Forum Moderators: open
So I've removed all the cross-linking, but now I am wondering if all this cross-linking has permanently banned my domains? Is excessive cross-linking punishable by banning?
I am wondering if anyone can explain the boundary between getting penalized and banned. How can you tell if you are penalized or banned? Are penalties temporary until you fix them? Finally, how can you recover from either (if it is even possible).
I've been frantically reading messages here for the last couple of days, and picking up lots of advice, but have yet to find a clear explanation of penalizing vs. banning. Thanks!
Bryan
if you are banned you would not be found any more, you are out of the index.
then you have to get rid of what made you getting banned and write an email to the admins begging for indexing your site again.
so bottomline:
penalty:knockoff on PR, site ranks a bit lower onthe SERPS
banned: PR=0, white bar syndrome, site way way down in the SERPS.
If you used excessive cross linking you might have diluted your pagerank too much causing your whole network to lose pagerank.
don't worry about it. What you describe is expected. You gotta have nav links.
If you're banned, you don't appear
in the SERPS *at all*. Not low down.
You don't exist.
Penalized == appear, but rank low.
Banned == Don't appear, ever.
The way to distinguish is with
an "info:" search, ie.
info:yourdomain.com
Banned means there will be no
information available.
Compare
Banned:
[google.de...]
Not banned:
[google.com...]
[edited by: Marcia at 7:04 pm (utc) on Mar. 14, 2003]
[edit reason] Sorry, no specifics please. Thanks! [/edit]
There was a new filter that google has started to add this update, and it will take them two to 3 months to finish it. It seems to have hit a lot of people. Do you know if any of your domains were owned by someone else and they expired before you bought them?
Does anyone think that all this voodoo mumbo-jumbo that Google is doing actually produces superior search results? For example, a search for "Viagra" correctly brings up Viagra.com, Pfizer's own site.
But the #2 search (and this is out of 5.5 million matches) is a site that has 5 links on the home page including "Weird Viagra Links" and "Viagra Jokes". It's hardly the #2 source of information about Viagra.
Nevertheless, we are stuck with their algorithm.
"Reset" is more accurate. It's not that the expired
domain gets negative points (as far as I know)."
Read googleguys statement on this page. It could take up to 3 months for links to show that where gained after an expired domain is re-registered.
[webmasterworld.com...]
And if you want Viagra information try a search on "viagra information" instead. What if the person doing the searching is looking for viagra jokes?
I know a lot more people that tell viagra jokes than take viagra. In fact, the two people I know that take viagra, tell more jokes about it than anyone else.
It IS relevant to the search term, but possibly not to what the searcher intended.
"I repeat, it is *not* a penalty, it is a filter. And that filter is not fully implemented yet. You might be out of luck for the next couple of updates, but it is not a penalty."
You crack me up. Do you own a business, or do you just work for someone else’s business?
Being out of business for 3 months (in business speak that is called a quarter of a year) is a penalty.
It doesn’t matter that it is the result of new software (filter rolling out). Quit thinking in the box. I’m a programmer, I’m a programmer, I’m a programmer…….
Look at the title of the thread. Penalized vs. Banned. There is already a distintion being made between two things. This is NEITHER of those. Linguistically and logically there is a difference, and it does matter.
Yes, you are screwed. No argument there. But you were taking a risk by buying an expired domain in the first place. He bought 50 domains and he knew many were expired. Business is a gamble, and it is fairly common knowledge on the web that buying expired domains is an effective way to spam.
Once this filter is fully in place, it will be a far better solution for you than if Google implemented an expired domain *penalty*. If it was a true penalty, then you should just dump all your expired domains right now.
You are much better off thinking about things in their correct terms. I am a programmer. The reason that I am is because I am good at thinking about these things. Google is a program. If you want to understand a program, you better be willing to at least listen to a programmer.
Don't get me wrong. In principle I like the new filter. Most of my sites have gained traffic since its rollout.
