homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.237.54.83
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 1014 message thread spans 34 pages: < < 1014 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 34 > >     
My site has been First Now vanished from Google
My site has been the first of its kind, I drop off Google
sabine7777




msg:760006
 6:35 am on Sep 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

For the past year I have experienced periodically being completely dropped off Google. My site has been the FIRST of its kind and is in all the natural search results on the first spot. I'm just a small business, but since spet of 2004 I have been vanishing off of Google every 6 weeks or so--recently it has been more often and for longer periods. Does Google discriminate against Older sites? Are they doing it so that we will advertise with them? Any help, advice, comment from a desperate single mother of 4!

 

Freedom




msg:760186
 7:19 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

steveb

So, you when these type of things happen Google "always" corrects them/rolls them back later?

steveb




msg:760187
 7:23 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

Whoa, no. That's not what I meant!

I meant &filter=0 is always showing pages returning to their "correct" rankings now.

larryhatch




msg:760188
 7:25 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hello Tinus:

" Strange, my main travel site is hijacked by a religious site.
The religiuous site is an old site from 1998, no pagerank and powered by Jesus Christ
according their logo.:) They copied the whole bible and my site."

- - -

So not even religious tutnams and scripture stop a dedicated scraper.

This is another reason to put in solid full [wwwyoursite...] links onto your pages.

THEN when some whacko rips content, chances are your link goes with it.

I had to laugh really. I doubt the Holy Book has many URLs.
That leaves your link(s) as the easiest and most likely way to exit this rather unbecoming site.

I would bet there are a hundred here would would like to know those formulae.

Best -Larry

Tinus




msg:760189
 7:27 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

When somebody is able to duplicate a complete site and replacing that site in the serps for a phrase of the homepage in one or two months their must be some reason for that. The only difference I see comparing the two sites is the registration date (theirs 1998, my site 2002). PR of mine is higher.

Tinus




msg:760190
 7:38 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

> That leaves your link(s) as the easiest and most likely way to exit this rather unbecoming site.

Yeh, on their homepage you see heavens gate which you have to click on to enter and my content provides the exit of this paradise. I wonder what they have in mind. From their ten commendments to a nice hotel of mine in Paris. This can't be the opposite of heaven.

linkjack




msg:760191
 8:23 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

I wish to declare Google broken. And that I have just done.

reseller




msg:760192
 8:31 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi Folks

I found a GoogleGuy post talking about the &filter=0, duplicate contents and more, which might be of interest.

msg #:38
[webmasterworld.com...]

========================================================

GoogleGuy
Senior Member

view member profile
joined-Oct 8, 2001
posts:2828
msg #:38 4:35 pm on June 17, 2003 (utc 0)

the "&filter=0" just shows all pages, even pages that appear to be duplicates. Normally if there are pages that appear to be duplicates, we try to pick the best one to show (but no heuristic can be perfect--it's like having two people claiming to own the same essay).

If you're seeing one of your own pages listed as a duplicate (e.g. domain.com/index.html shows up instead of www.domain.com/index.html), I wouldn't worry very much. That page should still appear in searches, and probably we can make it into the canonical version over time.

If someone else has copied your page, then you should try to solve the issue with them. In the worst case, you could escalate it to assert your ownership of your page.

This is not really a Google issue, other than the fact that "&filter=0" might allow you to find someone who copied your page. Even if we removed the other person's page (which we wouldn't do without a correct DMCA request, because we can't tell who really owns the page), you could still have the same problem with the other person's page showing up in other search engines.

So: Google tries to be the best reflection of the web that we can, but if someone has copied your page, that's a copyright issue, and not a spam issue. I encourage you to work with the other person to resolve the issue, because even if you did a DMCA request with Google, you'd still have to worry about those pages showing up on other search engines.

===============================================

soapystar




msg:760193
 8:48 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

except this isnt an issue of if its duplicate chuck it..if its not keep it where it normally would be...its even reshuffling the top 10 without adding or removing sites....and its shuffling the sites that are affected site wide....

so for some terms you might be lost..on other terms you are a few spots below where you were before...add the filter=0 and back to your normal spot you go

steveb




msg:760194
 8:52 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google Guy's ancient comment is obsolete so should not be mentioned here.

The news right now is when you add &filter=0 the serps are no longer only adding the filtered sites back in; the results now are altering significantly.

This may be either good or bad news....

soapystar




msg:760195
 8:53 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

yep, looks like something they added on top of it, so too speak!

could still be a duplicate penalty applied across the domain itself...pages deemed too similar to a threshold number of other pages get chopped...

because i still see examples where some pages are affected and they all share the same template..and then on the same site other pages retain ranking but they have a different template....

cleanup




msg:760196
 9:04 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

Agree steveb and soapystar, I would be suprised if GG came said the same thing now. In fact the deafening silence from GG speaks volumes.

