| 10:28 pm on Oct 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Wow. It did get smacked.
Luckily I only have one on that server, but there goes about $50 a day.
No idea what the problem might be, but at least we do know that we can't blame this one on Corn Boy. That narrows it down a tad bit.
| 2:02 am on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have the same experience. All my top sites disappeared today -- even from MSN. What's going on here? I have 3 servers across the country...
| 2:11 am on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|The content sites sales sites, the whole kit and kaboodle got deleted from Yahoo. This was not just my sites. It was everybody's sites. |
So, now what?
If I move my sites to a new host, do you think Yahoo might pick them up again? I don't know if they just put a block on the ISP or if they have a block on each and every doimain that was hosted there.
These sites are still doing fine in Google.
I think the best you can hope for is to simply move them to a new server (a pain I know), and start watching for Yahoo's crawler to come around. Although, with the slow speed that yahoo updates it's index (it's been about every 6 weeks for us), you'll probably be missing the holiday season.
If I were you I would move away from virtual hosting and get a dedicated box (you can get them for as little as $99 a month).
If these are affiliate sites, DO NOT contact Yahoo and request reinclusion, as it will be the kiss of death for them.
| 1:30 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"If I move my sites to a new host, do you think Yahoo might pick them up again?"
It may be due to an entirely different issue, but I had one site that got nailed last March and I moved it to a VPS as it made no sense to continue paying for a hosting account for a "dead" site. Two months ago it found its way back into the good graces of Yahoo, at least for the time being.
As I said, maybe the problem is not the same thing, but a server move certainly can't hurt.
| 3:39 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
How were you able to tell all sites on the server were booted?
| 4:18 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Because they all were.
| 5:41 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Were these sites linking to one another?
| 8:22 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Yes, if there is a large number of sites on an IP address range that are spam sites, then others that share that IP range will be considered in violation. |
| 10:16 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Were these sites linking to one another?"
Some of them very well may have been.
| 10:30 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
btw.....note the range..specific ip...
| 1:14 am on Oct 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
[Yahoo Mike quoted from the other thread...]
"Yahoo!'s mission is to deliver the highest quality search experience."
My mission is to deliver what highest quality product that the consumer is looking for.
"Yes, our number one goal is to deliver the most relevant results to searchers."
Several products that I offer on my site are not available anywhere else (I am the primary source of these products). The consumer will not get a relevant result now if they do a Yahoo search for one of these items.
It makes sense that Yahoo should wish to identify and penalize irrelevant or useless sites. "Identify" being the operative term here. If the police want to flush out a fugitive who is hiding in an office building, should they gas all of the occupants?
| 3:40 am on Oct 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|It makes sense that Yahoo should wish to identify and penalize irrelevant or useless sites. "Identify" being the operative term here. If the police want to flush out a fugitive who is hiding in an office building, should they gas all of the occupants? |
Not at all, but seeing it from thier point of view (and using your analogy):
If 95% of the people occupying that building have been identified as "rule breakers", then the other 5% are more than likely to be "guilty by association".
At any rate, if your site meets Yahoo's guidleines, you should have no problem getting a reinclusion request granted (took me about 8 weeks to get an answer the last tiem I sent one).
If they are pure-affiliate sites, with little or no original content (i.e. mostly datafeed driven sites), well, that's just the cost of doing business in the affiliate world.
| 11:01 am on Oct 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|If 95% of the people occupying that building have been identified as "rule breakers", then the other 5% are more than likely to be "guilty by association". |
yes, but unless you know something we dont, those arent the figures used by Yahoo. The quote i posred talked of numbers not percentages and ranges rather than specific servers.
|At any rate, if your site meets Yahoo's guidleines, you should have no problem getting a reinclusion request granted |
| 4:48 pm on Oct 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>At any rate, if your site meets Yahoo's guidleines, you should have no problem getting a reinclusion request granted (took me about 8 weeks to get an answer the last tiem I sent one).
I'm ROFL about that one. I've only heard of a select few being re-included. I belive you also said Yahoo reacts to spam reports in minutes. Yeah, right.
| 3:55 am on Oct 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
SSanf, your chances of getting those domains back in are almost non-existent (being optimistic).
If you can, get a new server (or switch your hosting companies), register a few new domains, ban googlebot from these new domains, copy them over, ban yahoo from the old domains, and start getting links for them.
| 7:44 pm on Oct 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Following this thread, is it also bad practice to have
on the same box? Can trat trip a dupe content banning?
| 9:57 pm on Oct 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I had the same problem. On the 18th, my site was removed from Yahoo and MSN. Is there a way to find out why your site is removed? Have I been banned? I am following the Terms and Conditions, as far as I know.
When I enter (site:www.mysite.com), nothing shows.
| 8:34 pm on Oct 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The odd thing is that Yahoo continues to deep-crawl this site.
I guess they figure it's OK for them to pad their images database at my expense even after giving me the bad finger.
| 4:00 pm on Oct 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I've lost about 90% of my pages since end of July and till now it remains the same, even after removing cross linking, isolating the site completely from the rest.
| 6:15 pm on Nov 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Interesting that this occurred in Yahoo/MSN, but not in Google. Google to my knowledge is more proficient in identifing linking patterns by IP than Yahoo ever has been.
And these sites rank well in Google for competitive terms? Amazing.
| 6:26 pm on Nov 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
google is a quantam leap ahead in idenitfying networks...the difference is yahoo seeks to ban for life sites that in engage in things which it simply decides it doesnt like....whether its with malicous intent or not..google simply seeks to remove the effect of that network from its algo...the result being a site from that network can rank for a given keyword but only one site, the most relevant, will show.
| 8:21 pm on Nov 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Somehow banning an ip or a whole ip range seems archaic when they can simply ban a domain no? IP's change all the time, domains are much more static. I've seen hundreds of sites on an ip, basic virtual hosting with hundreds of sites banned from engines because of a few rotten apples? Talk about using a cannon to kill a fly
| 3:47 pm on Nov 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Talk about using a cannon to kill a fly |
if your concern is only having certain types of sites in your index rather than as much information as you can index on the internet then this works well.....
| 9:18 am on Nov 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Pretty stupid of Yahoo to ban whole server that is shared, but maybe they couldn't tell it was shared and didn't do their research. What you should do is move to new server and subscribe to SiteMatch for a couple of months to get in right away. After couple of months your site should be there for free, so you should cancel SiteMatch then.
| 8:21 am on Nov 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My sites were removed from both Yahoo and msn. I was in the first page for targeted search terms. I was sharing a single IP to host 10 websites?
What should I do? If I host 10 websites using unique IPs will I be allright?