homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.95.201
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
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 195 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 195 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]     
Google's 950 Penalty - Part 9
annej




msg:3336309
 9:13 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

< Continued from: [webmasterworld.com...] >
< related threads: -950 Quick Summary [webmasterworld.com] -- -950 Part One [webmasterworld.com] >

That's because we are shooting in the dark

We really aren't shooting in the dark. We are shooting at dusk. We can see a fuzzy image of what is out there. Sometimes when we shoot we hit the target and other times we can't no matter how hard we try.

But we waste our time when we start shooting at theories like

- Google is doing this so more people will pay for AdWords

- Google only hits commercial sites

- If you have Google analytics you will sorry

- Only sites doing something illegal are hit by -950

- It's because you have AdSense on your site

- Scraper sites are doing this to us

It goes on and on.

Is it because the phrase based theories are not an easy answer? It does take a lot of work to figure out why you might have been 950ed and sometimes you just can't find the answer. But I still believe that most 950ed pages have been caught in an imperfect phrase based filter.

[edited by: tedster at 9:14 pm (utc) on Feb. 27, 2008]

 

tigertom




msg:3351123
 2:44 pm on May 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Re: Disallowing GoogleBot.

Is it still the case that if you do this, a competitor can tell Google to formally 'dump' your site altogether for 6 months, as happened to WebmasterWorld? Wouldn't it be better to, say, disallow all save the index page, perhaps?

tedster




msg:3351139
 3:15 pm on May 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't think so - today the url removal tool is within your Webmaster Tools account, so only an authenticated user can make a removal request.
Reference: [google.com...]

The removal period is still 180 days, as it always was -- but now you can also request an earlier re-inclusion.
Reference: [google.com...]

mattg3




msg:3351252
 7:15 pm on May 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

For my site 950ed through the lot the inbound link with SEO fits. This idiot domain network points to me with one DMOZ clone page and mentions SEO on the page.

It pretty much fits in with the Google announcements:

Fight on boilerplate content was anounced early this year, since I have not that much I got high traffic.

The fight on link buying gets announced and I have these masses of unsolicited garbage inbounds and I sink as low as never. Just surving on the 6000 direct a day that come anyway without Google.

tigertom




msg:3351298
 8:08 pm on May 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

There are 9 parts to this thread. Any remedies, yet? A simple list for the afflicted, please. I'll start:

- High quality backlinks to 950'd pages;

And maybe:

- Deoptimisation, and addition of related, but not keyword-stuffed, text(?)
- Tone down keyword stuffed anchor-text in internal and external links(?)
- Avoid links from cr*p directories (most of them), and other low-quality backlinks(?)

That's as much as I can make out, from what I've read. Just so some poor wretch doesn't have to read the umpteen previous posts.

Marcia




msg:3351304
 8:34 pm on May 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

>>- Avoid links from cr*p directories (most of them), and other low-quality backlinks(?)

It's been unavoidable and involuntary to a good degree. Hopefully the situation will improve some when Google's Adsense program stops subsidizing scrapers June 1st.

steveb




msg:3351308
 8:37 pm on May 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

"I don't think so - today the url removal tool is within your Webmaster Tools account, so only an authenticated user can make a removal request."

Both parts are obviously not true.

Anyone can remove a tagged page for six months.

steveb




msg:3351313
 8:42 pm on May 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

"High quality backlinks to 950'd pages"

Depends on whether you are talking about pages appropriately penalized or those mispenalized.

For non-spam pages, high quality backlinks make getting a penalty more likely. They don't help you get out of the penalty anymore than any other random changes do.

The best tactic remains removing the penalized pages with the URL removal tool, and starting fresh on a different URL with somewhat different text and linking. That still doesn't always work.

tigertom




msg:3351316
 8:53 pm on May 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Just noticed that Google's algo ain't all that. Some of my not-household-name competitors have got on first and second page of the SERPS for some competitive terms with a crude method.

Still wondering what's shanked _my_ site. In the past, I could guess, and make a fix. Now, it's _maybe_ too many (legit) links from off-topic pages and _maybe_ too much onsite optimisation. But I'd hate to steer you the wrong way.

As someone said in a previous post "Don't take advice from someone suffering a penalty themselves."

tigertom




msg:3351317
 8:57 pm on May 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

SteveB: I say nuts to removing content. Just start another site. And another. And another. And promote them by different methods. And don't interlink them.

annej




msg:3351402
 11:00 pm on May 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

I've had luck with a getting a good backlink in one case on a mispenalized page. But it wouldn't be a solution if you have a lot of lost pages or a whole site 950ed.

SEOPTI




msg:3351406
 11:05 pm on May 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

tigertom, I'm with you on this, too many links from off-topic pages.

tedster




msg:3351430
 12:17 am on May 28, 2007 (gmt 0)

Both parts are obviously not true. Anyone can remove a tagged page for six months.

steveb, do you have a link for that tool? I no longer can find a public URL removal tool for Google, only the Webmaster Tools version that is mentioned in the links I included above.

mattg3




msg:3351432
 12:22 am on May 28, 2007 (gmt 0)

SteveB: I say nuts to removing content. Just start another site. And another. And another. And promote them by different methods. And don't interlink them.

Yapp loads of trashy fire and forget websites ..

tigertom




msg:3351434
 12:26 am on May 28, 2007 (gmt 0)

They don't need to be trashy. They can be good. It's as easy to make a good site as a bad one. Easier, even. You're more energised about it.

My mistake was putting all my stuff on one site. Easier to promote, but, when Google adds a line of code to its algorithm, poof ... you're gone.

Addendum: The other notion in this thread was:

- Google is filtering on competitive terms. You can rank for some terms, and be 950'd for others.

A guess: Google is spam filtering. There are a lot of clever people spending a lot of time trying to game it. Result: Results like MSN's if they don't do something drastic.

Something drastic being: Supplementals, -30, -950, boot arbitrageurs, FUD about paid links etc.

Why? MSN has Windows, Yahoo has it's hand-edited directory and community, Google has only the purity of its results, and Adwords. Its shares are have a silly P/E ratio and the pressure's constant.

I've seen its underbelly: dfk099.sumbum.info ranking on competitive terms. Our whining is just background noise.

[edited by: tigertom at 12:40 am (utc) on May 28, 2007]

mattg3




msg:3351435
 12:26 am on May 28, 2007 (gmt 0)

It's been unavoidable and involuntary to a good degree. Hopefully the situation will improve some when Google's Adsense program stops subsidizing scrapers June 1st.

Bit like getting rich on drugs and then chucking the habit but keeping the money .. :)

< continued here: [webmasterworld.com...] >

[edited by: tedster at 7:44 pm (utc) on May 29, 2007]

This 195 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 195 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
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