> What is your problem? Why the high and mighty attitude and bullying? I
> suppose you never did anything wrong out of ignorance? Not everyone is
> as well versed in SEO as you but that is no reason to resort to
> sarcasm. Do you have any idea what we are going through here? Why the
> smug arrogance?
> Also, why tricked? They chose the designs with the link at the bottom.
> They CHOSE to use the designs. I tried to sponsor themes that are
> related to the links I wanted. I know it's wrong now, but did not
> consider it paid links, just sponsored themes.
> If all you have to add is sarcasm then thanks for your help thus far,
> hope you had plenty of fun at my expense. Jeez.
> On Feb 22, 8:33 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > You will have to contact every admin. who got tricked into using that
> > Wordpress template to rank your website(s) in Google.
> > > Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> > > are already out there?
> > > On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > > > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > > > reconsideration request.
> > > > Matt
> > > > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > > > Removed the forum
> > > > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > > > gotten.
> > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > > > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > > > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > > > > > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > > > > > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > > > > > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > > > > > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > > > > > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > > > > > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > > > > > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> Thanks Matt. How did you do that? what bit of the search string
> filters to include porn sites? is it the 'inurl:p' ?
> On Feb 22, 8:48 pm, ShyBoy wrote:
> > What is your problem? Why the high and mighty attitude and bullying? I
> > suppose you never did anything wrong out of ignorance? Not everyone is
> > as well versed in SEO as you but that is no reason to resort to
> > sarcasm. Do you have any idea what we are going through here? Why the
> > smug arrogance?
> > Also, why tricked? They chose the designs with the link at the bottom.
> > They CHOSE to use the designs. I tried to sponsor themes that are
> > related to the links I wanted. I know it's wrong now, but did not
> > consider it paid links, just sponsored themes.
> > If all you have to add is sarcasm then thanks for your help thus far,
> > hope you had plenty of fun at my expense. Jeez.
> > On Feb 22, 8:33 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > You will have to contact every admin. who got tricked into using that
> > > Wordpress template to rank your website(s) in Google.
> > > > Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> > > > are already out there?
> > > > On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > > > > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > > > > reconsideration request.
> > > > > Matt
> > > > > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > > > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > > > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > > > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > > > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > > > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > > > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > > > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > > > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > > > > Removed the forum
> > > > > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > > > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > > > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > > > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > > > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > > > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > > > > gotten.
> > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > > > > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > > > > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > > > > > > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > > > > > > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > > > > > > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > > > > > > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > > > > > > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > > > > > > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > > > > > > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Okay, enough piling on the guy from me, using -inurl and yahoo
sitexplorer are powerful tools, I do have one question though. How do
you machine teak? Any furniture I've built with the stuff eats
through blades, even carbide ones, like I'm cutting stone. The woods
expensive enough, then you throw in few table saw blades, a couple
router bits, shaper and planer knives and you've got yourself a $800
deck chair that will last forever but I could have bought at Home
Depot for $100. Just wondering.
> ok, i see. its just the last few pages that are porn. thanks for your
> help again.
> On Feb 22, 8:56 pm, ShyBoy wrote:
> > Thanks Matt. How did you do that? what bit of the search string
> > filters to include porn sites? is it the 'inurl:p' ?
> > On Feb 22, 8:48 pm, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > What is your problem? Why the high and mighty attitude and bullying? I
> > > suppose you never did anything wrong out of ignorance? Not everyone is
> > > as well versed in SEO as you but that is no reason to resort to
> > > sarcasm. Do you have any idea what we are going through here? Why the
> > > smug arrogance?
> > > Also, why tricked? They chose the designs with the link at the bottom.
> > > They CHOSE to use the designs. I tried to sponsor themes that are
> > > related to the links I wanted. I know it's wrong now, but did not
> > > consider it paid links, just sponsored themes.
> > > If all you have to add is sarcasm then thanks for your help thus far,
> > > hope you had plenty of fun at my expense. Jeez.
> > > On Feb 22, 8:33 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > You will have to contact every admin. who got tricked into using that
> > > > Wordpress template to rank your website(s) in Google.
> > > > > Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> > > > > are already out there?
> > > > > On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > > > > > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > > > > > reconsideration request.
> > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > > > > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > > > > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > > > > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > > > > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > > > > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > > > > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > > > > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > > > > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > > > > > Removed the forum
> > > > > > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > > > > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > > > > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > > > > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > > > > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > > > > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > > > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > > > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > > > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > > > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > > > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > > > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > > > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > > > > > gotten.
> > > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > > > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > > > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > > > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > > > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > > > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > > > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > > > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > > > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > > > > > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > > > > > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > > > > > > > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > > > > > > > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > > > > > > > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > > > > > > > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > > > > > > > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > > > > > > > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Exactly why teak furniture is so expensive. Not only does plantation
teak is extortionately high per trunk compared to pretty much any
other wood in the world, working with it is also costly for the same
reasons you mentioned.
What you need is an anti-heat coating on the saw (called DGK). A
carbide saw will be the next step up but you are talking very
expensive then.
The true answer though is that whatever you do, your tools will blunt
pretty much twice as fast as any other wood... if you are lucky.
It is simply not economical to work with teak on a small scale (as you
found out). Carbide saw will bring good results but at a price. It's
only worth it if you are planning large scale production.
> Okay, enough piling on the guy from me, using -inurl and yahoo
> sitexplorer are powerful tools, I do have one question though. How do
> you machine teak? Any furniture I've built with the stuff eats
> through blades, even carbide ones, like I'm cutting stone. The woods
> expensive enough, then you throw in few table saw blades, a couple
> router bits, shaper and planer knives and you've got yourself a $800
> deck chair that will last forever but I could have bought at Home
> Depot for $100. Just wondering.
> On Feb 22, 2:59 pm, ShyBoy wrote:
> > ok, i see. its just the last few pages that are porn. thanks for your
> > help again.
> > On Feb 22, 8:56 pm, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > Thanks Matt. How did you do that? what bit of the search string
> > > filters to include porn sites? is it the 'inurl:p' ?
> > > On Feb 22, 8:48 pm, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > What is your problem? Why the high and mighty attitude and bullying? I
> > > > suppose you never did anything wrong out of ignorance? Not everyone is
> > > > as well versed in SEO as you but that is no reason to resort to
> > > > sarcasm. Do you have any idea what we are going through here? Why the
> > > > smug arrogance?
