| 10:54 pm on Dec 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I presume if a website is banned the owner is considered evil? |
Then you presume wrong. But you will never accept that.
If a website was banned, it was because google is not interested in listing that site on their own site for some reason.
I myself do not list any of DerekH's sites (at least that I know of) and I am not expect toprovide any reason at all for my decision.
See SearchKing v. Google.
|Who are they referring to when they say "Don't be evil"? |
Oh yeah, I lied to you earlier. We never provide good answers here. This site is totally worthless. You really should consider some of those much more useful sites instead of wasting your valuable knowledge here.
| 11:01 pm on Dec 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|In fact I am wondering why our company website is not listed |
THEN READ THE EARLIER LISTINGS!
Your site crosslinks and is full of HTML errors. 100s of them!
| 12:10 am on Dec 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
cdnmarket, your original questions have been answered in the thread several times. Perhaps rather than beating a dead horse, it would be better to pose a new question such as, "What are the factors that are known to cause websites to be booted out of the serps?" Once you have a good handle on those, then you can see what you might have done that caused your current situation. This assumes that you don't already know, of course.
I'll offer a couple of items to start, (although having never been booted from G, I'm no expert): Hidden text; link-farming. Maybe you could add to that short list yourself?
| 12:49 am on Dec 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm stepping back into this just to let you know that my site is back in Google (front page) although a site: search returns the same bad links as they did early this morning. The dead site that I said was popping up again is now gone again so it looks like they may have fixed something. The cache date on my site is the 10th which is the same day I disappeared. I'm glad BigDave was right and that it was temporary. I've been gone for a day or two before but never at such a stressful time or at the end of such a bad string of occurrences. I'm just hoping that it stays there because I think I may just stroke out if anything else go awry.
| 1:20 am on Dec 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Some people don't WANT help ... they just want what they want when they want it ... and they want it all "THEIR" way! So be it!
Go on believing we are all negative and know nothing. Good luck to you and best wishes for a happy and prosperous holiday season! :)
| 1:23 am on Dec 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
glad to hear it oigeez2003!
Not to put a damper on things, but don't be surprised if it jumps in and out a few times.
Of course bouncing around a little bit is better than gone. Hopefully it will stay in the index more than it is out, ant that your holiday season is in the black.
And sorry about that first impression about us, but sometimes people get a little exasperated when talking to a brick wall.
| 2:04 am on Dec 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yup, it's already jumping around on the front page, but it does that normally so I'll just cross my fingers.
I was wondering, I had some text links to my other sites, with very little cross-linking. It's never been a problem before - any opinions? I could aways turn them into image maps instead...right?
| 2:54 am on Dec 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If you aren't doing it all over the place, and it is only a few sites, leave them be.
| 3:10 am on Dec 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Awesome - makes me feel a whole lot better. Thanks again -
| 3:47 am on Dec 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I generate some static html pages with program ,I just want to improve the speed of opening the page. G ban me. It's a mistake of google,I think.
| 10:29 am on Dec 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|cdnmarket: "Has anyone actually recieved reason to their website being banned directly from google? Has anyone recieved an answer as to when their website would be possibly unbanned if banned? Last but not least has anyone appealed their website for being banned." |
I don't believe this will ever happen (except in a few isolated cases). There are millions of pages on the web that don't conform with Google's quality guidelines, whether it be forms of cheating or just plain bad construction. Many of them, no doubt, either don't get into Google's index or get removed, mostly automatically rather than by direct human intervention.
If you were running Google, what would you do, other than to make clear what your quality guidelines are? Suppose you offered to inform webmasters when and why a site has been dropped. What would you do? You might do a full (free?) site appraisal and eventually be able to say "your site has been removed because it contains too many coding errors" or "you have too many pages with similar content" (or, as the Emperor said to Mozart, "too many notes").
What then? The webmaster does something about it and goes back to Google, but Google still isn't happy, so the webmaster does something more, and Google still isn't happy, and so it goes on... until maybe at some point the site/page is crawled and added to the index. But then a short while later the webmaster does something more to the site, taking it back outside Google's quality guidelines and it gets taken out of the index again and the whole cycle repeats itself.
Even if the site is re-added to the index, maybe the webmaster isn't too happy with its ranking and still believes the site is penalised in some way, so Google is contacted again, and so on and so forth.
Imagine these processes repeated perhaps billions of times a day, and the resources it would consume, not to mention who would pay for it. It simply isn't workable, even if Google was minded to do it.
I would imagine there will be a few cases where a webmaster is able to communicate directly with Google because the site is so important to Google that avenues are opened, but obviously your site isn't one of them, and neither is mine.
