Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
I read in another thread that you wrote that you have a recip links page. That is probably what is causing your site some grief.
In addition, having reciprocal links (or a recip links page, or even a whole directory with links) is NOT what causes this phenomenon. There are sites with reciprocal link pages and even directories with a percentage of recips that are untouched and have top-notch rankings. And that is a verifiable fact.
Remember, the algo is completely automated with very little human input. You probably need to take a long hard look at who your linking to and if they are spamming.
Remember, Google guidelines state not to have your site link to bad neighborhoods. If one of the sites you are linking to is spamming Google, it can have a drastic effect on your site. Check to see if all the sites you link to are following Google guidelines. If they are not, you might want to drop that particular link.
If a site is SPAMMING by a pattern of linking out to bad neighborhoods, it'll cause a problem with the SITE - not individual content pages that are simply not ranking. This is not the case, not by any means.
I don't know how many times it has to be repeated and requested to please not try to accuse anyone with this phenomenon of somehow spamming, because there's no basis in reality and it can cause unnecessary stress that's unfounded and unjustified and without basis. Trying to help is always appreciated, but this is serious, it's no place for folks to be chasing windmills.
[edited by: tedster at 9:16 pm (utc) on Feb. 27, 2008]
I'm in the process of testing this out, but I think I have found a flaw in how Google
is counting links and/or preventing Google bombs. If you have a high PR site
(PR7 for example) and you link to a normal, non-authority, PR3 site, you can take
that site out of the SERPs for the particular keyword or phrase. I just tested it on
one of my sites that I don't care about...
...did the url you targeted go to "end of results" -- as in what people
call the "-950 penalty"?
Yes, I just checked and both sites are hit with the -950 penalty....
...as far as I know, there is no known way to recover from this
(other than to get good links to offset the bad links)
For instance, the company I work for has a new product coming out that this industry has been after for a VERY long time. We finally cracked the code.
When I make the press release, would I get penalized since it's very likely that some high PR sites will have my link?
Sounds kinda dumb.... unless G actually didn't have the foresight to see that.
The PR7 trick seemed to work quicker than the spam links, probably because it took Google more time to find all of the spam links as compared to the PR7 link.
As I mentioned in a different thread, my motive for posting this is to raise awareness in hopes that Google actually fixes the problem.
As far as press releases and/or news sites, I assume that they have enough trust that you won't be negatively affected.
Off-Topic Site PR7 -> My Site PR3 (page updated weekly)
I have another example where I got a bunch of spam links pointed at another page (different domain) with similar anchor text and that also saw the -950 penalty.
Lots of spam links (PR0+) -> My Site PR3 (page static since late 2006)
About the first example I think is logic because Matt cuts say that Google declarate the war to the purchased links and the bot can identify a link in a non-topic site.
But about the second example I dont know because if I want down the rank of my competition for example, and I have a lot of spam sites, I only need to point to my victim and voila! the site desapear from the well positions.
Its the negative to google bombing.
As we are the main portal in our sector we are linked by all relevant pages, associations and unis but obviously link also back to them. This has happened organic since nearly 10 years so somewhat of a unintended reciprocal going on there obviously.
< continued here; [webmasterworld.com...] >
[edited by: tedster at 11:11 pm (utc) on April 29, 2007]