Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
[webmasterworld.com...]
My website has plenty of outbound links, but they are on relevant pages. The problem my site has always had, was a lack of "inbound links." I got tired of searching for people to link to me (with all the spammy sites around) and gave up. So my pages have acquired some links naturally I guess(and I'll bet I still don't have more than 30 inbound links for the whole site) Still have a PR4, which I've had since it disappeared in Nov.
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 8:54 pm (utc) on May 27, 2005]
Yaaawwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnn
A gradual decline may be ringing some alarm bells.
But a complete, sudden crash is not what you'd expect. I can understand that.
Not much to do about the topic either.
DC - seem to be a steady as a rock. (different on differing dcs but not much moving - come on we need some action :))
Have you ever noticed how fireworks never start at the scheduled time? It enhances the anticipatory experience.
>Hello, removal from G also has nothing to do with
>HTML errors. I currently have 5 websites. 2 are for
>my business. 3 are just domain names for sale. They
>are all "coded" the exact same way, meaning; if
>certain HTML "errors" are on one, they are on all of
>them (since I did all of them).
>No one is saying that it's not good practice to avoid
>HTML errors. Of course it is, no one denies that. Can
>it affect SE rankings? No, at least not in G.Logical fallacy there, Clint. Just because YOUR site wasn't dropped because of faulty HTML, doesn't mean NO sites were. Every time there's a change to the algorithm, pages disappear for more than one reason. This update it may be true that www/non-www issues, faulty HTML, sites being hijacked, and sites being caught in an anti-spam dragnet are *all* possible reasons for falling out of the SERPs. It could also just be that the update isn't finished yet and sites related to data that hasn't yet been processed are ranking artificially low. Time will tell for that, but as to other possible problems, I'd imagine they're all worth investigating and fixing in the meantime.
I also don't think it's any type of www Vs non-www issue. I pointed out in a previous post that I ran all sites on the first couple of pages of results through the header checker, both their non and www versions and they all were http code 200, none were 301 redirect as they "should be". I however DID change mine and fixed that, because yes, of course it is logical to try and fix anything that "MIGHT" help. I however from my observations don't think it will.
Yes, time will tell.
C'mon... 7 years at the top of the SERPs, and from one day to the next, ZERO?
You are missing the point slighting regarding checking the first few pages of results.
Yes - in an ideal world Google works out that both the non-www and the www are the same page - therefore no action is required, the webmaster has probably not taken any action and a 200 code will be returned for the non-www and the www.
But sometimes (and IMO it seems to have got more frequent) it can go wrong - I assume you have read GG post number 7 on the following thread:-
[webmasterworld.com...]
"It's quite simple. It's not that anyone is purposely or intentionally basing "their financial future" on anything, it's just the way it happens."
(I don't know this bbs system well enough to know how to quote with the boxes)No, it's NOT just the way it happens, it's the way people allow it to happen to them. They may luck into some good rankings at first, and make a little money off it, and suddenly they think they're entitled. And then when the algorithm changes and their world comes crashing down, they don't have any alternatives in place. Most enterprises in the world do NOT rely so heavily on SERPs. If you're selling blue widgets, and waiting for the customer to MAYBE find you in Google or another SE, rather than making sure that he's aware of you before he goes to look, then you have other issues.
No one is claiming they are "entitled" to ANYTHING. Why don't we continue this off-list? You're getting way off topic.
I'd be very surprised if all the sites that fell off the index after an update were having the same problem. I'm hardly an expert at what they might all be, but there are almost certainly at least a few different things going on here, not just one.