> > > > Also, why tricked? They chose the designs with the link at the bottom.
> > > > They CHOSE to use the designs. I tried to sponsor themes that are
> > > > related to the links I wanted. I know it's wrong now, but did not
> > > > consider it paid links, just sponsored themes.
> > > > If all you have to add is sarcasm then thanks for your help thus far,
> > > > hope you had plenty of fun at my expense. Jeez.
> > > > On Feb 22, 8:33 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > You will have to contact every admin. who got tricked into using that
> > > > > Wordpress template to rank your website(s) in Google.
> > > > > > Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> > > > > > are already out there?
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > > > > > > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > > > > > > reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > > > > > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > > > > > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > > > > > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > > > > > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > > > > > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > > > > > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > > > > > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > > > > > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > > > > > > Removed the forum
> > > > > > > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > > > > > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > > > > > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > > > > > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > > > > > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > > > > > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > > > > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > > > > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > > > > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > > > > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > > > > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > > > > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > > > > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > > > > > > gotten.
> > > > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > > > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > > > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > > > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > > > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > > > > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
Why the sarcasm? Maybe because I sell a "garden product" online and
have been unfairly outranked for years buy those who cheat their way
into search. Tricking Wordpress users into ranking your sites was a
choice or should I say, a well planned calculation, you are lucky
Google allows you to repair the damage and file for reconsideration.
Let me give an example of how spammers hurt legit sites. I use
wordpress for my website, the other day I noticed that Google didn't
have my "sitemap.html" linked in the footer indexed... why? Most
likely because Google is forced to ignore footer links because of
people like you, this hurts my sites crawlability and messes up my
rankings.
Collateral damage doesn't make me mad at Google it makes me mad at
you!
> What is your problem? Why the high and mighty attitude and bullying? I
> suppose you never did anything wrong out of ignorance? Not everyone is
> as well versed in SEO as you but that is no reason to resort to
> sarcasm. Do you have any idea what we are going through here? Why the
> smug arrogance?
> Also, why tricked? They chose the designs with the link at the bottom.
> They CHOSE to use the designs. I tried to sponsor themes that are
> related to the links I wanted. I know it's wrong now, but did not
> consider it paid links, just sponsored themes.
> If all you have to add is sarcasm then thanks for your help thus far,
> hope you had plenty of fun at my expense. Jeez.
> On Feb 22, 8:33 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > You will have to contact every admin. who got tricked into using that
> > Wordpress template to rank your website(s) in Google.
> > > Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> > > are already out there?
> > > On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > > > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > > > reconsideration request.
> > > > Matt
> > > > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > > > Removed the forum
> > > > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > > > gotten.
> > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > > > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > > > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > > > > > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > > > > > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > > > > > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > > > > > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > > > > > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > > > > > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > > > > > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
If what Matt Cutts says is right, then the benefit from the
"unnatural" accumulation of links has been negated and the sites
ranking has been reduced due to the lack of 'link juice' that it was
getting from those links.
If those links are now removed from the sites that they are on, how is
that going to help the ranking of the site?
We certainly don't know for sure. If only the PageRank passing
ability of the sites that sold the links was just devalued, then
nothing will come of a reconsideration request. On the other hand, we
don't know, and they aren't telling, how penalties are doled out to
the site that bought the links ( I really hope this thread doesn't
devolve into yet another circular discussion on Google devining intent
and how they can't prove who bought the links, yada yada, blah
blah) . Maybe they include a reduction in rank factor such that the
remaining natural rankings are dropped 50 spots, 37, 18.3, or any
other magical formula.
Considering the cost of filing a reconsideration request is still
quite reasonable, I would do just that.
> If what Matt Cutts says is right, then the benefit from the
> "unnatural" accumulation of links has been negated and the sites
> ranking has been reduced due to the lack of 'link juice' that it was
> getting from those links.
> If those links are now removed from the sites that they are on, how is
> that going to help the ranking of the site?
Well, funnily enough I have been outranked for 2 years by box shifters
whose only concern is to sell furniture by the volume. That is when I
decided that I must be doing something wrong. Go have a look at the
results for 'garden furniture' and then tell me which one of the sites
you see there has not got some form of action that breaks the Google
t&c? So, we had only two choices do some SEO to compete or die. Which
would you choose?
Still not answered my question as to why and where have I tricked the
wordpress users? They downloaded the themes because they liked them.
The links are not hidden in any way, so unless they are blind, they
would have used the themes with the full knowledge of the links being
there.
Please leave me alone now; I have no further interest in discussing
anything with you anymore or getting into a personal dirt slinging
match which is obviously what you are looking for. Go bully someone
else with your higher then though attitude.
> Why the sarcasm? Maybe because I sell a "garden product" online and
> have been unfairly outranked for years buy those who cheat their way
> into search. Tricking Wordpress users into ranking your sites was a
> choice or should I say, a well planned calculation, you are lucky
> Google allows you to repair the damage and file for reconsideration.
> Let me give an example of how spammers hurt legit sites. I use
> wordpress for my website, the other day I noticed that Google didn't
> have my "sitemap.html" linked in the footer indexed... why? Most
> likely because Google is forced to ignore footer links because of
> people like you, this hurts my sites crawlability and messes up my
> rankings.
> Collateral damage doesn't make me mad at Google it makes me mad at
> you!
> On Feb 22, 3:48 pm, ShyBoy wrote:
> > What is your problem? Why the high and mighty attitude and bullying? I
> > suppose you never did anything wrong out of ignorance? Not everyone is
> > as well versed in SEO as you but that is no reason to resort to
> > sarcasm. Do you have any idea what we are going through here? Why the
> > smug arrogance?
> > Also, why tricked? They chose the designs with the link at the bottom.
> > They CHOSE to use the designs. I tried to sponsor themes that are
> > related to the links I wanted. I know it's wrong now, but did not
> > consider it paid links, just sponsored themes.
> > If all you have to add is sarcasm then thanks for your help thus far,
> > hope you had plenty of fun at my expense. Jeez.
> > On Feb 22, 8:33 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > You will have to contact every admin. who got tricked into using that
> > > Wordpress template to rank your website(s) in Google.
> > > > Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> > > > are already out there?
> > > > On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > > > > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > > > > reconsideration request.
