> 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:

> >http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:r7iJxoTglK8J:www.farawayfurnitur...

> >http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu.q0575HpkQApt9XNyoA?p=-asdfa...

> >http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Afarawayf...

> > So I looked on your site for other links that actually exist today:

> >http://zelnorm.idoo.com/vaigra/

> > is onhttp://www.farawayfurniture.co.uk/forum/memberlist.php?sid=6e9ef35efc......

> >http://view-videos6.about.tc/(whichredirects and then tries to
> > install malware)

> > is on:

> >http://www.farawayfurniture.co.uk/forum/memberlist.php?sid=6e9ef35efc......

> >http://freepornshare.net/

> > is on:

> >http://www.farawayfurniture.co.uk/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&...

> >http://bear0porn72.greatnow.com/

> > is on:http://www.farawayfurniture.co.uk/forum/memberlist.php?sid=6e9ef35efc......

> >http://air908.airbiz1.info/(anothermalware site)

> > is on:

> >http://www.farawayfurniture.co.uk/forum/memberlist.php?sid=6e9ef35efc......

> > 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 -