I can well imagine your frustration at your site not being in Google's index, but realistically, what would you do if you were Google? How would you make a webmaster feedback system work, and would it still be free of charge? Seriously, let's hear your detailed proposals.
| 11:36 am on Dec 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I guarantee you that Google could design a money-making operation around this. All they'd have to do is charge $99 (or more) and let people submit their site to a program that would scan their site and email them what the problems were that their spider was catching. The wouldn't even have to be specific if they didn't want to. I think what people fail to remember is that the majority of folks out there aren't professionals so they may be inadvertently doing things that seem intuitive or that they wouldn't think would be wrong - like cross-linking sites that they own.
If Yahoo can charge $299 for an express directory review without promising to add to the directory, then Google could come up with something as well that would satisfy everyone involved. They wouldn't have assure high ranking, but at least people would know why they were getting banned. When Google is boasting about indexing 8 billion plus pages it's a little hard to swallow why yours got banned when you have no idea why.
| 12:33 pm on Dec 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Out site was banned nearly 3 months ago. We think we know why but can never be certain. We have made changes. We did have some other niche sites that were cross linked. We have taken all these other sites down and looked closely at our main site and made changes to try and make sure there is no spam. Our business is on its knees because of the loss of traffic. Jobs have been lost. 6 years of creating a unique site with fantastic content all destroyed because of something a previous web master did. We have learnt our lesson the hard way. We deserve another chance and would happily pay Google for advice on getting us back in. There is bound to be a better fairer way for those site owners who did not know the rules better. I just wish Google would talk to us.
| 1:04 pm on Dec 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|All they'd have to do is charge $99 (or more) and let people submit their site to a program that would scan their site and email them what the problems were that their spider was catching. |
Sites already exist where one can do that for free: SIM spider and W3C's page validation service for example. Spidering probably isn't the main issue - it's indexing, where a page or site might, for example, contain too much duplication of content, or links to bad neighbourhoods, and all the other spammy things that are discussed regularly in this forum. The program you're suggesting is actually Google's algorithm and filters, and they're providing a feedback service to webmasters through their search engine.
Even Google might not be too happy that inadvertent and innocent errors on the part of ethical webmasters can result in sites disappearing for no obvious reason, but what is a practical solution in something that is essentially a giant contest?
| 7:57 pm on Dec 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>Some people don't WANT help
That's right, and some people may have ulterior motives if you read between the lines. ;-)
| 10:21 pm on Dec 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I think what people fail to remember is that the majority of folks out there aren't professionals |
And this is the major problem with the pay model, it favors those professional sites that are willing to pay repeatedly to stay on the "just legal" side of the line.
You example of the yahoo directory is a perfect example of the problems. Before they went with a pay to play model, it was a very useful directory. I would even say better than DMOZ because they were paying people to review the submissions in all areas.
Now, I only know of one out of a couple dozen not for profit sites that have applied for free inclusion that have made it in.
It isn't a grad student working on some cool new thing that is going to be paying google for site review, it will be the businesses. And google has always shown a preference for the grad student over the business.
| 11:26 am on Dec 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I came here to get answers regarding how a service could have rules or regulations with no accurate literature. |
cdnmarket - your lack of research is getting quite frustrating. Why don't you go and read Googles rules and regulations and literature at their website. How can you say it doesn't exist?
Start here: [google.com.au...]
Then read this - the Google 'Terms of Service' [google.com.au...]
I'd draw your attention to this little limitation in the terms of service:
|The Google Services are made available for your personal, non-commercial use only. You may not use the Google Services to sell a product or service, or to increase traffic to your Web site for commercial reasons, such as advertising sales. |
| 11:50 am on Dec 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am going to take this a step further and discuss the possibilities of this unpredictable ban practise.
Does google have these so called "Banned Websites" with notes to themselves regarding why the website is banned?
Would google just ban the IP, ban the domain name, without any notes whatsoever? Hard to say, something to think about.
I most certainly would feel more comfortable if google had an excuse for banning a website when asked why a website is banned, but also provided an answer for sure whether "yes or no". The unpredictable guessing will just make website owners get upset if they cannot find the problem. Who's to say a website isn't flawless, and there are no problems. What if a business purchases a domain name that has been banned? How does the business know? How would the business ever know if it was banned or not? This opens an incredible amount of questions and possibilities that are simply undisclosed.
| 12:00 pm on Dec 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I am going to take this a step further... |
Webmaster World is not Google or spokesperson for Google, even though this forum has given you many free answers from Googlewatchers with a lot of experience.
Did you actually read Chris_D's post? That, really, is all that needs to be said on the matter.
| 12:11 pm on Dec 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
What if you feel your website does abide by the rules and regulations, and is banned with no reason?
Where does it say timelengths regarding bans?
How do we even know if its banned or not?
Are we supposed to sit here with our fingers crossed?
