TheMadScientist - 6:09 pm on Nov 12, 2012 (gmt 0)
Hey Shaddows ... Good to see you!
True, and that's good point ... I guess I'm 'grasping at straws', because what everyone here is saying about why sites normally get dropped is accurate and makes complete sense to me, so it seems like this one almost has to be something 'other than usual'.
David doesn't seem to me like one of those posters we get sometimes who's trying to work a spam site around a penalty, so if I throw out 'spammer' and assume we're getting the whole story about what's been looked at (it's possible there's something he missed - I know I certainly have had a few 'head slap moments' over the years - but assuming nothing was missed in this case), the only thing I come up with is 'not enough', or ...
It Could be what Robert said about an algo update of some type at the same time as the 'free giveaway' was running, where the combo of the 'giveaway' (maybe the wording or above the fold space taken by the giveaway info - something about it) and very low (possibly zero) 'quality link count' plus 'already have tons of sites on the topic' plus 'ROS inbound footer links' triggered a 'guideline violation', which could easily mean there's a 'time period' of penalization/deindexing, and if that's it, the issue may already be corrected but the 'penalty time period' not yet expired, so we could really be chasing our tails here.
BTW: I think the reinclusion request you suggested is probably a 'must do' at this point, because it should narrow it down to 'manual' or 'algorithmic' at the very least.