homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 107.20.34.144
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 77 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 77 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
What Google said about my PR penalty...
I just wouldn't let it lie.
CromeYellow

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 1:12 am on Aug 5, 2002 (gmt 0)

Hey ya'll, how's tricks?

It's been a while since I noticed any posts on my pet peeve, the PR0 penalty, so I thought I'd let you know what a real live human at Google said about one of my site's PR penalty.

Background

In case you didn't know by now, I've had the classic PR penalty since last November on the site in my profile. There's more history here...
[webmasterworld.com...]

The Reply

Anyway, I finally emailed Google this month, and much to my amazement, I got a reply within a week!

Noting the rules on not reprinting emails, I'll paraphrase what they said for you:

Me: Mt site's been penalised! Why?

Googs: Nah, your site's already listed.

Me: Thanks, but that's not what I meant - here's what I meant - yada yada...

Googs: We've had a look at our logs (!) and you're not penalised. You've got a pagerank of 3.

Me: Thanks again, but that's just plain silly, I've got loads of links from high PR pages. Before the penalty I was PR 6.

Googs: Here's a big autoresponse, go away politely.

And that's all folks!

The Conclusions

1) Unless there is some problem with my site that I am not seeing, it only warrants a Pagerank 3 (now 2) in Google!

2) Or, the guy at Google got it wrong. Don't misunderstand me, I'm pleased that Google replied at all - after all, theirs is a free service, and I have no 'right' to traffic from them.

But it still looks like they got it wrong. No?

Strangely enough, it looks a lot like PageRankOne's reply about his penalty [webmasterworld.com].

Does Google know what's going on with it's own index?

Best of luck to anyone holding out for recovery.

All the best

Cy

 

Crazy_Fool

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 4:10 am on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

chromeyellow
i'm not being rude here, but IMO, PR3 is probably right for your site. you don't have many pages on your site and the vast majority of inbound links to your site look to me to be worth very little because of the sheer number of links on the pages.

i seem to remember something about the PR you gain from an inbound link will be a share of the PR for that links page rather than the full value of it - for example, a PR4 links page with 100 outbound links may be worth less than a PR3 with 1 outbound link.

i'd guess that your previous PR6 was due to the number of inbound links and that the drop to PR3 was caused by google changing their filters to ignore poor quality inbound links. the drop certainly happened around the time that google were playing with those filters.

i'd suggest adding a lot more pages to your site, adding a "link to us" thing and a "mail this page to a friend" thing to try and get those visitors you do have to spread the word and maybe link to your site. of course, you need visitors to start with so try getting a bit of traffic from ppc listings over the next few months.

keep working on the site and things will pick up.

CromeYellow

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 4:31 am on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

Crazy_fool

I tell you what, I'd be genuinely glad if I thought that was the case, but I seriously doubt it.

I have other sites with less content, fewer links, from lower PR'd pages with pageranks of between 4 and 6.

Currently my index page has a pagerank of 2. I simply cannot believe that is an accurate, non-penalised PR for a site that has at least 50 incoming links, with at least 3 of them from PR6 pages, including Yahoo, ODP and the Google directory.

If you still think PR2 (or 3) is right, please tell me. At least then I'll be able to rest in peace ;)

martinibuster

WebmasterWorld Administrator martinibuster us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 5:29 am on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

If your site isn't lily white now, it makes me wonder how it was before Google penalized it. It's disengenous to boo-hoo your pr when it's probably where it should be, according to the previous posts, regardless of where your other sites may be.

You got busted, you're paying the price. Sometimes all we can do is take it like a man. And that's that.

[edited by: martinibuster at 5:31 am (utc) on Aug. 6, 2002]

nutsandbolts

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 5:30 am on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

Yes, penalities are rare. But come on everyone, it's obvious Chrome has got one on his site. It's a classic example. Low 2-3 rank on the frontpage, bugger all on the internal pages. Take a look at his Google category [directory.google.com] - it's got a plump rank of 6. He should be getting some love from that!