The idea that duplicate content is just a "copyrite issue" and just "take it up between yourselves and leave us out of it" argument would be fine if Google did not take the proactive step to decide which is real and which is not.

In other words if they can't do a decent job of making that choice why not just leave it all in there and have complete (and in most cases better) SERPs.

edutek




msg:760197
 9:11 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

I wouldn't mind dropping from the top ten if I'd been replaced by something relevant. IMO if I'm searching for something I don't want to read someone's blog or derogatory waffle about it.
Google is the last SE I'd use to find what I'm looking for.

Freedom




msg:760198
 9:20 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

This is not really a Google issue,

So, even though you can look at registrar information, you are too incompetent to figure out who is the original? None of you $100/hour engineers can figure this one out?

I don't have this problem with MSN.

I don't have this problem with Yahoo.

Must be you.

reseller




msg:760199
 9:36 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

steveb

>>Google Guy's ancient comment is obsolete so should not be mentioned here.<<

Not exactly. When it comes to duplicate contents issue, I guess GG hasnīt changed his mind much, not yet ;-)

Take a look at his reply (msg #:30) to buckworks:

[webmasterworld.com...]

=================================================
buckworks
Senior Member

view member profile
send local msg
joined-Dec 9, 2001
posts:1798
msg #:12 8:43 am on June 2, 2005 (utc 0)

How can we keep our original articles ranking higher than stolen copies of our content? (which are sometimes impossible to get taken down)

==========================================

==========================================

GoogleGuy
Senior Member

view member profile
joined-Oct 8, 2001
posts:2828
msg #:30 9:03 am on June 2, 2005 (utc 0)

buckworks, report 'em via the spam report form if the sites are doing wholesale duplication in a spammy way. If it's your content, a properly-formed DMCA complaint is the correct way to assert your copyright: [google.com...]

But whenever possible, I recommend going to the site that's copying your content first and trying to solve it at the source. Even if you file a DMCA complaint to Google, other search engines may find the copies as well.

Finally, if the site seems scuzzy/scraperly to you, use google.com/support/ to report it in addition to using the spam report form.

==========================

steveb




msg:760200
 10:33 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

reseller, please stop derailing the thread with tangents.

This is effecting pages that have no copies at all, and is domain wide, so Google Guy's old comments are not on the point here.

(Not even mentioning this is primarily effecting top/original listings that should never be filtered by any criteria like age, pagerank or whatever.)

caveman




msg:760201
 10:36 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

steveb understand what you're saying and I see plenty of examples. But it's not all that is going on.

I see several sites in various categories where only a few important rankings were lost: Small percentages of pages from these sites have come under sniper fire ... with no signs of dup as the culprit in these cases.

But these sites all have another issue in common, and it's related to links/kw's. ;-)

anttiv




msg:760202
 10:59 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

Tell us more caveman in case you *know* something.

I still don't get it. My old spammy sites are up but my main clean sites are being filtered. I just want to know the reason so that I can make necessary fixes for the next update.

aliszka




msg:760203
 11:09 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

Caveman:

Links with keywords in the anchor text is my opinion, looks like google is getting wise to site buying links and run of site links! IMO

steveb




msg:760204
 12:39 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

Zero relationship of keywords or links here. Zero.

Deep, minor pages are lost for obscure searches that they easily rank first for. The pages themselves only have three or four links to them, and the search terms are not in the links at all.

Multiple things can be going on of course, but the &filter=0 phenomenon is not hitched to links or keywords or anything like that, and is not even totally consistent as some small number of pages rank normally and some pages have only dropped a bit while others dropped like Bush's poll numbers.

stevexyz




msg:760205
 12:49 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

Its a siege strategy - ruthless but possibly effective - they are hoping to put the blatant SPAMMERS out of business by keeping ALL new sites out of the SERPS for 6 to 12 months. Truth be said - Google probably looked at all the options to clean out the SPAM realizing that thousands of innocent sites would be destroyed in the cross fire using this chosen strategy. A bit like the decision to drop the A bomb - knowing thousands of innocent people would die but weighing up that this was the lesser of the 2 evils.

