Forum Moderators: open
Several sites still retain a pagerank of zero - with no logical reason. Sites have lost a considerable amount of traffic for several months because of a penalization by Google. Some sites have regained their pagerank. Some have regained it partially for just the index page.
Did Google even make an effort to sort this out? I have my doubts...
Thoughts?
No site in your profile, so I couldn't offer an opinion in your case.
It seems to me that the whole 0 pagerank thing is totally automatic and unless someone at Google manually removes the problem, it will remain.
After all, I've had this 0 pagerank problem 4 updates now.
I think the best thing to do is e-mail Google directly in a short and polite e-mail requesting a look at your site.
I know how frustrating this is because it's doubtful there will be any reply.
But, that's the only thing left to do. :(
Myself: as I've said before, it was my own bloody fault I got this penalty because I did stupid crosslinking in the first place - so I cannot complain.... I just hope The Fonz loves me again by Christmas ;)
(edited by: nutsandbolts at 10:19 pm (utc) on April 7, 2002)
Its complicated when there are no do's and dont's. Perhaps some SE's should team up and spell out some of the don'ts so there is no confusion
I've e-mailed Google a number of times - never received a reply. The adwords dept. even promised to pass on the enquiry - again, no reply.
I know that not all e-mails can be responded to. That can't be helped. It doesn't make it any easier to watch your traffic and income go down the drain though.
I've e-mailed Google a number of times - never received a reply.
I don't think they have lifted the PR0 blessing from all sites yet (even after the site got reindexed). But hopefully they will get to it too.
My (sparkling new) site has PR 0. The bot did crawl the site and the site is shown in the Google index. There are no inbound links showing, yet I know they are out there.
Would this suggest a penalty?
id wait a bit before jumping the gun with pagerank. The www google hasnt even got the new index on it yet
The corporate page that links to your "traffic train" webmaster-portal domain and thus on to your casino domains is affecting you. Linking to a spammy neighborhood can came back to bite you.
Well, there you have it
Surely not all of their links can be to good sites?
There are masses of dead links, casino sites, porn sites and other well known spammers listed in the ODP and Yahoo...how about giving dmoz a PR0 blessing ;)
X - Hide Results that have popups.
Oh, that would be sweet!
Yes, the network covers a multitude of different subjects. There is a quite large sub-network of online casinos sites. Naturally, this is mentioned and linked to in the corporate pages. The online casinos sites were cross-linking until recently. They were also affected by a pagerank zero penalty, thus ending the cross-linking there.
What do you recommend? Most of the online casinos sites are far from 'spammy' sites. Indeed, in world of low-quality casino sites, those sites are of the highest quality, being actual 'information' sites rather than the usual banner-pages seen cluttering up most sites in this genre.
If all the sites remove links to the corporate pages and do not link to any other sites in the network in any way, do you think they'll regain pagerank without the need for Google 'inside' manual intervention?
Thanks again. Your time is appreciated.
Lisa, I can't agree more. There's one that drives me crazy. I got caught in their popups a couple of times, and they've pulled every trick in the book, including different number of links pointing with and without www. Smart, too - they're all over, and probably anticipating that since some in particular are webmaster related and they're likely to be turned in, they retained their position in a certain irrelevant category this month using a different domain name (but the "name" is still in the title). Same old directory type of page with the usual sites linked to that are expected. Popup city, they go on and on!
They (and others) also take up expired domains with listings in certain ODP categories that normally tend to do a lot of (legitimate) reciprocal linking, turning into a problem with the Directory sites. I don't look for them, but in checking some categories an occasional one gets stumbled upon. I wish there were a way that ODP, since they're manned by volunteers and it's cumbersome to do by hand, could verify that the sites that were first added still qualify for their listings by content. It degrades the quality and usefulness of the Directory (Google Directory, too).
I don't know that Google had what we can call a mess, it seems likely that some people ended up in messy situations accidentally and the situation went into overkill. I'm working with a fairly new site now that's had a few months work by a promoter who mass submits to "thousands" including FFAs and classifieds and arranges reciprocal links. That's the strategy employed for getting rankings, the sites themselves are never touched. The promoter's site is PR0, and they're still promoting their services doing that - and it's not cheap, either. Maybe they deserve it, but people paying them sure wouldn't be doing anything intentionally - yet they'd get caught up and never know why.