Until it happens to you, you won't know how it feels to be wiped from the greatest search engine in the world. It's quite understandable that people are pulling their hair out because things are not improving after many, many months and countless e-mails to the 'plex.

I'm mightly annoyed myself this month. I finally begin to lift myself from the mud, when some spudhead decides to cache the entire frontpage of my profile site - therefore causing a duplicate problem and *blam* - I'm totally out!

So you believe competition cannot directly affect your site and kick it out of the index? Think again, buddy!

But let's put in some disclaimers here, just in case. Google doesn't need us. Google is free, stop moaning. Etc, Etc... Heh ;)

Jane_Doe

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jane_doe us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 6:00 am on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

i'm not being rude here, but IMO, PR3 is probably right for your site.

Cy's site has no backward links showing in Google, even though Allthweb shows 160. This is not a good sign. I don't think getting more links is the answer.

CY - When I mentioned the link about JS links and hubs from Googleguy, I meant to watch the hub issue as well as the JS links. I didn't look at your site extensively, but it seemed like it may
possibly match the kind of link structure Google doesn't like.

Googleguy said, "It's pretty easy to spot domains that are hoarding PageRank; that can be just another factor in scoring. If you work really hard to boost your authority-like score while trying to minimize your hub-like score, that sets your site apart from most domains. Just something to bear in mind..."

shelleycat

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 7:26 am on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

This penalising cross linking confuses me. I have a number of apges spread around the web, including three geocities accounts, one ISP account, and one paid domain. When I first started integrating them I gave them similar layouts and cross linked them all, including a homepage which linked in and out to all of them. I wasn't using any SEO tricks (I didn't even know such things existed), just cobbling something together til I can buy a bigger domain. But from reading some of the posts here and in other threads it looks like this is the kind of thing Google really doesn't like. It's like CY says:

The trouble is, we 'citizens' aren't told the law, and so have to tiptoe around to avoid breaking it.

So I'm confused that something that seemed perfectly normal to a not-very-experienced webmaster can be such a bad thing. I work on the principle that I'm not special or different, and if I do something I'm willing to bet many others are doing the same.

At least when I do get my bigger domain I'll know to be careful about linking it to my present one.

Shelley

nutsandbolts

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 7:42 am on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

shelleycat: Having a links page is fine. They have been used on the web for years with no problems at all. Myself, I did a stupid mistake and paid the price by cross-linking at the bottom of my sites creating a circular hub that worked for 3 weeks on Google then created 8 months of hell. My fault. Idiot that I am. Many people on here who are in the mud have done naughty things. Cross-linking over all of their sites on the index page. Javascript/PHP includes with a network of links on it on the index pages. Using Web Position Gold etc, etc.

So don't panic. You won't have any problems if you create a nice Friends and Family/Associates page and add a dozen or even more links.

oLeon

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 10:14 am on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>Cy's site has no backward links showing in Google, even though Allthweb shows 160.

Links to your site only appears on Google when your PR is 4 or more. Donīt forget that!

ciml

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ciml us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 10:41 am on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

CromeYellow:
> ciml - you asked before about my DMOZ page - I've checked and it does not have a penalty - in fact it has PR6.

My question was purposely a little restrictive, I'm not sue that I see the answer but the more I look at that category, the more I suspect.

It's not right to draw the conclusion that a particular page doesn't have a penalty associated with it purely because it's PR6. Further, I'm coming to the conclusion that the 'can receive PR but not pass it on' penalty for linking to bad neighbourhoods doesn't stop the page from showing in the backlinks of reasonable PR pages.

Other than DMoz.org and directory.google.com, do you think that your inbound links should give you more PR than you have?

As for the internal PR0 pages, must a PR2 page with 31 links give at least PR1 to a page it links to? Probably not.

I can't say you don't have a penalty, but it's not proven IMO.

brotherhood of LAN

WebmasterWorld Administrator brotherhood_of_lan us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 11:10 am on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

I can't say that you have a penalty, but I checked out some of those inbound links that someone already has in ATW.

There is a PR5 linking to you, that I assume *should* be listed in link:yoursite.com but it is not. Something worth noting about that particular page linking to you is that there are scores of links on the page.