> > > > > Matt
> > > > > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > > > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > > > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > > > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > > > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > > > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > > > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > > > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > > > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > > > > Removed the forum
> > > > > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > > > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > > > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > > > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > > > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > > > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > > > > gotten.
> > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > > > > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > > > > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > > > > > > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive
> Well, funnily enough I have been outranked for 2 years by box shifters
> whose only concern is to sell furniture by the volume. That is when I
> decided that I must be doing something wrong. Go have a look at the
> results for 'garden furniture' and then tell me which one of the sites
> you see there has not got some form of action that breaks the Google
> t&c? So, we had only two choices do some SEO to compete or die. Which
> would you choose?
> Still not answered my question as to why and where have I tricked the
> wordpress users? They downloaded the themes because they liked them.
> The links are not hidden in any way, so unless they are blind, they
> would have used the themes with the full knowledge of the links being
> there.
> Please leave me alone now; I have no further interest in discussing
> anything with you anymore or getting into a personal dirt slinging
> match which is obviously what you are looking for. Go bully someone
> else with your higher then though attitude.
> On Feb 22, 10:17 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > Why the sarcasm? Maybe because I sell a "garden product" online and
> > have been unfairly outranked for years buy those who cheat their way
> > into search. Tricking Wordpress users into ranking your sites was a
> > choice or should I say, a well planned calculation, you are lucky
> > Google allows you to repair the damage and file for reconsideration.
> > Let me give an example of how spammers hurt legit sites. I use
> > wordpress for my website, the other day I noticed that Google didn't
> > have my "sitemap.html" linked in the footer indexed... why? Most
> > likely because Google is forced to ignore footer links because of
> > people like you, this hurts my sites crawlability and messes up my
> > rankings.
> > Collateral damage doesn't make me mad at Google it makes me mad at
> > you!
> > On Feb 22, 3:48 pm, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > What is your problem? Why the high and mighty attitude and bullying? I
> > > suppose you never did anything wrong out of ignorance? Not everyone is
> > > as well versed in SEO as you but that is no reason to resort to
> > > sarcasm. Do you have any idea what we are going through here? Why the
> > > smug arrogance?
> > > Also, why tricked? They chose the designs with the link at the bottom.
> > > They CHOSE to use the designs. I tried to sponsor themes that are
> > > related to the links I wanted. I know it's wrong now, but did not
> > > consider it paid links, just sponsored themes.
> > > If all you have to add is sarcasm then thanks for your help thus far,
> > > hope you had plenty of fun at my expense. Jeez.
> > > On Feb 22, 8:33 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > You will have to contact every admin. who got tricked into using that
> > > > Wordpress template to rank your website(s) in Google.
> > > > > Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> > > > > are already out there?
> > > > > On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > > > > > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > > > > > reconsideration request.
> > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > > > > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > > > > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > > > > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > > > > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > > > > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > > > > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > > > > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > > > > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > > > > > Removed the forum
> > > > > > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > > > > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > > > > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > > > > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > > > > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > > > > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > > > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > > > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > > > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > > > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > > > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > > > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > > > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > > > > > gotten.
> > > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > > > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > > > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > > > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > > > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > > > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > > > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > > > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I
ok, i have written a draft email requesting the removal of the links
and im going to spend as long as it takes to try and get as many of
these links removed. Thanks for your advice.
> > > Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> > > are already out there?
> > > On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > > > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > > > reconsideration request.
> > > > Matt
> > > > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > > > Removed the forum
> > > > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > > > gotten.
> > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > > > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > > > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > > > > > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > > > > > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > > > > > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > > > > > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > > > > > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > > > > > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > > > > > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Don't ask why. Aaron did not point that out. If you do not take the
gracious advice you were given, then maybe you don't deserve to be
back. Get rid of the themes totally or don't put your link on it. Take
it as a lesson well learned:). Besides, you have an excellent site. No
need to do that.
> > Well, funnily enough I have been outranked for 2 years by box shifters
> > whose only concern is to sell furniture by the volume. That is when I
> > decided that I must be doing something wrong. Go have a look at the
> > results for 'garden furniture' and then tell me which one of the sites
> > you see there has not got some form of action that breaks the Google
> > t&c? So, we had only two choices do some SEO to compete or die. Which
> > would you choose?
> > Still not answered my question as to why and where have I tricked the
> > wordpress users? They downloaded the themes because they liked them.
> > The links are not hidden in any way, so unless they are blind, they
> > would have used the themes with the full knowledge of the links being
> > there.
> > Please leave me alone now; I have no further interest in discussing
> > anything with you anymore or getting into a personal dirt slinging
> > match which is obviously what you are looking for. Go bully someone
> > else with your higher then though attitude.
> > On Feb 22, 10:17 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > Why the sarcasm? Maybe because I sell a "garden product" online and
> > > have been unfairly outranked for years buy those who cheat their way
> > > into search. Tricking Wordpress users into ranking your sites was a
> > > choice or should I say, a well planned calculation, you are lucky
> > > Google allows you to repair the damage and file for reconsideration.
> > > Let me give an example of how spammers hurt legit sites. I use
> > > wordpress for my website, the other day I noticed that Google didn't
> > > have my "sitemap.html" linked in the footer indexed... why? Most
> > > likely because Google is forced to ignore footer links because of
> > > people like you, this hurts my sites crawlability and messes up my
> > > rankings.
> > > Collateral damage doesn't make me mad at Google it makes me mad at
> > > you!
> > > On Feb 22, 3:48 pm, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > What is your problem? Why the high and mighty attitude and bullying? I
> > > > suppose you never did anything wrong out of ignorance? Not everyone is
> > > > as well versed in SEO as you but that is no reason to resort to
> > > > sarcasm. Do you have any idea what we are going through here? Why the
> > > > smug arrogance?
> > > > Also, why tricked? They chose the designs with the link at the bottom.
> > > > They CHOSE to use the designs. I tried to sponsor themes that are
> > > > related to the links I wanted. I know it's wrong now, but did not
> > > > consider it paid links, just sponsored themes.
> > > > If all you have to add is sarcasm then thanks for your help thus far,
> > > > hope you had plenty of fun at my expense. Jeez.
> > > > On Feb 22, 8:33 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > You will have to contact every admin. who got tricked into using that
> > > > > Wordpress template to rank your website(s) in Google.
> > > > > > Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> > > > > > are already out there?
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > > > > > > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > > > > > > reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > > > > > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > > > > > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > > > > > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > > > > > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > > > > > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > > > > > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > > > > > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > > > > > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > > > > > > Removed the forum
> > > > > > > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > > > > > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > > > > > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > > > > > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > > > > > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > > > > > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > > > > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > > > > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > > > > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > > > > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > > > > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > > > > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > > > > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > > > > > > gotten.
> > > > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > > > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > > > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > > > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > > > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this was the case when
http://themes.wordpress.net/faq/ states to anyone downloading a theme
- 'You must provide attribution links to the original designer as per
the license you are using to distribute/re-distribute the theme. You
are expected to provide "visible footer links",
1. So if a competitor were to design a theme geared up for porno/
Viagra sites and stick a link to your site in it, then this form of
'unnatural link' building will I hope just be discounted otherwise it
would be grossly unfair for it to affect your legitimate links and a
method for spammers to hurt a legitimate site.
2. How many unwary webmasters know the full impact of creating themes
in wordpress? I nearly once published a theme as I thought at the time
the styling would be stolen anyway so why not at least earn some
traffic from it however luckily I never bothered. Never once at the
time did I think through the ramifications of unnatural link building.
BUT, how does that harm a site? All Matt Cutts said is that the 'link
juice' from those links has been stopped. To me, you just get no
benefit from those links .... thats a big difference to getting a
penalty for having those links. Links to a site are not supposed to
harm a site - at least that is what we get told repeatedly. But as JLH
said above, we do not know that for sure.
> http://themes.wordpress.net/faq/states to anyone downloading a theme
> - 'You must provide attribution links to the original designer as per
> the license you are using to distribute/re-distribute the theme. You
> are expected to provide "visible footer links",
> 1. So if a competitor were to design a theme geared up for porno/
> Viagra sites and stick a link to your site in it, then this form of
> 'unnatural link' building will I hope just be discounted otherwise it
> would be grossly unfair for it to affect your legitimate links and a
> method for spammers to hurt a legitimate site.
> 2. How many unwary webmasters know the full impact of creating themes
> in wordpress? I nearly once published a theme as I thought at the time
> the styling would be stolen anyway so why not at least earn some
> traffic from it however luckily I never bothered. Never once at the
> time did I think through the ramifications of unnatural link building.
i think you are right seo101 - maybe i am just a bit paranoid on this
issue.
I can see why Wordpress encourage footer links for copyright reasons -
its just unfortunate that a site can be artifcially ranked higher
without maybe realising their ranking was due to those links. Having
said that the webmaster console does give an indication of over
reliance on the same link source - albeit in a slightly cryptic
fashion.
Matt - In the following example you gave, "greece hotels" and "online
florist" footer links are ranking high in organic search, shouldn't
they also be thrown in the bin for bad behavior?
> > > Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> > > are already out there?
> > > On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > > > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > > > reconsideration request.
> > > > Matt
> > > > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > > > Removed the forum
> > > > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > > > gotten.
> > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > > > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > > > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > > > > > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > > > > > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > > > > > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > > > > > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > > > > > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > > > > > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > > > > > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Aaron, I did my own little analysis of the sites that are in the same
footer links, didn't want to say anything as I was pretty happy to see
Matt dropping in, and didn't want to ruin that by being contentious,
so I figured it be best to not rock the boat. Figured it would be
nice for him to write something and not have 300 people jump down his
throat about it. He could blog tonight that it's dark outside and
half the people would argue, the other half would want to know why
their PageRank dropped last July causing them to sell the kids, lay-
off all the dogs, and stop feeding the employees. But I
digress...that being said,we don't have all the information, <cough>
<cough> ,maybe they have 30,000,000 other real links somewhere
else. :)
> Matt - In the following example you gave, "greece hotels" and "online
> florist" footer links are ranking high in organic search, shouldn't
> they also be thrown in the bin for bad behavior?
> > > > Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> > > > are already out there?
> > > > On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > > > > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > > > > reconsideration request.
> > > > > Matt
> > > > > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > > > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > > > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > > > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > > > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > > > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > > > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > > > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > > > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > > > > Removed the forum
> > > > > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > > > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > > > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > > > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > > > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > > > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > > > > gotten.
> > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > > > > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > > > > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > > > > > > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > > > > > > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > > > > > > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > > > > > > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > > > > > > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > > > > > > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > > > > > > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> Aaron, I did my own little analysis of the sites that are in the same
> footer links, didn't want to say anything as I was pretty happy to see
> Matt dropping in, and didn't want to ruin that by being contentious,
> so I figured it be best to not rock the boat. Figured it would be
> nice for him to write something and not have 300 people jump down his
> throat about it. He could blog tonight that it's dark outside and
> half the people would argue, the other half would want to know why
> their PageRank dropped last July causing them to sell the kids, lay-
> off all the dogs, and stop feeding the employees. But I
> digress...that being said,we don't have all the information, <cough>
> <cough> ,maybe they have 30,000,000 other real links somewhere
> else. :)
> On Feb 22, 7:30 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > Matt - In the following example you gave, "greece hotels" and "online
> > florist" footer links are ranking high in organic search, shouldn't
> > they also be thrown in the bin for bad behavior?
> > > > > Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> > > > > are already out there?
> > > > > On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > > > > > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > > > > > reconsideration request.
> > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > > > > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > > > > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > > > > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > > > > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > > > > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > > > > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > > > > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > > > > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > > > > > Removed the forum
> > > > > > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > > > > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > > > > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > > > > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > > > > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > > > > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > > > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > > > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > > > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > > > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > > > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > > > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > > > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > > > > > gotten.
> > > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > > > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > > > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > > > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > > > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > > > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > > > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > > > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > > > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > > > > > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > > > > > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > > > > > > > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > > > > > > > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > > > > > > > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > > > > > > > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > > > > > > > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > > > > > > > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
ShyBoy, my guess is that Aaron was trying to help based on the idea
that your site was having proxy hijack issues, and issues caused by
sponsored/paid links are pretty far afield from that. The
recommendation from your SEO guy led you directly into a pretty high-
risk area; I doubt you really want pages like
http://www.fuckingfilthy.com/filthy-hardcore/amateur-black-teen-sex-f... having sponsored links to your furniture site anyway. It's definitely
possible to extricate your site, but I would make an effort to contact
the sites with your sponsored links and request that they remove the
links, and then do a reconsideration request. Maybe in the text of
your reconsideration request, I'd include a pointer to this thread as
well.
If you want to mention queries where you think there's sites that
shouldn't be ranking based on their links, I'd be happy to ask someone
to check it out. But bear in mind that just because you see some
spammy-looking backlinks to a competitor's site using a backlink tool
doesn't mean that those links are working. It could be the organic
links that are causing a site to rank.
Matt
> What is your problem? Why the high and mighty attitude and bullying? I
> suppose you never did anything wrong out of ignorance? Not everyone is
> as well versed in SEO as you but that is no reason to resort to
> sarcasm. Do you have any idea what we are going through here? Why the
> smug arrogance?
> Also, why tricked? They chose the designs with the link at the bottom.
> They CHOSE to use the designs. I tried to sponsor themes that are
> related to the links I wanted. I know it's wrong now, but did not
> consider it paid links, just sponsored themes.
> If all you have to add is sarcasm then thanks for your help thus far,
> hope you had plenty of fun at my expense. Jeez.
> On Feb 22, 8:33 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > You will have to contact every admin. who got tricked into using that
> > Wordpress template to rank your website(s) in Google.
> > > Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> > > are already out there?
> > > On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > > > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > > > reconsideration request.
> > > > Matt
> > > > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > > > Removed the forum
> > > > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > > > gotten.
> > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > > > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > > > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
> > > > > > > > > > found our serps are returning so on a positive note a proxy attack can
> > > > > > > > > > act as a wake-ip call to improve quality and cut out all the errors.
> > > > > > > > > > In the meantime finding out more detail of the proxy hijackers is
> > > > > > > > > > useful - as i found telephone calls and even a 'visit' acts as
> > > > > > > > > > deterrant from further attack.
> > > > > > > > > > As Robo points out the forum is a breeding ground for trouble - is it
> > > > > > > > > > really necessary to have one?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Aaron, apparently I am posting under the dome of silence, yet you
continue to be able to see my posts. :) Perhaps nothing I've added to
this thread has hit home, but I am curious to as whether or not having
forum links going out to malware installing sites is also something
one should write for reconsideration for, or is that just to be
expected given the weaknesses of forum software. Granted the false
link building is a problem, but I've always believed that on-site
factors were slightly more important in the judgement of a site (for
good or bad) and having such links to me would appear quite bad. If
you could ask that question of Matt I'd like to hear the answer for
future visitors-to-this-group's benefit.
> I am never mad at Matt and rarely challenge him but these Wordpress
> theme spammers annoy me, seeing them succeed annoys me even more!!!
> On Feb 22, 8:59 pm, JLH wrote:
> > Aaron, I did my own little analysis of the sites that are in the same
> > footer links, didn't want to say anything as I was pretty happy to see
> > Matt dropping in, and didn't want to ruin that by being contentious,
> > so I figured it be best to not rock the boat. Figured it would be
> > nice for him to write something and not have 300 people jump down his
> > throat about it. He could blog tonight that it's dark outside and
> > half the people would argue, the other half would want to know why
> > their PageRank dropped last July causing them to sell the kids, lay-
> > off all the dogs, and stop feeding the employees. But I
> > digress...that being said,we don't have all the information, <cough>
> > <cough> ,maybe they have 30,000,000 other real links somewhere
> > else. :)
> > On Feb 22, 7:30 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > Matt - In the following example you gave, "greece hotels" and "online
> > > florist" footer links are ranking high in organic search, shouldn't
> > > they also be thrown in the bin for bad behavior?
> > > > > > Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> > > > > > are already out there?
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > > > > > > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > > > > > > reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > > > > > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > > > > > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > > > > > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > > > > > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > > > > > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > > > > > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > > > > > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > > > > > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > > > > > > Removed the forum
> > > > > > > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > > > > > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > > > > > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > > > > > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > > > > > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > > > > > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > > > > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > > > > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > > > > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > > > > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > > > > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > > > > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > > > > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > > > > > > gotten.
> > > > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > > > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > > > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > > > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > > > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > > > > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page
I have already sent around 70 emails tonight. Will continue to do so
for as long as I can keep it up. The difficulty and time consuming bit
is actually finding the email address and half the time I am sending
it to an email address that I HOPE is the correct one from a whois
record.
Anyway, ill try not to let Aaron's childish smugness get in the way.
Obviously in his perfect world he never makes mistakes.
Thanks everyone for your help and advice. In a way it feels like a new
birth for the site. Thanks for the honest criticism and some of the
(few ;-) nice words about the site. And thanks Matt for taking the
time to respond to my queries. Its appreciated.
> ShyBoy, my guess is that Aaron was trying to help based on the idea
> that your site was having proxy hijack issues, and issues caused by
> sponsored/paid links are pretty far afield from that. The
> recommendation from your SEO guy led you directly into a pretty high-
> risk area; I doubt you really want pages likehttp://www.fuckingfilthy.com/filthy-hardcore/amateur-black-teen-sex-f...
> having sponsored links to your furniture site anyway. It's definitely
> possible to extricate your site, but I would make an effort to contact
> the sites with your sponsored links and request that they remove the
> links, and then do a reconsideration request. Maybe in the text of
> your reconsideration request, I'd include a pointer to this thread as
> well.
> If you want to mention queries where you think there's sites that
> shouldn't be ranking based on their links, I'd be happy to ask someone
> to check it out. But bear in mind that just because you see some
> spammy-looking backlinks to a competitor's site using a backlink tool
> doesn't mean that those links are working. It could be the organic
> links that are causing a site to rank.
> Matt
> On Feb 22, 12:48 pm, ShyBoy wrote:
> > What is your problem? Why the high and mighty attitude and bullying? I
> > suppose you never did anything wrong out of ignorance? Not everyone is
> > as well versed in SEO as you but that is no reason to resort to
> > sarcasm. Do you have any idea what we are going through here? Why the
> > smug arrogance?
> > Also, why tricked? They chose the designs with the link at the bottom.
> > They CHOSE to use the designs. I tried to sponsor themes that are
> > related to the links I wanted. I know it's wrong now, but did not
> > consider it paid links, just sponsored themes.
> > If all you have to add is sarcasm then thanks for your help thus far,
> > hope you had plenty of fun at my expense. Jeez.
> > On Feb 22, 8:33 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > You will have to contact every admin. who got tricked into using that
> > > Wordpress template to rank your website(s) in Google.
> > > > Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> > > > are already out there?
> > > > On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > > > > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > > > > reconsideration request.
