the link in <h1> to the website title, doh! I had to delete my database tables and upload and reinstall just because I tried to add a "/" on the end? Which is a whole new issue but most likely not related. :)
I am thinking it has to do with incoming links, it seems that sites with a robust number of incoming links get a stronger crawl if that makes any sense. I have never done any link building and "lawn care" does not take on natural links. In other words, even though my content may be good humans AND search engines do not know I exist or care to know if I exist. In other words, my site is a dead zone, a loser.
Everything I do is via "senses" so I really am clueless, something feels wrong and I think it is not on my end once again, so here I am hoping someone at Google will read this and take a look.
> Did you check your server access logs > to see if there were no errors when > Googlebot accessed your home page > and if the page size downloaded was the correct one?
> On Jul 10, 6:07 pm, Admin Aaron wrote:
> > Thanks, I will fix these things but still this is not reason to be > > completely thrown off the cliff right?
"Some people think that 30 or 60 days for an issue (hidden text, excessive reciprocal linking, or whatever else) is too little, and other people think that it's too much. We'll keep looking for ways to alert webmasters that their site may have issues so that they can correct them. In general if a site is not doing well in Google, that's a good time to take a step back and ask how incoming/outgoing links look, etc."
You may be in that whatever else category, but then he does highlight links again.
> I wouldn't know how to check server logs (well I have never looked) > BUT I can tell you that things look good in webmaster tools and I just > installed a fresh copy of wordpress with my chosen plugins after I > tried to fix the link in <h1> to the website title, doh! I had to > delete my database tables and upload and reinstall just because I > tried to add a "/" on the end? Which is a whole new issue but most > likely not related. :)
> I am thinking it has to do with incoming links, it seems that sites > with a robust number of incoming links get a stronger crawl if that > makes any sense. I have never done any link building and "lawn care" > does not take on natural links. In other words, even though my content > may be good humans AND search engines do not know I exist or care to > know if I exist. In other words, my site is a dead zone, a loser.
> Everything I do is via "senses" so I really am clueless, something > feels wrong and I think it is not on my end once again, so here I am > hoping someone at Google will read this and take a look.
> Aaron
> On Jul 10, 1:54 pm, cristina wrote:
> > Did you check your server access logs > > to see if there were no errors when > > Googlebot accessed your home page > > and if the page size downloaded was the correct one?
> > On Jul 10, 6:07 pm, Admin Aaron wrote:
> > > Thanks, I will fix these things but still this is not reason to be > > > completely thrown off the cliff right?
> Hi Aaron, as usual your site looks clean to me. Matt Cutts, who > doesn't participate here, recently said this about sites that loose > their ranking.
> "Some people think that 30 or 60 days for an issue (hidden text, > excessive reciprocal linking, or whatever else) is too little, and > other people think that it's too much. We'll keep looking for ways to > alert webmasters that their site may have issues so that they can > correct them. In general if a site is not doing well in Google, that's > a good time to take a step back and ask how incoming/outgoing links > look, etc."
> You may be in that whatever else category, but then he does highlight > links again.
> On Jul 10, 1:13 pm, Admin Aaron wrote:
> > I wouldn't know how to check server logs (well I have never looked) > > BUT I can tell you that things look good in webmaster tools and I just > > installed a fresh copy of wordpress with my chosen plugins after I > > tried to fix the link in <h1> to the website title, doh! I had to > > delete my database tables and upload and reinstall just because I > > tried to add a "/" on the end? Which is a whole new issue but most > > likely not related. :)
> > I am thinking it has to do with incoming links, it seems that sites > > with a robust number of incoming links get a stronger crawl if that > > makes any sense. I have never done any link building and "lawn care" > > does not take on natural links. In other words, even though my content > > may be good humans AND search engines do not know I exist or care to > > know if I exist. In other words, my site is a dead zone, a loser.
> > Everything I do is via "senses" so I really am clueless, something > > feels wrong and I think it is not on my end once again, so here I am > > hoping someone at Google will read this and take a look.
> > Aaron
> > On Jul 10, 1:54 pm, cristina wrote:
> > > Did you check your server access logs > > > to see if there were no errors when > > > Googlebot accessed your home page > > > and if the page size downloaded was the correct one?
> > > On Jul 10, 6:07 pm, Admin Aaron wrote:
> > > > Thanks, I will fix these things but still this is not reason to be > > > > completely thrown off the cliff right?
I'm now wondering if it isn't link related or maybe more accurately, a possibility that some of your inbound links have been discounted.
Of the 70 pages indexed, only about 33 of them are in the Main index, the rest being Supplemental but, there are some pages in the Supplemental index with a Toolbar PageRank of 6.
With only 70 pages and as high of PageRank as are shown for many pages, I find it hard to believe that there isn't enough aggregate PageRank to support a site 2 or 3 times the size of yours fully in the Main index.