Scrolling down the list a bit, it seems a few have PR0....they don't look like penalties because their home pages are typically around PR3 and your link is two directories deep on a page with a few dozen links or more.

In light of that, and *if* all the pages linking to you are similar to these (i didnt look), then I doubt much PR will be passed on to your page from these links.

Just a guess from looking at the links presented to me and their "assumed PR" by the toolbar which = assumption city ;)

/suggestion
Maybe there ain't enough quality sites to link to you and your niche? Maybe some more unique content and submitting a subpage to a new yahoo/dmoz cat could sort any PR misgivings :)

mr_dredd2

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 12:54 pm on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A PR3 PENALTY.
i can't believe some people still think its just webmasters b**ching about their bad link strategy.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU DO, YOU CANNOT GET OUT OF THE PR3 DOLDRUMS. it doesn't matter if u have pr2/1 internal pages and not pr0. IT IS A PENALTY.

I have sites that have 100's of links, and just 10 of those links would get a pr6. And yes, i know all about pr being divided by no. of links on a page etc etc etc.

Once you spend hours and hours trying to work out why a site is pr3 when it should be pr6 you come to realise that there really is a pr3 penalty. this is a very informed opinion. far more informed than those people who have spent 10 minutes looking at a site and saying "oh, it all looks ok to me, no penalty there".

<getting very hot and bothered over all this pr3 stuff/>

NFFC

WebmasterWorld Senior Member nffc us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 1:02 pm on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

Chill out mr_dredd, I believe you :)

We have two sites that sell different products but similar enough [lets say one sells car headlights, the other starter motors] that they are listed in mostly the same Cats at the big and small directories. The domain with PR3 homepage and PR0 internal is penalised, the other newer domain [less links overall] is a high PR6. If the penalised domain got links from the index page of Google, Yahoo, Apple and Adobe it would still be a PR3.

The only question is when will they lift the penalty. Except in cases of large scale abuse I don't think any engine has left a penalty in place perminantly, even AV unbanned domains less than a year after black monday.

My penalised domin has been like it since last September/October, I think that is long enough :)

rogerd

WebmasterWorld Administrator rogerd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 1:05 pm on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A PR3 PENALTY.
i can't believe some people ...

Although it isn't specifically "PR3", you are absolutely right, MrDredd. If you've got it, you'll know it, guaranteed. I don't think the low level techs that look at a home page and find PR3 or PR4 are lying when they say there's no penalty, I think they just lack the experience (or tools) to determine that a penalty is, in fact, in effect. IMO, the only way out is to have the penalty lifted manually. Site changes won't do it.

ciml

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ciml us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 2:02 pm on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

> THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A PR3 PENALTY

Yes, Mr_Dredd, there is a penalty (or there are penalties) that can reduce PageRank without setting it to zero.

This does not mean that all or even most people with PR3 have penalties, indeed far from it. Most of them just don't have enough or good enough inbound links.

It also does not mean that someone with PR2 or PR3 who sees a link from a PR6 or PR7 page has a penalty. Often, it's the linking page that has the penalty. Remember the 'guestbook' poision word "penalty" a few months ago? Very similar, as far as I can see.

The chance of people thinking they have a penalty when they don't is growing fast, the chance of people thinking they don't have a penalty when they do appears to have shrunk considerably since Google have been 'backing off' on the penalties.

I don't mean that you don't have a penalty, Mr Dredd, just that most people don't.

clickclick

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 2:06 pm on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

please explain a link hub, is it within the site itself or external. I have many sets of pages that point to the 'next page', when the last page is reached, it points at the first page again, is this a hub?

rogerd

WebmasterWorld Administrator rogerd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 2:17 pm on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

I think the PR0 penalty was a lot cleaner - now, Google has sown the seeds of doubt in the minds of many low PR site owners. I'm sure the impact on their e-mail queries has been significant.

Another scary thought is a "slight penalty". Those of us who have had low PR penalties have been able to identify them quite readily. But what about a penalty that only knocked your site down, say, one PR level? Or .7? You might be frozen out of ranking well, and just assume you weren't doing a good enough job.

