| 2:20 am on Jul 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yep, I think it did happen just on 27th July....a month after big June 27th one... My sites get back and that's the only thing i care about now!
| 2:23 am on Jul 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Our sites are all back..
| 1:54 pm on Jul 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yes, Google was crawling a new site of mine for the last 10 days without actually including the pages in its index. As of this morning, I see that some +150 pages are indexed.
| 2:51 pm on Jul 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I sure wish we would see something positive. Still nothing though. Home page still MIA.
| 3:40 pm on Jul 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm noticing something silly with this new refresh on one of my lesser sites.
1. On 7/27 it disappeared for all its major keywords, but unlike before, where "" bypasses the filter, it is still AWOL.
2. It was usually in the 10-15 range allinanchor:KW, now it isn't in the top 1000 that I can see.
3. The site: is broken. For a small site, even it is experiencing problems, with the index page no longer being the top result returned. Instead it is a cached, supplemental 404 (huh?) domain.com/images/home_image.swf -- of course, we don't use .swf files and have 404 processing setup correctly in IIS.
A question for those of you that were able to fix some of the supplemental issues: have you found it more beneficial to create a G account and submit the site to sitemaps as a method of asking a question / requesting reinclusion, or have you found it easier to create a G account and request removal of the page from the index?
| 3:47 pm on Jul 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If you don't have a problem with being MIA for 6 months the url remaval tool works great. Assuming the site is clean it will reappear perfectly indexed in 6 months.
| 8:14 pm on Jul 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I would never, ever submit a reinclusion request to Google.
I think by doing that, that you are telling Google that you had a banned or penalized page or site and be prepared to battle their spam bots in overdrive?
I have no clue on this as I have never had a reason to request for reinclusion but again would never do it unless I knew the exact problem.
Side note: I would never submit a site to any search engine either.
Spiders prefer to find your site as it proves to them that they are "trying" to do their job. Many ancient topics on this.
| 10:13 pm on Jul 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I had two key search arguements, one wasn't reaching the top 100, the other coming in at number 4.
Since 27 July they have swapped.
| 10:48 pm on Jul 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I've successfully done a recinclusion request in the past; it just took too long because the issue itself was not specific to my site and needed to be fixed (302 stuff). If there's a problem and you think you know what it is, it really don't hurt to file the request; yes, calling it a reinclusion request makes it sound as though you are admitting to something, but if you really aren't, there isn't any harm. I want to say my average time to solution on that is 6-8 weeks.
Nuking a page via the removal tool never took 6 months for me; most of the time, I did it in conjunction with something else, but I think my past average was somewhere around 3-4 weeks.
Per the sitemaps deal; I mostly followed DaveN's take on it for a while and know of several threads here regarding the faulty site: command and how it is related to some AWOL SERPs, but haven't done it yet.
Thus, it is still just a question of which is faster; some people did this just after the June 27th datapush and recently popped back in (though it may have been a coincidence). Anyone else have success with the sitemaps route?
| 11:40 pm on Jul 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
all keywords that were held for the past few months to a year have dropped from number 1 to 20 for example, think this is temporary or something more concrete. We're a legitimate site without any seo tricks, just naturals links coming in, with only a couple outgoing links. The funny thing is our alexa ranking went up, but actually dived in the google results.