| 2:11 am on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
A couple things to talk about. First, is the url in the index when you simply place it's url in the Google search box? This will help to see if the url is still indexed but not ranking on your hoped for SERP, or if it's not even indexed.
And second, how new is "new"? Sometimes a blog post will rank immediately after it is written, especially if the query term is one that Google has tagged as QDF or "Query Deserves Frehness". Then after a bit, that url will fade away in the results. If it continues to attract new natural backlinks, then is may climb back toward the top.
| 2:41 am on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Typing the url into the search box doesn't show my site but a couple of sites linking to mine.
I wrote the blog post last week, but the term is not very competitive and thus it shouldn't have dropped.
Since Google doesn't even know the url, I think something must be wrong.
| 5:41 am on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
As Tedster said, it must be because of the QDF.
Write another unique post on the same topic and see what happens.
| 2:39 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I don't belief that at all. Why would that make just my URL disappear from Google while competitors are not affected?
The term is not that competitive.
| 2:51 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
talked about on a forum on linkedin and twitter. has also acquired a bunch of natural links.
Construed as Spam links perhaps?
| 4:44 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
That was my suspicion too, but what to do now?
I have another link from wikipedia (didn't create that one, new page) and one from a company website (new website, new company, under testimonials) and a few social bookmarks.
Should I add a few more links in the hope to see it bounce back? Should I move the article to a different URL and change the wiki and companay url while ditching everything else? If yes, should I 301 the old url or not?
I am looking for some hints on fixing this.
| 7:58 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
and social bookmarks...and wiki...and a new website...lol....if I was a betting man, and I am , my money is on spam...lol
I1m not sure what you can do - tell you what I would do though - NOTHING...for now anway...leave it 2 to 3 weeks...
I wouldn't be getting anymore of them natural links either...lol
I may possibly consider inline-linking to another of your blog posts (relevant) and an external domain (related) too...
But it looks as if it could have flagged for spammy links...imo
| 8:12 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I am not sure why you are laughing so hard, but wiki pages get created about new subjects and when you are amongst the first posting about it, you end up being credited for it.
No I didn't write the wiki page and no I didn't write that other website which happens to be new.
Getting more links: Well that's easy if something is new you just need to let people know about it.
I really appreciate your help, but I protest the judgmental placement of your lol's.
Something may look spammy to some machine filter, even when it is perfectly o.k.
| 8:17 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Something may look spammy to some machine filter, even when it is perfectly o.k. |
I assumed that was merlin's intention - and it may well be something that's happening to your dropped page. Google is not always filtering for just the most blatant spam - ask anyone who banged into the -950 penalty.
| 8:29 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
No, not laughing at you mate...but when you mention all those backlink properties/profiles, all at once, they probs don't appear natural to the algo... it was the social bookmarking that did the lol's for me...
Chill out and I hope it works out for you...
| 8:35 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Tell you waht you could do....make an article out of it and submit it to the top article site...link back in your bio box to the blog post...
| 8:50 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Do I detect sarcasm and irony here? Let's play it straight and say that links which are clearly under the author's direct control are often discounted by Google - and sometimes when done to excess, they can even cause troubles.
[edited by: tedster at 8:55 pm (utc) on April 6, 2009]
| 8:54 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
No Ted, I really think a link back from a good article from the top ezine could help the blog post...
It won't make it any worse will it? ...
In my experience generally you get much more love from a good article than you ever would from a social bookmark kinda link...
| 8:57 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for explaining. A really good article certainly takes a lot more effort. If it starts to get re-published on quality sites, then I agree, you can get a bit of link-love with that approach.
| 9:03 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for your answers Merlin. Guess I overreacted a bit. I decided to sit it out. The world doesn't revolve around Google for me and if they must punish pages they must punish pages. It's what they do. I am sure that I tripped some filter somehow, but that happens when you walk a minefield (google). I wish there was a better way to find the cause. It bothers me a bit to get a unique piece banned that took a long time to research. It implies that it is s**t. At least my subscribers can enjoy it.
| 9:10 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
What I have found is if your trying to promote a new domain or a new post/article in this case... Is to initially avoid getting socialbookmark links etc (initially is the watchword)... Because as ted suggested these are or can be self-driven links..and will count for less...
However, if you promote the new domain or post with content driven links (like with an article at a top ezine), you will get more link love and respect... it will push or keep your original where it's at for a good while longer...and it may even support itself over time...
Content driven links as opposed to links for links sake..
| 9:25 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I can see your point and I thank you for educating me about this, but if natural links aren't good enough for google anymore (I didn't social bookmark the page, my readers did) and if I have to write an ezine article for a new post then I will just stop looking at Google, no matter how much traffic they send right now. I don't have the time chasing this.
Google is free to index a unique page about a fresh topic or they can let it be. It's for them to decide (algorithmically). I am getting so weary of this. I am about to shift to direct marketing and builing a loyal reader base instead of catering to the algo's every whim.
I was hoping to be able to find and correct an obvious mistake.
| 9:36 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Ranking or not, I cannot figure out why Google claims no knowledge of the exact URL. Does that indicate a punishment or is it meaningless?
| 11:34 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
It could be a glitch on Google's back end - with all the data they need to crunch, that does happen. If that's the answer, it will usually come back.
You could also ask the question about this on Google's Webmaster Help forums (see our Forum Charter [webmasterworld.com] for the link.)
| 11:38 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I already did. They were telling me something about canonical issues (aka blog front page vs. post page) but I honestly believe this is a load of ... since it only applies to that single post and not others that don't even have external links. I fixed the canonical issues just in case to see if it comes back.
I appreciate it that you guys put your thinking hats on for me!
| 8:56 pm on Apr 7, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The post came back and settled on place 2 in the Serp.
-I removed the canonical issue (seems to have been the major issue)
-I added a link from another related site of mine