We have been wiped out after 5 previously successful years - the siege strategy is obviously working on everyone. 30 people are now out of work - mainly jounalists I employed - and I personally, along with the business, now facing possible bankruptcy. 5 years of our content has been stolen from us as we too tried to "clean up" our sites by changing URL's and taking OUR content and putting them on the sites - its only now how these ramifications are hurting us - I cannot believe how much of our content has been STOLEN - remember what was good for Google 3 years ago was the best information available at that time - the sites we worked away at tirelessly to make the Internet a better place - well that was what I thought we were doing. We also started linking our sites heavily after trying hard not to - but Google did not respond very quickly (I HOPE THEY DONT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE HERE) - to stay alive in this business we were forced to start linking cautiously as possible to remain in the SERPS.

Google needs to act if it wishes to keep its good name. The only thing that would hurt them would be bad publicity which could be perceived by the general population as unfair they hate seeing the small guy being wiped out by a giant - something I think a lot of us maybe now seriously considering.

My suggestion to Google is to have a list of instructions where we can prove the sites worth and the content ownership along with the history. Or something similar whereby the SPAM remains out but the innocent get included. Just our sites alone have made Google over 5 million dollars via Adsense - so it works both ways - Google don’t cut the hands that have fed you when you were not so strong - you may very well regret it in the future.

Like the people stuck in the Superdome - we, the webmasters who have stuck with you for the last 6 years are crying for HELP - please don’t just CONTINUE to ignore us.

WebFusion




msg:760206
 2:33 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

We have been wiped out after 5 previously successful years - the siege strategy is obviously working on everyone. 30 people are now out of work - mainly jounalists I employed - and I personally, along with the business, now facing possible bankruptcy.

This may sound heartless (although I certainly don't mean it to be), but perhaps you should look upon this as "one to grow on" and re-develop your business strategy so that it does not depend upon a traffic source over which you have no control what so ever.

I've learned the hard way that google (and every engine for that matter) has simply lost it's way in an effort to combat the overwhelming numbers of spammers/scammer/thieves, and blackhat innvovations, and has unfortunately been forced to throw the "baby out with the bath water" with the last 2 years or so of algo "refinements".

Building our site's brand(s)(and community "stickiness") has been a long haul, but has enabled us to look upon any free traffic thrown our way from google as icing on the cake, as opposed to a "make or break" proposition.

[edited by: WebFusion at 2:46 am (utc) on Sep. 25, 2005]

nsqlg




msg:760207
 2:36 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

stevexyz, you can sent stickymail with our URL?

Is hard I know, but keep cool, your site looks good, dont will be penalized for a long time, ask for adsense team to forward your message techs to check.

5 years of our content has been stolen from us as we too tried to "clean up" our sites by changing URL's and taking OUR content and putting them on the sites

My english dont is very good, you changed your URLs to "clean up" your site? If yes, this is a really bad thing to do.

knoir




msg:760208
 3:43 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

I really think that we should all just relax and wait. This has happened many times before. Over the past 3 years, there have been periods where my site disappeared, only to be back again.

My site went from being # 1 for a very popular search term to #30. I really do believe that patience is the key with google in situations like this. I really don't think that google is out to hurt innocent law abiding webmasters. They are certainly aware of the unscrupulous copy-cat websites that exists.

There is nothing you can do to protect yourself against copycat websites. Google knows this, and if your content it unique, they will recognize this. I recommend that you do not touch your site in anyway. Just relax and everything will be ok.

joeduck




msg:760209
 3:54 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

My suggestion to Google is to have a list of instructions where we can prove the sites worth and the content ownership along with the history

Google listen to this suggestion! It's absurd that great sites are crushed simply because there is no quality review mechanism that is open to webmasters - rather it's a closed system where white hat sites are wasting money and time guessing at "what did we do wrong?", SEOs are scamming people more than ever, and the results are failing miserably in many sectors.

Working with webmasters to explain how to keep away from filters and penalties will, on balance, help the internet more than the secret society approach now in place where information flow is severely restricted and webmasters are left in the dark when site rankings are hammered.

theBear




msg:760210
 4:02 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> I really think that we should all just relax and wait. This has happened many times before. Over the past 3 years, there have been periods where my site disappeared, only to be back again.<<

The only problem with relaxing and waiting is that you are assuming that only Google can act and nothing you do can have an impact.

If the problem is duplicate content issues you have to locate the cause(s) and take action.

When you are trying to add content and features and you have a small operation people wise you don't need the added work of figuring out what happened and "fixing" what you can.

caveman is correct about multiple things happening, some of them have nothing to do with any changes that Google does.

There is no defense for some of the things that take place.

caveman




msg:760211
 5:51 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

anttiv, I suppose it's worth repeating that most of what you read here is at best informed speculation. None of us work for G.

steveb has clearly outlined a duplicate content issue that seems to be taking out a lot of sites' pages.