I think the whole penalty idea is bogus, at least when it affects non-spam sites and doesn't get lifted automatically when the problem content has been removed. With Google's current market dominance, a PR0/low PR situation is, in essence, a death penalty for any site that relies on search engine traffic. Any penalties should, IMO, be applied in a way that is fair and that can be corrected in a timely manner.

ciml

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ciml us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 2:26 pm on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

> please explain a link hub

The word hub has been used to mean different things in this thread, not including what I think it means.

If you're concerned about getting penalised for heavy cross-linking within a domain, then I don't know of anyone who thinks that you can get a Google penalty that way.

janmccl

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 3:09 pm on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

I have to chime in here -
I was penalized with a pr2, and pr0 for internal pages. I was very fortunate in that GoogleGuy saw one of my posts on this forum and he looked at my site and then lifted the penalty and I am now a pr5 mostly over the entire site and listed very well on the SERPs.
After I finished doing my cart wheels of joy, I thought of those who are still struggling with the poor PRs. I know many who have not experienced the PR0 think "there is no penalty, it is what the site deserves" That is nonsense! The only changes I made in my site were going through my links and dropping the ones that went to the "Zeus" types of link lists and I did that months before GG looked at my site. The Google algos must not look at new content, just keeps the penalty in place no matter what happens in the site.

Now that Google has taken over AOL they have a terrific amount of power and as someone said earlier (I can't find the post) with that power comes responsibility. To drive people out of business without letting them know what they are doing wrong and then not recognizing when they have fixed whatever the problem was is mis-use of power IMHO.

I LOVE showing up well on the SERPs, but I'd rather play on a level playing field even if it means I have more competition.
I will be forever grateful to GoogleGuy for helping me, but please - fix it so all will have an equal chance.
Jan

mr_dredd2

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 3:17 pm on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

yes absolutely - most pr3's aren't penalties. of course. don't want to spread fear and paranoia!

but those who know, know!

NFFC

WebmasterWorld Senior Member nffc us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 3:32 pm on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

>but those who know, know!

The handy dandy PR3 index page PR0 internal pages Google Penalty check is .....

Upload a new page, if your index page is PR3 Google will guess the PR as 2. If it shows as a PR2 but pages that are in the Google dB are zero then you have a penalty. All imho of course.

kris

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 3:43 pm on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

I have noticed the same thing. Six months ago my site, for reasons still unknown, was hit with a PR0. Before the penalty it was a PR6. I have noticed a trend lately:

Two months ago: it went up to PR1, interior pages PR0
Two months ago: up to PR2, interior pages PR0, newly added pages (not in DB) PR1
Last crawl: up to PR3, interior pages STILL PR0, newly added pages (not in DB) PR2

Anyone know what this means? Is the penalty, slowly being removed? Sure would be nice if a google tech would answer an email.

janmccl

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 4:26 pm on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

What I was trying to say in my somewhat wordy post was why can't Google just ignore the history and judge the site on the way it is now? I'm sure all of us who got the PR 0 did sin in some ways but once we have finally figured out how and corrected it, why does it remain as a penalty?
There must be a way the tech people at Google could do this.
just more of my 2 cents.
Jan

Crazy_Fool

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 7:20 pm on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>(CY) - I simply cannot believe that is an accurate, non-penalised
>>PR for a site that has at least 50 incoming links, with at least 3
>>of them from PR6 pages, including Yahoo, ODP and the Google
>>directory.

CY - many of the inbound links you have are on low PR pages with dozens and dozens of links. the PR boost you get from those links is a proportion of the PR for that page - the PR on that page is shared between all the pages that that page links to. therefore, the PR gain is next to nothing for most of those inbounds. you will need hundreds more like that to see any real PR boost to your site. take a look at every links page that links to your site and if it has more than a handful of outbound links or if the PR for that links page is less than 4, don't bother counting it as an inbound link.

