homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.199.46
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

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 215 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 215 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 > >     
Email from Google: You are being removed
Google sent me an email saying my pages are being taken out
jjdesigns4u




msg:756199
 3:34 pm on Oct 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

Has anyone got one of these emails from donotreply@google.com

does anyone know how to find the issue they are talking about.

we have not done any hidden text on our site so we are at a loss. Our site is a huge dynamic ecommerce site so I dont even know where to begin.

paraphrase:
They mentioned they detected "Hidden text/links on <domain name>.com" and also said that some pages are being temporarily removed for 30 days

does this mean the whole site is being removed?

how can I find out where they found this?

obviously we are FREAKING OUT

[edited by: jatar_k at 4:07 pm (utc) on Oct. 11, 2005]
[edit reason] no email content [/edit]

 

linkjack




msg:756289
 5:20 pm on Oct 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

it is impossible to discuss anything seriously with europeforvisitors

he has an agenda to accomplish and, in his agenda, telling the truth about google is not included.

i confess : i'd do the same if my site was nickname.com (TOS anyone?)

linkjack




msg:756290
 5:22 pm on Oct 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

By your logic any webmaster who sends a request for a link to be placed on another page is spamming.

Webmasters are often tolerant regarding link requests.

But if you insist then YES link emails are spam.

The Google emails are spam as well.

They can't tell you what you should or should not do on your site, I can put any font color on any div background I wish, if they wish to delist me FINE, but spamming me to tell me what to do is ...well, SPAM.

TheRookie




msg:756291
 5:28 pm on Oct 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

it is impossible to discuss anything seriously with europeforvisitors

he has an agenda to accomplish and, in his agenda, telling the truth about google is not included.

i confess : i'd do the same if my site was nickname.com (TOS anyone?)

And you claim you're not attacking him?

C'mon...

linkjack




msg:756292
 5:29 pm on Oct 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

And you claim you're not attacking him?

From this forum's TOS:

Signing up a user name that is a obvious domain name or product name will be removed. This is out of unfair promotion considerations as well as trademark implications.

How am I, in any way, attacking someone who talks about the "law" and is in clear violations of it?

reseller




msg:756293
 5:40 pm on Oct 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

kwngian

>>And is there no way to contact them once you clean up your site? Will the site comes back after one month whether or not it is cleaned up?<<

Yes. You just file a reinclusion request. Matt wrote excellent tips on how to do it. I´m posting the link for your benefit and the benefit of other fellow members who wish to file reinclusion requests. Hopefully the mods accept posting the link.

[mattcutts.com...]

europeforvisitors




msg:756294
 5:52 pm on Oct 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

linkjack, I don't have a product, and I've never heard of a domain name that didn't have a TLD.

And now, can we get back on topic, or will this become yet another hijacked thread that forces any serious discussion into the Webmaster World Supporters' Forum?

twebdonny




msg:756295
 5:59 pm on Oct 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

...at least you have some clue as to why they removed/penalized you, we have no idea at all
what is the problem our site has and why we continue
to incur a penalty

linkjack




msg:756296
 6:07 pm on Oct 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

linkjack, I don't have a product, and I've never heard of a domain name that didn't have a TLD.

And now, can we get back on topic, or will this become yet another hijacked thread that forces any serious discussion into the Webmaster World Supporters' Forum?

Although you do have a product(affiliate site) and your nickname is in clear violation of the TOS I agree to return to topic.

I do believe Google mail telling anyone what to do on their site is spam. If you don't really care about being listed in Google you should indeed file a spam complaint with your ISP and google's uplink provider.

kwngian




msg:756297
 6:55 pm on Oct 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thanks reseller.

I wasn't really removed, just "demoted". I would need a PR8 inbound link to get my site back. :(

I would be glad if I get email from them for my situation.

G should just remove sites and let them write in to ask, then get replied with ambigious answers.

"My inbox is cleaner because I got one less email from G."

