Forum Moderators: open
Obviously the big downside is you will loose links, but I'm sure you could contact the sites that are linking to get them to change the URL
Do you know why you have a PR0?. That would be the first thing I would look into, after all you don't want to have to this again in 6mths
IMO I would probably build a second site and see what happens with the first if that is an option for you
[edited by: evidence at 12:44 pm (utc) on Sep. 19, 2002]
Googleguy how about a new feature on the advanced search options page... something like type your domain here to find out if we hate it :)
Seriously though... a lot of people put a lot of work into their sites, some people (like me) do it purely as a hobby, nothing better than watching your PR take a step up every few months, and there is little worse than visiting your site a few days after an update to find your pr has vanished. Is there any way that google can make it possible for a user to find out if a site is a PR0.
It is too bad that Google is so in love with these penalties- an
AUTOMATIC rereview after 3 months and automatic reinstatement if
problems have been eliminated would do wonders for Google's
reputation. Google seems quite clueless as to how offensive their
PR0 behaviors are, is persistently and somewhat noxiously
self-righteous about it, and is not above obfuscating with such
comments as "but the site has PR3".
ROTFLMAO!
Seriously, who, other than people who have been in the the PR0 doghouse, does Google have a bad reputation with?
I know some people who are concerned that they might have too much power, but everyone still uses it!
The threat of a google death penalty on www.yourtrademarkhere.com has probably done more to clean up the web than anything else. Now if they would just apply it to the gratuitous use of flash on the home page, the web would be a much nicer place.
Now, having read lots of threads on the issue, I understand. So, a few comments relevant to this thread:
1. I agree with Mack that Google should be more explicit about its policy. I can't find any reference to penalties on its site, for example - and didn't even know we were being penalised.
2. Our site was updated 10-20 times a day, and linked to a few hundred times (making it to the top of the Daypop top 20 one day). I suspect our transgression came about because we included a review of new sites linking to us every day. This is not spam, of course - in fact, it's a crude version of Moveable Type's TrackBack feature (which we didn't have time to implement) and a useful way of navigating through a particular news ecosystem. Still if Google doesn't like it, it needs to be clearer than it is in the "dos and don't" exactly how it will punish anything even vaguely resembling an illicit link exchange.
3. I don't think Sasquatch is right to say that Google can get away with using its power in an arbitrary fashion. That route is a quick one for big much-loved brands to become big much-loathed ones. I think the idea that, if a site falls out of favour, the only option is to start again is a very damaging one for Google. Reading some of GoogleGuy’s posts, I suspect that the company is probably well aware of the danger of being seen as a behemoth trampling on the little guy. I think transparency, much more information, and a quick response to appeals is therefore vital…
4. No ranking led us to a greater reliance on GoogleAds, which worked very well. So we got our hits and they got our money – but I didn’t feel too bad paying a little towards an otherwise free service I use scores of times every day of my working life…
Interesting to see what happens to our ranking in this month’s update. It’s not the end of the world for us, but I’d be doing my nut if this was an ongoing site…
mack, I remember hearing that some people have had success with disallowing googlebot through robots.txt for a few months......maybe to give the impression that the domain has a new lease of life...just like getting a totally new domain :)
Has anyone got more info on this?
Don't expect Google's PR0 to go away, though. Banning by the search engines is generally permanent. Often, you can only guess at what caused it.
Getting trashed by the search engines is a learning experience and part of the evolutionary process ... it forces you to learn new and better ways to survive.
Go start up a new site without all the old baggage lying around on your existing site.
I have one site that is several years old. It was banned by Alta Vista, then PR Zeroed by Google and finally banned by Inktomi. But it still earns its keep from Lycos and Ask Jeeves traffic, as well as link traffic and bookmark traffic.
Of course this is true. Is this in any way relevant? Actually, no, not at all.
The only relevant question is: "Are Google's search results more relevant with the PR0 penalty algorithm than without?" Apparently Google thinks the answer is "yes." If so, I'd bet they are right, because of two effects:
1) Technologically, it really does trap a lot of spam, and it doesn't really trap all that many good sites.
2) Socially, iike a cheap door lock, it keeps honest people honest. The real abysso-pophagic types are going to buy 200 domains and hope to steal the top 200 results in a first-generation search engine (inktomi, anyone?): For Google they do the same thing and hope that 2 or 3 of them slip through. People with some slight concern about their good name (as instantiated in their URL) and their reputation will be more wary of get-rich-links-quick schemes, because of the public fear of the PR0. Hence, less spam to have to trap.