That's a mess, and it's one that Google didn't cause, but got caught up in, imho. A lot of the responsibility lies with the massive spreading around of the link-pop myth that people are buying into en masse, especially Mom 'n Pop who are buying it up like they bought up Beanie Babies a few years back.
It also hurts the legit people who actually work hard to dig into sites to get rid of spammed up alt tags and garbage, overloaded HTML and make some sense out of sites that have linking visitors can't even follow to find their way around. It's very unglamorous compared to the promises of a quick fix with links and more links and mass submissions. That's a mess, and people who should be studying and know better are spreading it like a deadly virus, creating innocent casualties all over the place.
IMHO, Google didn't cause the mess, but what a job for them and everyone else affected to dig their way out from under it.
1.if i have a quality site but my income relies on some "casino" or other affiliate program is defined as bad neighbourhood. so i put link to them on most pages (one line link or banner) - then my site deserves pr 0? Or if we have pop up that goes to casino? I dont think this is totally not fair IF the site is good quality to get pr 0 jsut becasue owner tries to make some money.
2.So when one site gets pr0 and becomes "bad neighbourhood" then sites that link to this site get pr 0 too?
3.GG if site removes links to "bad neighbourhood" will pr come back? or is this penalty "until removed by hand" .I am asking this since you "helped" nutsandnolt that way.I guess this is most important if penalty will be removed manually or automatic.
4.what is considered "linking to bad NH" - multiple links or one sinlge link? I hope it is not a single link.
For example i removed 99% if not all links to other websites with simmilar interest. But i have left at least ONE link to main site on other sites. Is this too mcuh?
Here is scenario: site A is main site. we have linked to 4 other sites with simmilar interest. NOW they are NOT crossslinked anymore(for example site C and D DONT have links to eachother etc). BUT all sites i have at least one link to site A!
It is like having domain with name cars.com and 4 others with porsche.com, bmw.com ETC. cars.com has 1 link to all other sites on 1 page out of 200. other sites are NOT crosslinked to eachother but they have their own content. however on at least 1 page they link to cars.com
So is this scenarion good that all sites get pr 0? I hope not.
My case is like above NOW (before other sites were linking to eachother too) but i change it even so that main site doesnt even link to all other sites.
my all sites are still pr 0. after making big clearing i wonder why? Yes, i have affiliate site but so do man that have good rsutls in google. msot people with biz have some soert of affilaite site. GG you can sticky me if you wish.
Jon
Getting the 0 pagerank is easily possible by linking to/exchanging links with Credit Card / Casino / Affiliate looking (duplicate content sites) This is due to the the amount of search engine spam abuse in those topics.
I've had to explore other search engines for traffic over the past few months, even paying $299 to Yahoo! to be indexed....
But one things for sure - I really miss my free Google traffic!
I assume the people saying this dont run content sites and provide free content "as is"?
The "price" of a pop up is thousands of people getting access to a site for free. I can think of an acronym SEW site that runs such things
Fair does they are annoying, but sometimes they are essential.
But also, Marcia, Im with you on these "pop up cities". Some people just abandon their site and leave it to the dogs (and the advertisers)
Bad Neighbourhoods.....
Think Im gonna get rid of my third party banner network...the quality of their ads is fast approaching this description.
Solution to linking to bad neighbourhoods...alec, perhaps if you used robots exclusion protocols you could sacrifice those pages google guy mentions in order to preserve the site? I think half the idea that linking to bad neighbourhoods is bad is purely because its less of a workload if Google avoids those sites altogether, thus not having to consumer resources spidering, storing and retrieving them
Im also going to read JonB's post again because it does seem like an issue.....
....and like GG said before, other sites linking to you cant harm you, so obviously nowadays there is plenty more emphasis on the sites you link to....
Was there not a thread discussing this lately....just before the "linking to deep content" thread?
He actually said "pointing to a spammy site is much worse than the other way around".
I can't prove it, but it seems to be the most logical solution from what I have seen. I'd bet a couple bucks that was the case.
I have also seen a couple things from Google to suggest this is the case as well.
I can remember the exact thread, but I guarantee you I read it here :)