>>(janmccl) - I know many who have not experienced the PR0
>>think "there is no penalty, it is what the site deserves" That is
>>nonsense!

janmccl - thats more or less what i said, but i did suffer the big PR0 penalty way back in december / january time along with many other people. it was around that time that googleguy said that they'd been playing with the spam-traps and hinted that they had maybe set them too high and caught out a lot of innocent people and were now easing them off a bit.

>>(mr_dredd2) - Once you spend hours and hours trying to work out why
>>a site is pr3 when it should be pr6 you come to realise that there
>>really is a pr3 penalty. this is a very informed opinion. far more
>>informed than those people who have spent 10 minutes looking at a
>>site and saying "oh, it all looks ok to me, no penalty there".

mr_dredd2 - if you start off assuming a pr3 site should be pr6 then you will almost always find no reason for the apparent "missing PR" and therefore assume a penalty. my guess that PR3 is about right for CYs site comes from having built and taken more than 20 unique and very different sites to PR5/6/7 in the last year - and that's without adding the sites to hundreds of links pages. don't be so quick to dismiss those who disagree with your thoughts of penalties.

rogerd

WebmasterWorld Administrator rogerd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 9:13 pm on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

I think we have two parallel discussions here that aren't really meeting:

1) Some sites are suffering from a low PR penalty that is persistent over many updates.

2) Some sites have naturally low PR due to lack of linkage.

Both of these statements are true. I think it's often difficult to just look at a site and determine what its PR should be, particularly when Google linkage reporting is iffy. Most of those suffering from low PR, I think, base their conclusion on past performance of the site in question. I.e., their site was PR6, dropped to 0, and then never recovered past 3 or 4. With due respect to all, I don't think there's a lot of merit in arguing about whether someone's domain should or shouldn't have a particular PR, unless you have access to Googlebot and the Google database.

CromeYellow

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 10:26 pm on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

Wow! Just got up to a whole lot of action of this thread. It seems like the discussion is now "What is and is not a penalty" - and more specifically, "Is Cy's site penalised?"

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to have a look at the site, and for all the comments - supportive, critical and otherwise ;)

To those who have asked me questions:

ciml
Other than DMoz.org and directory.google.com, do you think that your inbound links should give you more PR than you have?

Although doubt is starting to creep in with the various comments in this thread, I have looked over my links again, and even without the PR6 DMOZ link and the Google directory link, there are still links from 3 PR6 pages. Should it bestow more than PR2? I think so, but of course I can't be sure.

brotherhood of LAN
/suggestion
Maybe there ain't enough quality sites to link to you and your niche? Maybe some more unique content and submitting a subpage to a new yahoo/dmoz cat could sort any PR misgivings

Thanks, I might just do that. I have, however, had more people link to my site since this all began, and they have had absolutely no effect.

Jane_Doe
CY - When I mentioned the link about JS links and hubs from Googleguy, I meant to watch the hub issue as well as the JS links. I didn't look at your site extensively, but it seemed like it may
possibly match the kind of link structure Google doesn't like.

But it's really just a flat-structure, everything links to everything kind of site, no? Maybe all the links to the home page and the lack of links to internal pages could create a problem?

nutsandbolts
Thanks for the vote of support!

NFFC The handy dandy PR3 index page PR0 internal pages Google Penalty check is ..... Upload a new page, if your index page is PR3 Google will guess the PR as 2. If it shows as a PR2 but pages that are in the Google dB are zero then you have a penalty. All imho of course.

I had the same thought a while ago and popped up a couple of new pages. They had PR2 (estimated) immediately, then zero after the next update. I kind of thought that would happen because a PR2 home page would pass on no PR?

kris
Anyone know what this means? Is the penalty, slowly being removed? Sure would be nice if a google tech would answer an email.

Kris, that sounds exactly the same as my site. I thought it was being slowly removed, but now I reckon it's jsut floundering around in the doldrums. :(

rogerd With due respect to all, I don't think there's a lot of merit in arguing about whether someone's domain should or shouldn't have a particular PR, unless you have access to Googlebot and the Google database.

This is the conclusion I'm coming to as well. The purpose of this post was to let everyone know about a Google response. There have been some interesting outcomes though, and people have been really helpful. Thanks to all.