> > > > > Matt
> > > > > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > > > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > > > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > > > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > > > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > > > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > > > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > > > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > > > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > > > > Removed the forum
> > > > > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > > > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > > > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > > > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > > > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > > > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > > > > gotten.
> > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy server itself may help prevent further
> > > > > > > > > > > attacks however you must check it is the proxy server you have blocked
> > > > > > > > > > > and not a visitor - a human or a robot that accessed your site via
> > > > > > > > > > > the proxy link that was indexed.
> > > > > > > > > > > A proxy attack of this nature i think can sometimes bring the
> > > > > > > > > > > attention of a closer scrutiny of your site by google. Previously
> > > > > > > > > > > Pages may have escaped their filters but because they have been
> > > > > > > > > > > recrawled and re-examined they are now subject to penalties. I am sure
> > > > > > > > > > > this was the case when we recently had a proxy attack as when i looked
> > > > > > > > > > > at some of our pages in finer detail i thought how the hell did i
> > > > > > > > > > > overlook that or why the hell did she put that in etc. Also i ran a
> > > > > > > > > > > check of ALL our pages at copyscape and was horrified to see how many
> > > > > > > > > > > times some text had been copied. Regretably your homepage when i ran
> > > > > > > > > > > it through copyscape churns up a lot of duplicate content found
> > > > > > > > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > > > > > > > I am afraid there is a lot of work ahead. I know i have recently been
> > > > > > > > > > > there and it requires a closer loook at EVERY single page on your site
> > > > > > > > > > > before thinking about filing for re-inclusion. Having re-styled,
> > > > > > > > > > > rephotograped and rewritten our homepage and all key level 1 pages i
I suggest that you just ignore any hurtful comments from anyone and
keep sharply focused on the main issue - that of protecting/developing
your site and its search engine results performance.
As already noted earlier, your site has many EXCELLENT qualities and
you need to build on those.
Pay particular attention to the comments of Google staffer Matt Cutts
- he is not only an authoritative source of great advice, he does not
often comment here. When he does, it's for a reason - an important
reason. Take the hint! Trust me!
On more mundane matters, I see that you have removed all your forum
pages and the 39+ forum-related URLs in the google results are now
getting 404 (page not found) responses from your web server.
I suggest that better than having so many pages getting a 404, it
would be better to 301 redirect to something helpful. Try, where
possible, to make the 301 permanent redirection to something related,
eg depending on which section of the forum the post was from or the
topic it was about. Like the one on "to teak oil or not to teak oil".
If you have to let them 404, I suggest that you create a custom-made
error page that helpfully tells the visitor what to do next, rather
than the "harsh" Apache standard error page.
> I have already sent around 70 emails tonight. Will continue to do so
> for as long as I can keep it up. The difficulty and time consuming bit
> is actually finding the email address and half the time I am sending
> it to an email address that I HOPE is the correct one from a whois
> record.
> Anyway, ill try not to let Aaron's childish smugness get in the way.
> Obviously in his perfect world he never makes mistakes.
> Thanks everyone for your help and advice. In a way it feels like a new
> birth for the site. Thanks for the honest criticism and some of the
> (few ;-) nice words about the site. And thanks Matt for taking the
> time to respond to my queries. Its appreciated.
> On Feb 23, 4:54 am, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > ShyBoy, my guess is that Aaron was trying to help based on the idea
> > that your site was having proxy hijack issues, and issues caused by
> > sponsored/paid links are pretty far afield from that. The
> > recommendation from your SEO guy led you directly into a pretty high-
> > risk area; I doubt you really want pages likehttp://www.fuckingfilthy.com/filthy-hardcore/amateur-black-teen-sex-f...
> > having sponsored links to your furniture site anyway. It's definitely
> > possible to extricate your site, but I would make an effort to contact
> > the sites with your sponsored links and request that they remove the
> > links, and then do a reconsideration request. Maybe in the text of
> > your reconsideration request, I'd include a pointer to this thread as
> > well.
> > If you want to mention queries where you think there's sites that
> > shouldn't be ranking based on their links, I'd be happy to ask someone
> > to check it out. But bear in mind that just because you see some
> > spammy-looking backlinks to a competitor's site using a backlink tool
> > doesn't mean that those links are working. It could be the organic
> > links that are causing a site to rank.
> > Matt
> > On Feb 22, 12:48 pm, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > What is your problem? Why the high and mighty attitude and bullying? I
> > > suppose you never did anything wrong out of ignorance? Not everyone is
> > > as well versed in SEO as you but that is no reason to resort to
> > > sarcasm. Do you have any idea what we are going through here? Why the
> > > smug arrogance?
> > > Also, why tricked? They chose the designs with the link at the bottom.
> > > They CHOSE to use the designs. I tried to sponsor themes that are
> > > related to the links I wanted. I know it's wrong now, but did not
> > > consider it paid links, just sponsored themes.
> > > If all you have to add is sarcasm then thanks for your help thus far,
> > > hope you had plenty of fun at my expense. Jeez.
> > > On Feb 22, 8:33 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > You will have to contact every admin. who got tricked into using that
> > > > Wordpress template to rank your website(s) in Google.
> > > > > Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> > > > > are already out there?
> > > > > On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > > > > > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > > > > > reconsideration request.
> > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > > > > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > > > > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > > > > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > > > > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > > > > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > > > > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > > > > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > > > > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > > > > > Removed the forum
> > > > > > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > > > > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > > > > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > > > > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > > > > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > > > > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > > > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > > > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > > > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > > > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > > > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > > > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > > > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > > > > > gotten.
> > > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > > > > > > up and included in the
ShyBoy - You might want to also send instructions on how to remove
footer links, most wordpress users will not know how to do this but it
is simple and can be shown in 3 easy steps. I am fine with being the
bad guy in this post if it wakes a few webmasters up! ;)
JLH - I can not answer for Matt or Google but let's look at an
example:
I am looking to repair the door lock on my VW Passat, for multiple
searches in Google the following great instruction page is at the top
of organic search:
Look to the bottom of that page at all the spam links. :)
So, it looks like Google tries to be gentle with comment/forum spam,
the only issue I have with those who are commenting their way to the
top of the index as I mentioned above in this post BUT yeah,,, as Matt
said, it might not always be the bad things that are getting spammers
good organic results. This I have issue with, at some point webmasters
who break the rules need to be thrown in the trash bin for good,
Google is waaay too forgiving!