But, since Google's internal PageRank is constantly being updated as well as the occasional "course correction" dealing with link evaluation but the Toolbar PageRank is constant between public PageRank pushes, it is possible for a page's actual PageRank to go up or down, internally, and nothing appear different externally other than a page possibly going into the Supplemental index.
Have you checked your site using the site: search command in the past and were the results different than what they are now? If so, how are they different?
Also, have you checked sites that link to you to see if they have had problems?
> I'm seeing your entrance page show up, across all Data Centers I > checked, about 20 of them, for "Lawn maintenance tips" show up at > #40. And since your site has pretty good PageRank, at least what is > displayed, #40 is not too good.
> I also did a single search for "Weed Hound - Lawn Maintenance Tips" > and your site was not anywhere in the first 150.
> About the only thing I can see is that checking copyscape, it seems > the same 5 spam sites had copies of your pages at one point although > when checking the actual pages, your content is no longer there. In > any event though, those spam sites scrapping your content shouldn't > have caused you any trouble.
> I can't really see any reason for the problems you are having. :-(
> Craig
> On Jul 10, 8:19 pm, Admin Aaron wrote:
> > Craig - I was showing up on page #1 for pretty much all my page > > titles.
> > Now I am not even showing up for "Lawn maintenance tips" which is the > > name of the site.
> > Something is really wrong. :(
> > Having my sitemap indexed as the most important page sure is an > > indicator.
> > > > I know the source code is OK but as you can see the css is getting > > > > obliterated by the manner of showing a cached copy (which introduces > > > > some serious bugs in rendering).
> > > Not surprising, it only gets mangled in IE6 and IE7, in Firefox, > > > Opera, and Safari look fine. But then again, it looks fine in all > > > those browsers when not viewed in Google's cache div.
> > > Have you tried the same query across multiple Data Centers using the > > > mult-DC search tool at oy-oy.eu? Along with that, what search terms > > > are you expecting to do well with and what page(s) do you think most > > > applicable or have shown up in the past?
The cache introduces bad bugs as far as validaiton is concerned.
But none wores than a div that gets opened just before the cached content is incldued. Take that silly div tag out and everyhting gets rendered as well as can be considering the garbage that's been aded at the top, before the doctype.
Why can't Google show the cached copy of a page in an iframe so as to preserve the display ????
> > I know the source code is OK but as you can see the css is getting > > obliterated by the manner of showing a cached copy (which introduces > > some serious bugs in rendering).
> Not surprising, it only gets mangled in IE6 and IE7, in Firefox, > Opera, and Safari look fine. But then again, it looks fine in all > those browsers when not viewed in Google's cache div.
> Have you tried the same query across multiple Data Centers using the > mult-DC search tool at oy-oy.eu? Along with that, what search terms > are you expecting to do well with and what page(s) do you think most > applicable or have shown up in the past?
It puzzles and suprises me that you had a number of pages 'totally disappear' from the index.. I know this is probably a given - but did you make sure that the filter was off? ie.. click on the 'google has not shown all your indexed pages' link at the end of your results?
I've never seen pages actually totally disappear (other than when you use the remove URL tool) like that and it is truly interesting.
> I'm now wondering if it isn't link related or maybe more accurately, a > possibility that some of your inbound links have been discounted.
> Of the 70 pages indexed, only about 33 of them are in the Main index, > the rest being Supplemental but, there are some pages in the > Supplemental index with a Toolbar PageRank of 6.
> With only 70 pages and as high of PageRank as are shown for many > pages, I find it hard to believe that there isn't enough aggregate > PageRank to support a site 2 or 3 times the size of yours fully in the > Main index.
> But, since Google's internal PageRank is constantly being updated as > well as the occasional "course correction" dealing with link > evaluation but the Toolbar PageRank is constant between public > PageRank pushes, it is possible for a page's actual PageRank to go up > or down, internally, and nothing appear different externally other > than a page possibly going into the Supplemental index.
> Have you checked your site using the site: search command in the past > and were the results different than what they are now? If so, how are > they different?
> Also, have you checked sites that link to you to see if they have had > problems?
> > I'm seeing your entrance page show up, across all Data Centers I > > checked, about 20 of them, for "Lawn maintenance tips" show up at > > #40. And since your site has pretty good PageRank, at least what is > > displayed, #40 is not too good.
> > I also did a single search for "Weed Hound - Lawn Maintenance Tips" > > and your site was not anywhere in the first 150.
> > About the only thing I can see is that checking copyscape, it seems > > the same 5 spam sites had copies of your pages at one point although > > when checking the actual pages, your content is no longer there. In > > any event though, those spam sites scrapping your content shouldn't > > have caused you any trouble.
> > I can't really see any reason for the problems you are having. :-(
> > Craig
> > On Jul 10, 8:19 pm, Admin Aaron wrote:
> > > Craig - I was showing up on page #1 for pretty much all my page > > > titles.
> > > Now I am not even showing up for "Lawn maintenance tips" which is the > > > name of the site.
> > > Something is really wrong. :(
> > > Having my sitemap indexed as the most important page sure is an > > > indicator.