Can't please everyone here, especially if you want to get technical on definition of spam.

reseller




msg:756298
 7:05 pm on Oct 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

kwngian

>>Thanks reseller.

I wasn't really removed, just "demoted". <<

But you can still file a reinclusion request after doing a thorough cleaning of your site, and I understand you have already done that.

bears5122




msg:756299
 8:04 pm on Oct 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

That is simply not the case... Nor is what Google doing spamming. They are sending an inquiry directly regarding the website, while it may be unsolicited, it is not unwarranted nor untaragetted.

Claiming that someone sending a viagra ad should have the same right to send an e-mail without any cause means you are just trying to play games.

I'm using the viagra as an example. I'm simply stating that if Google is allowed to make requests about your site, anyone should be able to. I didn't mention sending a Viagra ad, but stated a viagra site would have every right to e-mail a website and let them know they are violating "their guidelines".

As for unsolicited link requests, it's a grey area. If the individual offers up an e-mail address on their site to contact them, I'm OK with it. Google however is sending an automated message to a generic e-mail address. If I did not list my e-mail address on my site, and received unsolicited mail from anyone, I would consider it spam.

europeforvisitors




msg:756300
 8:19 pm on Oct 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

I would consider it spam.

There's nothing wrong with that. We all have the right to define "spam" however we like (just as we have the right to determine our own personal thresholds for "junk mail" or "annoying phone calls").

However, that doesn't mean Google or any other company is required to honor our personal definitions. As long as a company abides by the Spamhaus.org guidelines and CAN-SPAM requirements, it should be on safe ground.

Murdoch




msg:756301
 8:20 pm on Oct 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think we are forgetting one small thing here:

Link request - insignificant paean

Google - King of the internet world

Viagra e-mails - SPAM (unless you have E.D.)

One of these affects my entire on-line future.

One of these affects the amount of mail in my trash can

and one affects something different altogether ;)

europeforvisitors




msg:756302
 8:33 pm on Oct 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

I can see a parallel between Google and those other guys:

Sometimes you're up, and sometimes you're down. :-)

reseller




msg:756303
 8:45 pm on Oct 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

europeforvisitors

>>I can see a parallel between Google and those other guys:
Sometimes you're up, and sometimes you're down. :-) <<

I wouldn´t dare to ask you to elaborate more on that ;-)

glengara




msg:756304
 9:02 pm on Oct 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

*..also said that some pages are being temporarily removed for 30 days*

JJ, so does the site look penalised, or are just the "relevant" pages missing?

europeforvisitors




msg:756305
 9:40 pm on Oct 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

I wouldn´t dare to ask you to elaborate more on that ;-)

I know--it sounds like a topic for the Supporters Forum. :-)

g1smd




msg:756306
 9:57 pm on Oct 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> >> If that list does not look like summary of your document, then you are abusing the heading tags. << <<

>> That is not true. <<

Sorry, but it is. From the W3C site If this does not look like a real outline, it is likely that the heading tags are not being used properly. (Headings should reflect the logical structure of the document; they should not be used simply to add emphasis, or to change the font size.)

>> We can use header tags for many different things. I have a site where I use h4 tags for captions and the images come up at all different places in the code. In most cases the images will also be inside the h4 tag and it might be a link . Am I abusing the heading tags, the alt text, an the href all at once because my outline is messed up. <<

I would say that is borders on, and maybe transgresses the line of abuse, yes.

>> The whole idea of an outline format is uncomfortable and stifles creativity IMO. <<

Creativity? No. A heading is a block element that sites above, and introduces, a paragraph, list, table, or form.

>> I have other pages like this
<h1>Heading
<p>I am fairly sure this is sloppy code and may even be abuse of the h1 tag. I'm not sure how Google sees this. Don't care though. When i designed it that was the only way I knew to get the parargraph style without having 2 lines of whitespace underneath the heading.</p></h1>
<<

No. That is invalid code. You cannot nest a paragraph inside a heading. Both are block-level elements.

g1smd




msg:756307
 10:20 pm on Oct 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> >> If that list does not look like summary of your document, then you are abusing the heading tags. << <<

>> That is not true. <<

Sorry, but it is. From the W3C site If this does not look like a real outline, it is likely that the heading tags are not being used properly. (Headings should reflect the logical structure of the document; they should not be used simply to add emphasis, or to change the font size.)