“Look at the title of the thread. Penalized vs. Banned. There is already a distintion being made between two things. This is NEITHER of those. Linguistically and logically there is a difference, and it does matter.”
Dictionary.com: Penalty
1.A punishment established by law or authority for a crime or offense.
2.Something, especially a sum of money, required as a forfeit for an offense.
3.The disadvantage or painful consequences resulting from an action or condition: neglected his health and paid the penalty.
4.Sports.
a.A punishment, handicap, or loss of advantage imposed on a team or competitor for infraction of a rule.
b.An infraction of a rule; a foul.
5.Games. Points scored in contract bridge by the opponents when the declarer fails to make a bid. Often used in the plural.
Please correct me if I’m reading #3 wrong.
“Yes, you are screwed. No argument there.”
Wrong again, BigDave. Google has already taught me my lesson(s). Most of our revenue is generated from Adwords and Overture. This penalty affects me because it means that I have to put a project (large) on hold for 3 months. Besides being annoyed (who cares) it will just slow me down a little.
But Dave what about the small businesses that can’t put their plans or revenue on hold? Does it make them fell better to know that it is a filter not a penalty?
But Dave what about the small businesses that can’t put their plans or revenue on hold? Does it make them fell better to know that it is a filter not a penalty?
Loki99, I think you're missing BigDave's point, which is one that I agree with. In order to discuss these things productively it's important to use the terms involved correctly, and there's a distinction to be made between "bans", "penalties", and "filters".
The end result of a ban or of the effects of a filter might, by one dictionary definition of the word, "penalize" a website operator, as might a direct penalty applied by Google. But in the context of an accurate discussion of Google's approach to ranking and to dealing with spam, it's helpful not to introduce confusion through the use of that particular meaning of the word.
Got it.
Not true, for at least two reasons:
1) _They_ aren't even stuck with their algorithm: they keep changing it -- as the "domain-jumping filter" illustrates.
2) If you're promoting a business, there are ways to _pay_ for promotion -- as an Overture client noted.
Of course not.
But the purpose of _this_ understanding is not to achieve better feelings, but enable them to choose effective actions.
If they realize that what is happening is not a loss of something to which they were entitled, but removal of an unjustified bonus, they can turn to their SERP perp with the correct next question.
And that might take several different forms.
(1) "All right, you slimed Google for three months, like you said you'd do. Do you have any more sleaze in that bucket for the next three months, or do I have to earn my living honestly now?"
(2) "You promised me this position permanently, and now I find out it was by doing all the things Google said SHOULDN'T count toward page rank. Now that they aren't counting them towards page rank (just like they said), can you earn your living honestly, or do I need to look for a _competant_ SERPer?"
(3) "You lowlife cheating slime, you've permanently destroyed this business's reputation on the web. Where should I send the legal papers, and do you have malpractice insurance?"
Mantra: "It's not a penalty. It could never be a penalty. It's merely the removal of a benefit. And that benefit does not belong to me, it was not a result of my work, I paid Google nothing for it, they never promised it to me, indeed they went to great lengths to remind me that they never promised any such thing. They went to great lengths to assure me that it was only for the one month at the most -- new results would quickly replace those which benefited me.
In fact, it was in no way their intention, and very far from their thoughts, to benefit me at all in the first place! That benefit was merely a completely unintended consequence of actions taken for other purposes altogether, and to benefit other persons altogether.
Complaining about the Google penalty is like whining about how bright the sun is, and about that jerk of a truck driver who he passed my car completely, thus removing the shade of his trailer from my windshield."
Talk about thinking in the box! Calling it a "penalty" is a positively solipsistic attitude with no value whatsoever towards determining either appropriate feelings OR actions.
You might want to slow down and read a little more thoroughly.
"Don't get me wrong. In principle I LIKE the new filter. Most of my sites have GAINED traffic since its rollout."