You are a lucky guy to get attention and advice from Matt Cutts,
enjoy!
> Aaron, apparently I am posting under the dome of silence, yet you
> continue to be able to see my posts. :) Perhaps nothing I've added to
> this thread has hit home, but I am curious to as whether or not having
> forum links going out to malware installing sites is also something
> one should write for reconsideration for, or is that just to be
> expected given the weaknesses of forum software. Granted the false
> link building is a problem, but I've always believed that on-site
> factors were slightly more important in the judgement of a site (for
> good or bad) and having such links to me would appear quite bad. If
> you could ask that question of Matt I'd like to hear the answer for
> future visitors-to-this-group's benefit.
> On Feb 22, 10:21 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > I am never mad at Matt and rarely challenge him but these Wordpress
> > theme spammers annoy me, seeing them succeed annoys me even more!!!
> > On Feb 22, 8:59 pm, JLH wrote:
> > > Aaron, I did my own little analysis of the sites that are in the same
> > > footer links, didn't want to say anything as I was pretty happy to see
> > > Matt dropping in, and didn't want to ruin that by being contentious,
> > > so I figured it be best to not rock the boat. Figured it would be
> > > nice for him to write something and not have 300 people jump down his
> > > throat about it. He could blog tonight that it's dark outside and
> > > half the people would argue, the other half would want to know why
> > > their PageRank dropped last July causing them to sell the kids, lay-
> > > off all the dogs, and stop feeding the employees. But I
> > > digress...that being said,we don't have all the information, <cough>
> > > <cough> ,maybe they have 30,000,000 other real links somewhere
> > > else. :)
> > > On Feb 22, 7:30 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > Matt - In the following example you gave, "greece hotels" and "online
> > > > florist" footer links are ranking high in organic search, shouldn't
> > > > they also be thrown in the bin for bad behavior?
> > > > > > > Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> > > > > > > are already out there?
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > > > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > > > > > > > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > > > > > > > reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > > > > > > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > > > > > > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > > > > > > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > > > > > > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > > > > > > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > > > > > > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > > > > > > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > > > > > > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > > > > > > > Removed the forum
> > > > > > > > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > > > > > > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > > > > > > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > > > > > > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > > > > > > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > > > > > > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > > > > > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > > > > > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > > > > > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > > > > > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > > > > > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > > > > > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > > > > > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > > > > > > > gotten.
> > > > > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > > > > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > > > > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > > > > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > > > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > > > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > again, getting rid of the exchanged link scheme, should all be written
> > > > > > > > > > > > > up and included in the reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:51 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As Robo has pointed out there are other issues which may be the casue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the loss in the serps.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Blocking the IP of the proxy
> ShyBoy - You might want to also send instructions on how to remove
> footer links, most wordpress users will not know how to do this but it
> is simple and can be shown in 3 easy steps. I am fine with being the
> bad guy in this post if it wakes a few webmasters up! ;)
> JLH - I can not answer for Matt or Google but let's look at an
> example:
> I am looking to repair the door lock on my VW Passat, for multiple
> searches in Google the following great instruction page is at the top
> of organic search:
> Look to the bottom of that page at all the spam links. :)
> So, it looks like Google tries to be gentle with comment/forum spam,
> the only issue I have with those who are commenting their way to the
> top of the index as I mentioned above in this post BUT yeah,,, as Matt
> said, it might not always be the bad things that are getting spammers
> good organic results. This I have issue with, at some point webmasters
> who break the rules need to be thrown in the trash bin for good,
> Google is waaay too forgiving!
> You are a lucky guy to get attention and advice from Matt Cutts,
> enjoy!
> On Feb 23, 12:30 am, JLH wrote:
> > Aaron, apparently I am posting under the dome of silence, yet you
> > continue to be able to see my posts. :) Perhaps nothing I've added to
> > this thread has hit home, but I am curious to as whether or not having
> > forum links going out to malware installing sites is also something
> > one should write for reconsideration for, or is that just to be
> > expected given the weaknesses of forum software. Granted the false
> > link building is a problem, but I've always believed that on-site
> > factors were slightly more important in the judgement of a site (for
> > good or bad) and having such links to me would appear quite bad. If
> > you could ask that question of Matt I'd like to hear the answer for
> > future visitors-to-this-group's benefit.
> > On Feb 22, 10:21 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > I am never mad at Matt and rarely challenge him but these Wordpress
> > > theme spammers annoy me, seeing them succeed annoys me even more!!!
> > > On Feb 22, 8:59 pm, JLH wrote:
> > > > Aaron, I did my own little analysis of the sites that are in the same
> > > > footer links, didn't want to say anything as I was pretty happy to see
> > > > Matt dropping in, and didn't want to ruin that by being contentious,
> > > > so I figured it be best to not rock the boat. Figured it would be
> > > > nice for him to write something and not have 300 people jump down his
> > > > throat about it. He could blog tonight that it's dark outside and
> > > > half the people would argue, the other half would want to know why
> > > > their PageRank dropped last July causing them to sell the kids, lay-
> > > > off all the dogs, and stop feeding the employees. But I
> > > > digress...that being said,we don't have all the information, <cough>
> > > > <cough> ,maybe they have 30,000,000 other real links somewhere
> > > > else. :)
> > > > On Feb 22, 7:30 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > Matt - In the following example you gave, "greece hotels" and "online
> > > > > florist" footer links are ranking high in organic search, shouldn't
> > > > > they also be thrown in the bin for bad behavior?
> > > > > I can find tons of links ranking for the link text in these footers
> > > > > still, is it just impossible to keep up with brute force spamming?
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 12:33 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > You will have to contact every admin. who got tricked into using that
> > > > > > > Wordpress template to rank your website(s) in Google.
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply Matt, but how can i stop links from themes that
> > > > > > > > are already out there?
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 8:02 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Shyboy, those are good steps and I'd tackle them in earnest. After you
> > > > > > > > > feel comfortable about the paid links being gone, I'd do a
> > > > > > > > > reconsideration request.
> > > > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:50 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > ok, forum is now gone. I know it's a bit drastic, but I had no choice
> > > > > > > > > > and to be honest, it was a pain to moderate anyway for the amount of
> > > > > > > > > > users it had. It was only a way for us to quickly announce new
> > > > > > > > > > products etc with some extra pictures.
