|Zapped for no reason, why not just crank out more sites?|
| 10:35 am on Sep 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
All that was done was move sites away from BAD hosting that had Open DNS, recurrent security problems, excessive downtime, and finally being 403'd for my own sites to boot because of their foul-up installing a module, and then, the lame "support" saying to contact my ISP provider. ;)
And also, doing a 301 when moved to avoid canonical and duplicate issues. Here's how long ago this catastrophe began - actually before even
Those sites are clean as a whistle and have always done very well with MSN Search, no dups, no spam, and I don't even go whoring after links for them.
To have sites zapped for technical stuff that's not MY fault but theirs, with DNS handling issues has me as frosted as I've ever been in YEARS. This is the one thing that's finally pushed me over the line, what I might just as well do is just crank out another site, maybe 2 or 3 more sites. And hey, maybe some subdomain blogs, since those get so much MSN love.
Very sad, very unfair and very aggravating.
| 3:45 pm on Sep 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Now you have me worried. I was about to make the leap to a more secure hosting company. But my rankings on just about any related search phrase I try is great in MSN right now. I get more visitors from MSN than Yahoo. Of course Google still brings most of my SE visitors.
| 7:05 pm on Sep 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well Anne, I guess I am a spammer, without even trying
I just write text naturally which could end up high density, but it looks like pages will have to be "optimized" for a specific KWD instead of just trying to write copy to sell stuff.
I wouldn't worry too much about moving if it's to a good host with the IP in place right off and you're on an insecure host now, but get everything in place before changing the nameservers. Thing is, there were some serious hosting problems with the prior host, and I seriously think there's a problem with 301's at MSN. I did move other sites without a problem, these two are a total aggravation, one is my "holiday revenue" site.
You might want to check with dnsstuff and/or dnsreport for hosts setup, most have the "yellow" notations, but many don't do the mail servers as suggested because it can leave holes for being compromised. I asked about that with the tech guy at my current host. Yellow I don't worry about, but RED is not a good thing, especially for open DNS.
I've got some sites at a long-time cheap host who has that red for open DNS, but now I'm also afraid to move sites because I always redirect non-www to www as standard practice.
[edited by: Marcia at 7:08 pm (utc) on Sep. 29, 2006]
| 10:44 pm on Sep 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm only going to move my more valuable site to a new host. I'm having to resist my impatience and take my time to be sure I have all my ducks in order before I do it.
Are you sure you got caught in the spam filter or still thinking the move could have hurt too?
I'm going to sticky you a webpage that is doing amazingly well for me with high density key words. Maybe it will help you see a pattern.
| 12:07 am on Sep 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Marcia ..long time ;-)..
MSN is ever so picky about geotargeting ( and was for along long time before they owned up to it ) and in particular the geotargetting of your incoming links ..( they seem to like them to be from sites on servers in the next county and with the same colour eyes as your site ;-)
..although they can almost ..
...( but not quite )...
..distinguish recip link farms from Europe from real genuine unsolicited links from sites on similar subjects ..( then again google has that problem too ..apparently neither can spot mutual backslapping in languages other than english )..
I still have at least one horribly keyword spammy ( density must be around 12% ) site in place which serves me as a sort of fishing float indicator of what the big 3 don't like ..never moves much ..sits in the top 5 in MS and Y and at 8 to 11 on G ..only 150 or so inbounds ..all from outside Europe ..one DMOZ ( in english ) ..all others from english language sites on servers in the US ( where it is hosted ) ..It's french language pages are the ones I watch the movement on ..and have used to track ( along with some other sites ) the implementation of geotargetting by all the big engines ..all those above it are on european servers ( 83 or 88 ) and are interlinked from others on 83 or 88 networks ..
they fluctuate great deal ..like fish soup simmering ..
but the #1 ( which is also based in the US but in french language only moves to number 2 and back up again ..it also buys adwords ..0.30cents a pop ) ..it has over 1000 inbounds that I know of from Europe and at least 1 PR 6/7 from the USA ..from an english language site but precise inbound link text is in english to the product which they promote which is also the same phrase in French as french doesn't have a word for the product ..
The product is all they are interested in targetting to their visitors ( but that is not the keyword they target in french language ) as the rest of the site is just a cover for the distribution to the french market of this US product ..which is 90% of their business ..
The sites which link to them are those which are owned by those who have been trained by them in the use of this product ..however they link using the generic name of the apparatus which is used in conjunction with the primary sites product and not with the product name itself ..( still with me ;-)..neither they nor I have moved more than a smidgen in the last 4 years ..( and I cant be bothered adjusting my site as it is more usefully positioned where it is by what it tells me that might affect other of my sites with more potential for gain ) ..
The interesting thing is that whilst my site also has high placing when searched for that same keyword and other related ones from the USA..the other site ranks low ..as all it's inbounds except that one are from outside of the US ..and it has no DMOZ ..this geotargetting / weighting on inbound link value has lasted since before florida on all SE's ..
This info may be of relevance to you ..even if your previous host was in the USA ..precisely where your links where and from what networks thay were coming from may be important ..or not ..anyway HTH even if only to rule out some variables that might be crossing your mind ..
Could have told you in sticky ;-)..but maybe this somewhat "off the wall suggestion" here might spark other input ( "H"? and I have discussed this before ..along while back before it was accepted as happening in MSN and G )it's one of many factors ..but I think that the SE's are getting more and more local in their weighting ..too much IMO ..
That may be hurting you somewhat ..wouldn't want that ..
BTW ..I do hope you aren't saying that even with all that you know you were running sites on servers with any kind of webmail apps ..!that's like leaving the key under the mat ..
| 10:07 pm on Oct 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
We actually think we do handle 301 redirects correctly, for the most part. The system may take a few weeks to completely figure it out, but that should be the worst of it. Do you think you've used a 301 and seen us mess it up forever?
The one place we know we need to work on is deciding which URL to associate with the site: in some cases it's the new one, but in others it's the original one. That's mostly a cosmetic issue, though.
In other cases when someone has told me about a problem he/she thought was caused by a 301, it turned out that the 301 had worked fine but something else was wrong.
Have other people moved their sites and seen things fail? Also, have other people used a 301 and seen it work fine?
| 7:02 pm on Oct 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
One of our sites enjoyed good referals from MSN search now they are few and far between. On the 6th of July the sites IP address changed. On the 22nd of July the traffic from MSN died.
I didn't cross my mind that it could be to do with switching IP's until I saw this thread. Nothing else changed DNS was same (3rd Party DNS) and the website content was not changed. We did not use a 301 as the change was seemless and two sites could not exist at the same, certainly in terms of urls the change over should have been invisible.