>> We can use header tags for many different things. I have a site where I use h4 tags for captions and the images come up at all different places in the code. In most cases the images will also be inside the h4 tag and it might be a link . Am I abusing the heading tags, the alt text, an the href all at once because my outline is messed up. <<

I would say that it borders on, and maybe transgresses the line of abuse, yes. I don't use "heading" tags (and it is heading, not header), for anything other than "headings"; their intended use.

>> The whole idea of an outline format is uncomfortable and stifles creativity IMO. <<

Creativity? No. A heading is a block element that sits above, and introduces, a paragraph, list, table, or form; other block elements.

>> I have other pages like this:
<h1>Heading
<p>I am fairly sure this is sloppy code and may even be abuse of the h1 tag. I'm not sure how Google sees this. Don't care though. When i designed it that was the only way I knew to get the parargraph style without having 2 lines of whitespace underneath the heading.</p></h1>
<<

No. That is invalid code. You cannot nest a paragraph inside a heading. Both are block-level elements.

g1smd




msg:756308
 10:21 pm on Oct 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Time limit exceeded on edit (darn phonecalls). Second Post was the intended version.

kaled




msg:756309
 1:23 am on Oct 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

I hate having to defend Google but any such emails they send cannot possibly be defined as SPAM.

1) Google are providing you with useful (but wholly inadequate) information.
2) Google does not benefit financially.

The idea that being unsolicited is a sufficient condition to define an email as SPAM is ludicrous. (Those that disagree, please look at the origin of the word SPAM in the context of emails.)

Essentially, Google are responding to the many requests of people at forums like this one. Sadly, they've got it horribly wrong.

Kaled.

Yippee




msg:756310
 1:57 am on Oct 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Naw, I want that email... If it's spam, then google can spam all she wants. I know what's good for me.

bears5122




msg:756311
 2:03 am on Oct 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

1) Google are providing you with useful (but wholly inadequate) information.
2) Google does not benefit financially.

1) Useful information to who? An SEO? Many people with sites could care less about Google. I'm certain some people would consider information about Viagra and online casinos as useful. That's in the eyes of the beholder.

2) Of course they do. They are telling you how to keep your site in the index which in turn means more information to them. Let's not forget the fact that their name gets placed in every e-mail.

Powdork




msg:756312
 4:37 am on Oct 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Sorry, but it is. From the W3C site If this does not look like a real outline, it is likely that the heading tags are not being used properly. (Headings should reflect the logical structure of the document; they should not be used simply to add emphasis, or to change the font size.)
That would be misuse, rather than abuse. Fortunately, I don't care much what the w3c says, so the misuse doesn't bother me.

I would say that it borders on, and maybe transgresses the line of abuse, yes. I don't use "heading" tags (and it is heading, not header), for anything other than "headings"; their intended use.
My captions are the headings for the pictures.

Creativity? No. A heading is a block element that sits above, and introduces, a paragraph, list, table, or form; other block elements.
Don't you see how much more creative I can be when I don't adhere to that rule?;)

No. That is invalid code. You cannot nest a paragraph inside a heading. Both are block-level elements.
I can and do nest paragraphs inside of headings and it gives the effect I want for the places I use it across multiple browsers. I know it is invalid code. The same as an unclosed <p> tag.

arubicus




msg:756313
 6:41 am on Oct 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

"No. That is invalid code. You cannot nest a paragraph inside a heading. Both are block-level elements.

I can and do nest paragraphs inside of headings and it gives the effect I want for the places I use it across multiple browsers. I know it is invalid code. The same as an unclosed <p> tag."