There's another thing going on too. This other thing does not involve inflated pages, and it is not a dup content filter revealed by adding &filter=0. It is dropping certain pages from the SERP's for certain kw phrases only, while retaining the same pages' rankings for other kw phrases. So a given homepage or subpage previously ranking for 'kw1 kw2' and 'kw1 kw3' may now be ranking only for 'kw1 kw2'. Nowhere for 'kw1 kw3.' Or maybe no important kw phrases now.

It may happen to many pages of a site, or just some. It is not related to the dup content being discussed (though prior to investigation it may appear to be the same thing).

I am guessing that it is related to links and kw's, and it goes beyond the way a given query relates to the page that was dropped for that query. ;-)

pescatore




msg:760212
 5:55 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

wonder why the big boys here in ww dont talk yet about an update and giving a name as well ,because this is another stormy update.Also the name name of the thread "My site has been First Now vanished from Google" should change to a "whatever update 22nd of Septemper"

reseller




msg:760213
 6:52 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

steveb

>>reseller, please stop derailing the thread with tangents.<<

Iīm not derailing anything. Just have different point of views on whatīs happening. And your guess and suggestions are as good as mine ;-)

We both trying in good faith to analyze the situation and figure out what the he*l is going on. I said since the beginning (already on 22nd September) that its an update, while you described it as data blunders. Maybe whats happening is a mixture of both ;-)

[webmasterworld.com...]

===================================

reseller
Preferred Member

view member profile
send local msg
joined:Feb 6, 2005
posts:420
msg #:600 5:47 am on Sept 22, 2005 (utc 0)

Good morning Folks

Wish you all a happy Update Brett
"Win this one for the Gipper" ;-)

I give it 5 stars *****

As to this morning, the following DCs (which I had already posted yesterday) are still of much interest:

64.233.189.104

66.102.7.99
66.102.7.104
66.102.7.105
66.102.7.106
66.102.7.147

216.239.63.99
216.239.63.104

Please donīt panic if you canīt find your site within the said DCs. We are still at the early stages of a possible update ;-)

Take care!
====================================

========================================

steveb
Senior Member

view member profile
send local msg
joined-June 20, 2002
posts:3168
msg #:587 7:45 pm on Sept 21, 2005 (utc 0)

Some cataclysmic changes on 216.239.53.104 and some other datacenters. Lots of pages lost. Maybe it'll pass, but looks like one of Google's huge data blunders is underway.

===========================

[edited by: reseller at 7:10 am (utc) on Sep. 25, 2005]

night707




msg:760214
 6:54 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

for stevexyz ...

you are not the only victim of these Google search thugs, who do not care at all about quality content or publishers.

For several keywords our site had been on 1 or two and still we are offering the by far richest and most valuable up-to-date content.

Various complaints had been sent to Google support, but they still perfer to put fully outdated and exotic language content on page 1 whilst our stuff has become unavailable at Google.

We now recommend Yahoo search and started to prepare a new directory for quality publishers, to give users a chance to find all them good pages, that thugs at Google are cutting out for whatever reasons.

Google Search has become to arrogant and they will get punished for that sooner or later.

Hope, that yahoo will learn from that ...

jcmiras




msg:760215
 7:18 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am monitoring these DS`s since last couple of weeks,
216.239.37
216.239.39
216.239.53
216.239.57
216.239.59
216.239.63
64.233.161
64.233.167
64.233.171
64.233.179
64.233.183
64.233.185
64.233.187
64.233.189
66.102.7
66.102.9
66.102.11

Since then, SERP of 50% of them is different from the others, yesterday 11 of them are similar to 216.239.37, now 14 of them. I think, the SERP of 216.239.37 will be the final SERP of all DCs and of google.com as well.

mcavill




msg:760216
 7:20 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

My guess is that google spots all the duplicates, and assigns the sites some negative karma points.

In some cases it incorrectly flags the original along with the copiers.

The copiers aren't ranking inplace of the original because they don't have the links / trust / whatever the original does, but due to the negative points the original is filtered out.

IMO the issue is how to get rid of the negative points.

I'm not going to do anything for a few days as these things often bounce around for a bit, but I see a few ways to sort it:

1. Change my content - a bit wrong to have to do it, but probably the quickest and easiest way
2. Contact the copiers and ask them to remove my content - yeah right, don't really think that'll work
3. C&D / DMCA - slow and quite a painful proocess
4. Spam reports - I don't usually do that, but hey it's costing me $$ so why not. From what others have said, a bit hit and miss

Assuming it is duplicate sites / pages that are causing the issue, what other approaches are people thinking of doing to try and resolve it? or are you just going to sit it out?

This 1014 message thread spans 34 pages: < < 1014 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 34 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
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