obono
msg:3296873 | 11:07 pm on Mar 29, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Congratulations! Did you change the internal linking from subdomain type to subdirectory or you just 301 all links but left the original ones as is? If you changed the internal linking to reflect the subdirectories, how did you handle the 301? Some old links must exist for a 301 to be recorded and stuck. I did the same exact thing back in November '06 but site is still banned. Oh wait. Yours was only a penalty, correct? Where are you Adam Lasnik!
|
rawley2
msg:3296879 | 11:14 pm on Mar 29, 2007 (gmt 0) |
I'm in the same boat you where in. Still hold some terms but most are gone. I just sent a reinclusion request in today. I was 950 2-25-07 I have spent the last month cleaning the site up and rel=nofollow cross linked sites. I even found a hidden link in the frigging template! Had no idea about the hidden link in the template. How long ago did you send in the 2nd one? Enquiring minds want to know...
|
tflight
msg:3297295 | 12:33 pm on Mar 30, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Congratulations, warth0g, on getting your site back. I'm curious though if you have any specific reason to believe (other than coincidence) that your site returning has anything to do with the reinclusion request? I ask because so many people who have seen "950" impacts have the site come back from time to time for a few days/weeks only to return later to the 950 land. I've seen one of my sites go in and out of 950 land nearly a dozen times since June. Sometimes it feels like it has been the result of changes I've made to the site, but ultimately it keeps going back to 950 frequently.
|
pbaddock
msg:3297310 | 12:52 pm on Mar 30, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Yes, I must agree with tflight - I too have a customer site that is up and down like a toilet seat at a 21st birthday party! For 6 months they were at #6 for their own particular "blue widgets" search, then for the last month suddenly plummeted to #375 consistently, this week back at #14. Vinnie Barbarino: "I'm so confused!" ;-) If I were you, I'd be waiting a few weeks before you start slappin' high fives.
|
AustrianOak
msg:3297419 | 2:26 pm on Mar 30, 2007 (gmt 0) |
warth0g, congrats! I'm your distant cousin in penalties.. the -30 penalty. Can you share when you submitted your most recent re-inclusion request and how long aprox. it took for the penalty to be lifted? Thanks for the message, brings hope to the rest of us! Oak [edited by: AustrianOak at 2:26 pm (utc) on Mar. 30, 2007]
|
tigertom
msg:3298278 | 12:51 pm on Mar 31, 2007 (gmt 0) |
5) above was the one that did it for me, I think. I propose that Google doesn't like high optimization, and excessive internal links on any one page. My key pages that I watch in the SERPs seem back to normal now.
|
moftary
msg:3298990 | 11:36 am on Apr 1, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Per google webmaster guidelines, Keep the links on a given page to a reasonable number (fewer than 100). However I run a web directory with many pages having more than 200 links per page with no problems. I think breaking the design and content guidelines would result in a decline of the site performance in SERPs but definitely not a ban,
|
tigertom
msg:3299134 | 2:16 pm on Apr 1, 2007 (gmt 0) |
"I run a _web directory_ with many pages having more than 200 links per page with no problems." I'm talking about _internal links_ to pages on _your own site_. In my case, the links were keyword heavy (ALT, title, image name, anchor text, bolded, underlined), and too many. I stripped all this back, reduced the number of links per page, dialled back overall page optimisation, et voila!
|
AustrianOak
msg:3299138 | 2:27 pm on Apr 1, 2007 (gmt 0) |
tigertom, once again.. what was the time frame between #6 and #7 Thanks!
Oak
|
rawley2
msg:3299173 | 3:22 pm on Apr 1, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Warth0g, What was the time frame please.. After you submitted the 2nd request. Thanks,
|
tigertom
msg:3299192 | 3:53 pm on Apr 1, 2007 (gmt 0) |
I didn't submit any re-inclusion request. I doubt you'd need to. You only do that when your site has been banned i.e. site:www.domain.com returns no results. Time frame: a few weeks, I'd guess. Your pages have to be re-spidered, and the Google index updated. There's no need to do a re-inclusion request for a penalisation. Just change what's causing it. [edited by: tigertom at 4:01 pm (utc) on April 1, 2007]
|
piskie
msg:3299194 | 3:59 pm on Apr 1, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Googles response time for these requests is not short. It could be that your panic mode rework crossed in the post so to speak.
|
AustrianOak
msg:3299465 | 9:57 pm on Apr 1, 2007 (gmt 0) |
correction, I meant Warth0g.
|
alexey9
msg:3300225 | 4:49 pm on Apr 2, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Congratulations. My site was removed from SERPs at the same time as your site, but I never get reply from Google Reinclusion person. | 2) This happened during a server crash ion the middle of indexing, failover server was not configured right and created duplicate content. |
|
What actually was not configured right? My server was hacked and I saw a lot of things changed by hacker.
|
|