These are the questions and concerns I am sure many have. In relation to this banning technique, there are MANY more questions about HOW the banning is done.
As I stated above, I would simply guess there would be notes regarding why the website was banned in their records?
The banning creates a lot of "What Ifs" and not enough facts, or public information. Regardless of which company or size of company that exists, google does or does not provide the answers to why a website is banned?
Not many can answer these questions with full explanations or answers it seems, which leaves anyone guessing. Some sort of answers to the public should be a priority instead of working on new "features".
Its just a matter of time before this issue becomes public, noone really knows that this problem exists.
If the wrong company gets banned with no reasons, it may have a large impact. Thats usually how changes get made, someone has to bark loud enough.
| 12:38 pm on Dec 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|As I stated above, I would simply guess |
Please don't - we try to be more professional here than that...
| 12:44 pm on Dec 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|What if you feel your website does abide by the rules and regulations, and is banned with no reason? |
Rather than talk in airy-fairy generalisms, if you are still harping on about the site I can deduce from your profile, it's still got 15 HTML errors on the homepage, and 88 errors on the one other page I tried.
I think you need to qualify "for no reason" in the above, if the site that seems to irk you is going to stay unmodified.
Sorry - we're all trying to help here, and you ignore everything we say. Yes you might feel your site is banned for no reason, but we've given you reasons and you won't even consider them.
What sort of help did you expect from this forum?
| 1:04 pm on Dec 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|As I stated above, I would simply guess there would be notes regarding why the website was banned in their records? |
So cdnmarket, do you actually have proof that Googlebot leaves little postit notes lying around the 'Plex with reasons for why each site is 'banned'?
Can I give you yet another tip?
|Your page was manually removed from our index, because it did not conform with the quality standards necessary to assign accurate PageRank. We will not comment on the individual reasons a page was removed and we do not offer an exhaustive list of practices that can cause removal. However, certain actions such as cloaking, writing text that can be seen by search engines but not by users, or setting up pages/links with the sole purpose of fooling search engines may result in permanent removal from our index. If you think your site may fall into this category, you might try 'cleaning up' the page and sending a re-inclusion request to firstname.lastname@example.org. We do not make any guarantees about if or when we will re-include your site. |
Is there any particular aspect of this paragraph which requires any further explanation?
| 1:14 pm on Dec 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Chris_D the site had a pagerank of "6".
The html code is all good and was good when it was removed.
| 1:45 pm on Dec 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It isn't common to have a site banned for bad html code, (or else there'd be 1 billion pages indexed, not 8 billion), so...
cdnmarket, are you truly telling us that you have no idea why it was banned? No cloaking, no hidden text, no dodgy linking, no doorway pages, no nothing that would cause it? So far through this thread, you've mostly avoided talking about why you might be banned, just the unjustness of it. Let's get down to the nitty-gritty... are you sure your site is squeaky clean? If GoogleGuy were to suddenly appear and offer to have a look at it, would he be as baffled as you claim to be, as to why it disappeared entirely?
| 1:52 pm on Dec 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|The html code is all good and was good when it was removed |
Then I apologise to those on this forum for my wasting bandwidth.
The site I was led to believe was the site in question has, 20 minutes ago, failed the W3C validation *again*. I can only assume that cdnmarket is not talking about the same site I was led to believe he was.
Rather than be called a liar by cdnmarket, I'll assume that he's got another site that's banned but that has perfectly good HTML code.
Sorry everyone for the obfuscation.
| 1:53 pm on Dec 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Apparently. So far, there have been over 150 posts in the 2 separate threads cdnmarket has started on this issue - and still no idea.....
[edited by: Chris_D at 1:56 pm (utc) on Dec. 14, 2004]
| 1:54 pm on Dec 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You keep saying your code was good, yet people are telling you it wasn't. You refuse to listen.
If you actually listened and accepted that other people know more about this than you do, your problems would have been fixed by now. Then your re-inclusion in the google db would be imminent. But you choose not to listen and learn.
Why? What is your real motive?
| 1:56 pm on Dec 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Our website was doing very well in regards to traffic, and our website was based on something very competitive. We still have decent traffic, and the same viewers and new viewers coming back however we have dissapeared in google for some strange reason. Yet our site is in all the other search engines.
Under certain search criteria in other search engines we appear ontop of google.
| 2:00 pm on Dec 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Here we go in circles again.
| 2:07 pm on Dec 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Could it be cheap bots? Haven't ruled that out *lol* (kidding)
MSN and Yahoo seems to work. Odd... The best thing to do is not sit around talking about it, and continue doing business elsewhere. Until I see the site being crawled I will have to assume it is banned considering the html code is good and always was good when it was crawled (hasn't changed really).
| This 101 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 101 ( 1 2  4 ) > > |