All the best

Cy

JayC

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 10:42 pm on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

Most of those suffering from low PR, I think, base their conclusion on past performance of the site in question. I.e., their site was PR6, dropped to 0, and then never recovered past 3 or 4.

One thing to consider in that case is that you may be missing some information. And consider that a site's PR does change, even if links do not. One of the sites I work with is about eight or nine months old. Two months in, the index page had a PR 6 (this site at that time, by the way, had only three outside backwards links plus a dmoz link -- so it's easy to keep track of). Two months later it had dropped to a 3. As of the August update, it's up to a 4. The change from a PR6 to PR3 happened with no changes at all to the links, the PR3 was in place for two months and in the second month there was one more link, a dmoz clone. The PR4, then, happened with no more changes.

My point is this: If the couple of months of PR6 had been followed by a month of PR0 for some reason, or a gray toolbar if only because a technical problem had prevented the site from being crawled, it would have come back as a PR3 -- and I probably would have jumped to the conclusion that it had been because of a penalty. In actuality, it appears that the shift from PR6 to PR3 was "naturally occuring," as, apparently, was the subsequent increase to PR4.

It makes sense, I suppose, that PageRank for the pages of a site like this, with only a few backward links, might be much more dynamic than it is for a site with hundreds of links: if one of those linking pages had a big shift in PR, the "fallout" to my site would be greater because much more of my PR was derived from that particular site.

danny

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 11:49 pm on Aug 6, 2002 (gmt 0)

algorithm or penalty?

My guess is that when GoogleGuy or other Google people say "there is no penalty" attached to a site, what they mean is that it's not on any kind of manual blacklist. But it's clear that Google's primary goal is to improve its algorithm, to automate as much as possible so they don't have to manually tweak things, so it's likely that things that were once human-assigned penalties are now just part of the automated system...

So I don't think anyone at Google is lying about penalties, it's just that "penalty" means something different to them. It's probably easy for them to check explicit extrinsic penalty lists, but they may not even be able to tell exactly why the algorithm produces certain results - I expect only their algorithms people actually understand it comprehensively.

CromeYellow

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 12:35 am on Aug 7, 2002 (gmt 0)

I hadn't thought about it quite like that danny, but it makes sense.

I have always thought it highly unlikely that Google representatives would be lying.

If this is true, then perhaps, as you say, the penalty may now be automated, which one would assume (?) means that recovery would be automated too.(hope, hope).

Jane_Doe

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jane_doe us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 1:37 am on Aug 7, 2002 (gmt 0)

But it's really just a flat-structure, everything links to everything kind of site, no? Maybe all the links to the home page and the lack of links to internal pages could create a problem?

Exactly. I think by "pagerank hoarding" Googleguy menas when all of the inbound links go to the home page, no inbound links go to internal pages and all out bound links are on a few isolated, low level pages or hidden with Javascript links, this may be something that causes a site to rank lower in the SE algorithm. What better ways are there to hoard pagerank than using these techniques?

I agree with Danny that this may not be an official blacklist type penalty, but it may cause sites to rank lower, nonetheless. Unless I'm misinterpreting his post, Googleguy pretty much said so, and was being quite helpful by passing along that bit of information.

I've looked at a few of the PR0 sites in people's profiles from this forum and a site that links to one of mine that went PR0 (used to be PR6, went to PR0 :( in the last update) and the pagerank hoarding structure and off topic links are the factors that seem to me be the major commonalities.

ciml

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ciml us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 1:29 pm on Aug 7, 2002 (gmt 0)

danny:
> My guess is that when GoogleGuy or other Google people say "there is no penalty" attached to a site, what they mean is that it's not on any kind of manual blacklist...

That's a very good point. GoogleGuy seems pretty close to the inner workings, but it may be wrong to assume that all the user support staff can analyse automatic penalties.

nutsandbolts

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4606 posted 1:40 pm on Aug 7, 2002 (gmt 0)

He must be one of the top engineers, if not THE head guy, to have the authorisation to remove penalties from sites - like he did with one of mine. God bless him ;)

This 77 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 77 ( 1 [2] 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved