Forum Moderators: open
It was previously listed near the top of google for various keyphrases and out of the blue has been banned.
I cannot think of any reason why this has happened. I really need to know how I can get it back on google - what is the best way to resolve this?
Many thanks for your time,
Neil
[edited by: ciml at 10:56 am (utc) on July 18, 2002]
[edit reason] URL Snip [/edit]
I really like Google - I think it is a great resource and is usually at the cutting edge of search technology.
But, the more Google proliferates the more I think that it should be absolutely clear what is allowed and not allowed and the good guys should be sorted from those who have transgressed these ever increasingly complex rules.
Using Beadguy's example, it seems as though all his company has done is seek out reciprochal links with (I trust) sites whose content are related or complimentary to their own.
Surely, if Google is so PageRank/link reliant this is a perfectly acceptable way to fairly proceed for Beadguy and for others?
So, how are we supposed to know if one of the sites we legitmately exchange links with are in some way currently (or in the past) on a long list of sins?
This seems to be all sites on certain servers, ISP's, IP's, traffic counters, linking to/with sites which may have unwittingly transgressed, wrong aftershave etc. etc. etc. Many aspects of which we, as legit, fair and maybe not absolute crack webmaster technolgists may be completely out of our control.
Fine, we all know if we use any kind of automated rank checker, or submitter, we are on dodgy ground. If we participate in something which looks purely like a link farm then we have no one to blame but ourselves. But, if Google is to continue to recruit new partners can we please have some more guidance.
I for one am now extremely worried about how I try to gain fair listings in Google without being banned or otherwise penalised because I have accidently 'sinned'.
As Google appears on so many web site's results, I just wonder how the needs of the searcher are best served if good sites are excluded because they are crossing an invisible line?
They've been crystal clear about automated tools and specifically rank checkers since the very early days of Google. It's against their TOS.
The only ambiguity I see in the whole system is in the API ( Application Program Interface) license. I feel it contradics the Google TOS.
> a revenue-earning opportunity:
It's been rumored (reliable) that Google meta search agreements start around $20k a month before other fees (probably more now). I'd think it would be doable for quality software, but I suspect Google said no. Tool authors can say all they want, but automated stuff is against the primary Google TOS.
The headers most rank check tools are sending on requests are not identifiable, but they are flagable into a group of unknown agents. They don't match what a set of default browsers sends out perfectly. There are also "behaviorable" surf differences that could be flagged.
a) flag the ip's/agents where headers don't perfectly match the top 10-20 browser versions and throw out known agents.
b) that would give a pool of (guess) 50-100k ips a day to sort through.
c) run a "behavior" (footstep and click) analyzer and eliminate those that match surf criteria. Things like: did they click on an adwords, a cached page, pull graphics, view groups, the directory, or follow any link generated on a serp to elsewhere on Google. (Easier to do than you would think). It would eliminate 90+% of the suspect ips and get down to say 1-3k suspect ips/agents.
d) study the frequency and quantity of requests.
Now its into a hand parsable area where you can do something like look at hosts, ip history, types searches preformed. etc. eg: you can spot a bot.
Ya, google can figure out who is running a bot.
Markd, I agree that the Google makes me nervous. Not because they aren't a great SE, but because their domination of free searches makes being in Google essential for any successful web site. In addition to their market share, their apparent willingness to severely penalize sites for using particular tools increases the risk factor. I'd say the risk to a small business owner are very high right now, if he (or his webmaster), isn't tuned in to the world of Google (like WebmasterWorld members :)).
" Google's index, comprised of more than 2 billion URLs, is the first of its kind and represents the most comprehensive collection of the most useful web pages on the Internet. While index size alone is not the key determinant of quality results, it has an obvious effect on the likelihood of a relevant result being returned."
Hmmm I wonder if I have different definitions of COMPREHENSIVE, USEFUL and WEB PAGES ON THE INTERNET....
I apologise for taking this personally....it has affected my job my life and the money I bring home to my wife and new daughter....
and I do not understand how a corporation based in and education center or not can not be held resposible for the effects that its illusionary BEST OF THE WEB SEARCHS has on a common person...<snip>
Do I expect and answer.....from the last posts......hardly
When I am back in CA will I be personally visiting the offices of Google to ask them what gives...... what do you think
[edited by: ciml at 9:36 am (utc) on Aug. 13, 2002]
You ask why is Google not responsible, but there are other people who were below you, are now above you, and probably will end up below you again. I don't see how Google can make value judgements about which families need the advertising revenue most.
The best they can do is run a good search engine, but that doesn't mean that it can be perfect. In your position, I would try to keep some dialogue going with Google (some people suggest that they respond better if you are highly complimentary about them).
The site has been listed in most of the search engines and directories that I am aware of, including the niche directories corresponding to its topic, except for two large ones ...
It's not in Yahoo yet, but I'm being patient; and, scaringly, it has a PR0 in Google.
For a couple of months, the PR was grayed out, not ranking in Google, but recently that changed to a white box with a PR0. Google has cached the site and it is included in its DMOZ-derived directory, but a search even on the domain name returns my site as the last listing, beneath that of some that are included only because they list my site.
Is this something to worry about, or does this sometimes happen with new sites prior to a more reasonable PR being assigned?
I have never seen a new site get a white toolbar before being assigned a 'proper' PR before, and the white toolbar is usually a bad sign. I hope someone else can give you better news.
Cy
It's happened several times to me, from gray to all-white to PR indicated in successive months, with new sites.
I could completely agree with thomas_maggie' post, "it has affected my job my life and the money I bring home to my wife and new daughter (son for me)...."
I have been obstinately reading posts here about Google banning, without the hope of getting back my last year's first page rank.
First I got a PR0, then, after sending an email in March, I got PR2 on my home page (PR0 for the other pages and zero page rank)..I think it was just to calm me...
Then in May I jumped up to PR3 (just the home page again!), then in July I became a "proud" PR4...with zero page rank of course. In the meantime I've been dropped from AOL.
I had to sign up with Google Adword Select which brings really a lot of traffic, but it costs money. As a matter of fact it's nice of Google to accept PPC listings from banned sites! Money makes the world go 'round...
I have no spam doorways.
I quit LinksToYou and LinkTopics in last November (I know that it was an unlucky step to join...but for heaven's sake, 9 months have passed alread!
Googlebot visits me every month...how I wish I could know what the heck she (it must be she...) finds that makes her hate me?
I have posted my url in my profile now...any suggestions will be warmly welcomed.
thanks for reading this confession
yaelede