I don't really see any reason for you to want to nest a paragraph inside a heading tag nor do I see any effect that can't be handled in other ways. IF it is a case of white space below the heading then simply handle this aspect with basic CSS. Don't forget that HTML isn't meant for layouts and making things purdy, it is used to give your document and specific elements of your document MEANING and that is about it.

Powdork




msg:756314
 6:53 am on Oct 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

I know. Back in the post that started this hyper-thread I mentioned this was on some of my older pages created prior to learning css. In some rare cases I will do it just because it's for a single page that doesn't mesh with my css layout and I am too lazy to go make a new rule just to make G, the W3C, or g1smd happy (no offense g1smd, I just wanted to use all those in the same sentence and now I'm abusing the styles)

arubicus




msg:756315
 3:46 pm on Oct 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Back in the post that started this hyper-thread I mentioned this was on some of my older pages created prior to learning css"

Yep and we all have been there. Usually the case for using crappy html techniques is because:

1. Old techniques used before newer browsers supported newer and better techniques.

2. Lack of knowledge

3. Lazy webmastering

Even though you intentions were at one point good, now, in light of attempts to make things a bit more stantard, what you have done no longer is considered good practice (if ever it has been). With CSS now being a standard practice, and supported by most browers, there should be rarely a case to have to use html for reasons other than proper markup. Yes that means going through old stuff and correct ol outdated stuff. If you wish to receive SE traffic and they deem certain practices as abuse...you must make necessary ammends anyway.

We have old outated HTML practices still on our site (similar to what you are talking about because of 1,2, and 3 mentioned above). We are currently moving to an all CSS design and let me tell ya what a difference it makes to document layout, structure, and context. I love to turn CSS off just to see how the markup was truely meant to look and how it just "flows" to the reader. Try stripping out tables in an all table design and the document usually reads like a jumbled mess.

g1smd




msg:756316
 6:53 pm on Oct 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> Useful information to who? An SEO? Many people with sites could care less about Google. <<

I think the intended recipient of the email is the business owner, not the web designer or SEO. Google have no idea whether the site is designed by the business or whether they paid someone else to do it; but in many cases they will find that the work was done by a third party.

As a business owner how would you feel if having paid thousands for a site, you then recieve an email from Google saying that the work is sub-standard?

As an SEO or designer how would you feel if one of your clients received an email saying that your work was sub-standard?

I think that, in general, this is a good move. It will expose many of the cowboys, and will get business owners talking about good webdesign and SEO, and who does good work and who does not.

Maybe it might even force some of the black hat people to re-evaluate the risks, shape up, or ship out.

Murdoch




msg:756317
 7:37 pm on Oct 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Maybe it might even force some of the black hat people to re-evaluate the risks, shape up, or ship out.

I never even thought of this, and it's a good point. So many people will be opening their inboxes while holding their breath now. The fact that Google is now visibly active in seeking out sloppy/shady webmastering will force people to pause and rethink their tactics.

Useful information to who? An SEO? Many people with sites could care less about Google

But they care about traffic, and most of your traffic comes from Google, like it or not (unless you are extremely niche or a charitable organization). If you choose to ignore such an important advisory than I would consider that to be extremely foolhardy.

randle




msg:756318
 7:57 pm on Oct 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

I’m sorry but categorizing this message as spam is totally ludicrous. If any search engine, (you know the ones, that a lot of us make money from) want to let me know there’s a problem, I’ll gladly delete a few of the messages I get every day for male enhancement, get rich at home, cheap pharmaceuticals, and foreigners asking me to hold their 15 million and make some room in my inbox.

I find it hard to believe someone can genuinely get a hair across their butt at the prospect of getting this message. If you want to be the white knight of spam, I’ll support you all the way, but there are a lot more egregious generators out there you can start with.

Keep us informed on your progress.

bears5122




msg:756319
 8:15 pm on Oct 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

I just don't agree with the argument of "unsolicited mail is bad unless it is sent by Google". I think all commercial sites should abide by the same rules and not exclude ones with savvy PR departments. I'd be all for being able to register for this list though in an opt-in area.

This 215 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 215 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 > >
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