> > > > > I know the source code is OK but as you can see the css is getting > > > > > obliterated by the manner of showing a cached copy (which introduces > > > > > some serious bugs in rendering).
> > > > Not surprising, it only gets mangled in IE6 and IE7, in Firefox, > > > > Opera, and Safari look fine. But then again, it looks fine in all > > > > those browsers when not viewed in Google's cache div.
> > > > Have you tried the same query across multiple Data Centers using the > > > > mult-DC search tool at oy-oy.eu? Along with that, what search terms > > > > are you expecting to do well with and what page(s) do you think most > > > > applicable or have shown up in the past?
Not wanting to hijack the thread, I'll answer your questions quick but if you want to go into it more, I can create another thread about it in the Random Chit Chat forum. Hopefully with the chances of it being hijacked GREATLY reduced now with the Russian Wolfhound no longer around, a discussion might actually be enjoyable. ;-)
> That's a really interesting experiment you ran.
That's a problem with the experiments I run, the results never surprise me.
> It puzzles and suprises me that you had a number of pages 'totally > disappear' from the index..
If you have a site with pages in the Supplemental index, check to see if all the pages are in the index whether Main or Supplemental. I haven't come across a site that I know first hand about that had pages in the Supplemental index and, didn't also have pages totally not indexed at all.
> I know this is probably a given - but did > you make sure that the filter was off?
Yepper.
> ie.. click on the 'google has > not shown all your indexed pages' link at the end of your results?
You mean "repeat the search with the omitted results included." thingy? Been there done that. All I got to show for it was a "&filter=0" tacked on to the end of the query string and an additional page shown.
That page being one which is also an experiment of its own in proving the same title/description does not mean Supplemental. Both pages are Supplemental now though but that is because the site is still recovering.
> I've never seen pages actually totally disappear (other than when you > use the remove URL tool) like that and it is truly interesting.
What is also interesting is watching numbers update across the datacenters. I've got one that I am actually considering contributing to oy-oy so that I can name it "Speedy" and another I am thinking of contributing to Google so that they will take the damn thing out and shoot the poor thing! :-()
If you want to talk about it more, drop me an E and I'll toss up a chit chat thread about it.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled program which asks the burning question at the front of lawn care specialists' minds around the world, "What the hell happened to Adam's site?"
> We now return you to our regularly scheduled program which asks the > burning question at the front of lawn care specialists' minds around > the world, "What the hell happened to Adam's site?"
It doesn't look like "smoke and mirrors" to me. Looks more like one person having two different sites with some times somewhat related but yet very different content and focus.
Checking backlinks in Yahoo, there aren't even that many links between the two and definitely not what I think could be considered "excessive".
What would seem more likely, at least to me, is the possibility that www.greenviewblog.com being one of the sites which has the most of the backlinks to www.lawn-maintenance-tips.com, may have had their outgoing links reduced in value for some reason and considering the number of them, could have caused a significant drop in PageRank if they were devalued to much of any extent.
Other than that, I'm not seeing much of anything concerning the same person operating two different sites and it also seems www.home2garden.org is still doing well in SERPs so if one site got nailed for being connected to the other than one would think both would take a dive.
I think the next Toolbar PageRank update will show more although who knows when that will be.
> It doesn't look like "smoke and mirrors" to me. Looks more like one > person having two different sites with some times somewhat related but > yet very different content and focus.
> Checking backlinks in Yahoo, there aren't even that many links between > the two and definitely not what I think could be considered > "excessive".
> What would seem more likely, at least to me, is the possibility thatwww.greenviewblog.combeing one of the sites which has the most of the > backlinks towww.lawn-maintenance-tips.com, may have had their > outgoing links reduced in value for some reason and considering the > number of them, could have caused a significant drop in PageRank if > they were devalued to much of any extent.
> Other than that, I'm not seeing much of anything concerning the same > person operating two different sites and it also seemswww.home2garden.org > is still doing well in SERPs so if one site got nailed for being > connected to the other than one would think both would take a dive.
> I think the next Toolbar PageRank update will show more although who > knows when that will be.
> > It doesn't look like "smoke and mirrors" to me. Looks more like one > > person having two different sites with some times somewhat related but > > yet very different content and focus.
> > Checking backlinks in Yahoo, there aren't even that many links between > > the two and definitely not what I think could be considered > > "excessive".
> > What would seem more likely, at least to me, is the possibility thatwww.greenviewblog.combeingone of the sites which has the most of the > > backlinks towww.lawn-maintenance-tips.com, may have had their > > outgoing links reduced in value for some reason and considering the > > number of them, could have caused a significant drop in PageRank if > > they were devalued to much of any extent.
> > Other than that, I'm not seeing much of anything concerning the same > > person operating two different sites and it also seemswww.home2garden.org > > is still doing well in SERPs so if one site got nailed for being > > connected to the other than one would think both would take a dive.
> > I think the next Toolbar PageRank update will show more although who > > knows when that will be.