> > > > > > > > > > Matt, Yes, I have sponsored links and I honestly had no idea it was a
> > > > > > > > > > problem. I never actually bought a link from a high pr site just for
> > > > > > > > > > the sake of the PR. The amount of people sponsoring links without ever
> > > > > > > > > > saying they had any problems and a recommendation from my SEO guy led
> > > > > > > > > > me to believe it was not something that was wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > Removed the forum
> > > > > > > > > > Removed reciprocal links
> > > > > > > > > > Got rid of the proxy site
> > > > > > > > > > Sent emails to all the other sites copying us to remove text
> > > > > > > > > > Will never sponsor any themes ever again.
> > > > > > > > > > Anything else you can suggest?
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks everyone for all the great replies and advice up to now.
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > ShyBoy, have you been collecting backlinks in any unusual ways? It
> > > > > > > > > > > looks like you may have, and I would pay special attention to that.
> > > > > > > > > > > For example, if you had been attempting to get PageRank via paid links
> > > > > > > > > > > on various templates, then when that PageRank stops flowing (e.g. if
> > > > > > > > > > > Google improves its detection in various ways), the fact that you have
> > > > > > > > > > > less PageRank can also mean that a site won't rank as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > If that applies to you, my advice would be to pay special attention to
> > > > > > > > > > > that issue, in addition to the other good advice you've already
> > > > > > > > > > > gotten.
> > > > > > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:12 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks guys. If I remove the forum tonight, how long would you say it
> > > > > > > > > > > > will take for the site to return to normal? Aaron, you seem very sure,
> > > > > > > > > > > > can I take that as a definite?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Many thanks everyone, I feel much better now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:59 pm, Aaron Pratt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > JLH - Please warn people whn you link to malware sites, I clicked on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > one of those spam links and it tried to take over my computer. :(
> > > > > > > > > > > > > yes, that site is under a -SPAM penalty.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:48 am, JLH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect spammy links may have been a culprit here, some have been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > indexed:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This being said, anyone of those links that currently exist, or that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've already cleaned up could have triggered and automatic penalty
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from Google. Since the forum seems to be the problem, I'd get rid of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it, at least from a robots point of view and block the crawling (since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it uses session IDs is a good enough reason to not let a crawler into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cleaning up the spammy links, blocking the forum so it can't happen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > again, getting
Thanks Robbo. After some reading I see what you mean about the
redirect and I think I might be able to implement it myself. But,
where do the users find those links? I thought I removed them all? Or
are you saying there are some left over traces in Google index?
Aaron, Thanks for the suggestion. I am going to try and compile a list
of instructions and will include it with the batch for tonight.
Apologies if I was a bit 'ratty' with my responses to you. Trust me;
whether you think we deserve it or not, it has been an extremely hard
few weeks for my wife and me and in turn it's difficult shield the
kids from the stress this has caused. In a way, this thread has given
us some hope that at least there is a chance we can get the site back
and get the penalty removed.
In total I must have already sent over 270 emails. Over 100 have
actually responded favourably and have removed the links already.
(Quite surprised... thought they will just ignore the email to be
honest.)
When I do as many as I can, should I resubmit the re-inclusion request
EVEN THOUGH I already sent one last week thinking it was the proxy
problem? I would assume so, but don't want Google to get annoyed at
the number of requests coming from me.
Anyway, again, thanks for everyone's advice. There is no way I am
giving up on this site so expect to see it back soon. :-)
> I suggest that you just ignore any hurtful comments from anyone and
> keep sharply focused on the main issue - that of protecting/developing
> your site and its search engine results performance.
> As already noted earlier, your site has many EXCELLENT qualities and
> you need to build on those.
> Pay particular attention to the comments of Google staffer Matt Cutts
> - he is not only an authoritative source of great advice, he does not
> often comment here. When he does, it's for a reason - an important
> reason. Take the hint! Trust me!
> On more mundane matters, I see that you have removed all your forum
> pages and the 39+ forum-related URLs in the google results are now
> getting 404 (page not found) responses from your web server.
> I suggest that better than having so many pages getting a 404, it
> would be better to 301 redirect to something helpful. Try, where
> possible, to make the 301 permanent redirection to something related,
> eg depending on which section of the forum the post was from or the
> topic it was about. Like the one on "to teak oil or not to teak oil".
> If you have to let them 404, I suggest that you create a custom-made
> error page that helpfully tells the visitor what to do next, rather
> than the "harsh" Apache standard error page.
> The page itself is just a standard HTML page - what makes it special
> is a line or two in the .htaccess file in the root of your domain.
> If you need further help, just give us a shout!
> Good luck,
> Robbo
> On Feb 23, 8:21 am, ShyBoy wrote:
> > I have already sent around 70 emails tonight. Will continue to do so
> > for as long as I can keep it up. The difficulty and time consuming bit
> > is actually finding the email address and half the time I am sending
> > it to an email address that I HOPE is the correct one from a whois
> > record.
> > Anyway, ill try not to let Aaron's childish smugness get in the way.
> > Obviously in his perfect world he never makes mistakes.
> > Thanks everyone for your help and advice. In a way it feels like a new
> > birth for the site. Thanks for the honest criticism and some of the
> > (few ;-) nice words about the site. And thanks Matt for taking the
> > time to respond to my queries. Its appreciated.
> > On Feb 23, 4:54 am, Matt Cutts wrote:
> > > ShyBoy, my guess is that Aaron was trying to help based on the idea
> > > that your site was having proxy hijack issues, and issues caused by
> > > sponsored/paid links are pretty far afield from that. The
> > > recommendation from your SEO guy led you directly into a pretty high-
> > > risk area; I doubt you really want pages likehttp://www.fuckingfilthy.com/filthy-hardcore/amateur-black-teen-sex-f...
> > > having sponsored links to your furniture site anyway. It's definitely
> > > possible to extricate your site, but I would make an effort to contact
> > > the sites with your sponsored links and request that they remove the
> > > links, and then do a reconsideration request. Maybe in the text of
> > > your reconsideration request, I'd include a pointer to this thread as
> > > well.
> > > If you want to mention queries where you think there's sites that
> > > shouldn't be ranking based on their links, I'd be happy to ask someone
> > > to check it out. But bear in mind that just because you see some
> > > spammy-looking backlinks to a competitor's site using a backlink tool
> > > doesn't mean that those links are working. It could be the orga
|
