Forum Moderators: martinibuster
The site had about 10 sites linking to it and some had several links going to different pages.
The traget site was on a different IP in the C class though, as in...
11.22.333.444 v. 11.22.334.555
The site hasn't been banned, just dropped. For example, a page that was always top five and sometimes #1 is now #86.
I'm just not sure...
Just move on and do not hold your breath
This is not a really possibility as the website isn't a throw away affiliate site, but an established business so I'm going to have to stick it out.
So most likely your cross linking got you in trouble.
My first suggestion would be to try to broaden your base of links from quality external sources. To have links from ten other sites is not actually that many, especially in a competitive area. Whatever other tweaks you decide to try, you can't go wrong with having more good inbound links.
I'm sure the site must have triggered some sort of filter, most likely for cross linking of sites on the same network.
Has Google gotten so strict that you can't even link to your own sites at all? How many incoming/outbound links from a site network is safe?
I have about 50 sites, but have no more than two or three links going to other network sites, but no reciprocals...
A => B => C => A etc...
Yahoo seems to reward this behavoir and the new MSN does't seem to mind either...
What links do you have that come from genuinely external sources?
Even if your network contains few or no links that are directly reciprocal, you have to make sure that the total effect isn't just a cluster of sites that's an island unto itself. Regardless of IP blocks or WHOIS info, if that's your overall pattern, Google will yawn and say, "Yeah? So? Get back to us when these sites have some affirmation from the real web." Google is learning not to be so impressed by self-generated networks as it used to be.
(That's still not the same as actually being penalized, though.)
As for your opening question about how long it might take to come back from a bad linking scheme, the answer probably is, "However long it takes you to earn real links."
Google is learning not to be so impressed by self-generated networks as it used to be.Yeah, which is bad news for me considering I spent a year generating a good sized network.
Actually, at present most of the network deals with other subject matter and checking the records only about two links go from other sites to this one... now.
Before I had dozens of links indiscriminately going to the site from various non-related sites. On the other hand there were a lot of independent links as well including a a couple very good one-ways from high PRs. I’m sure the cross-linking did it. The more I investigate, the more I think our linking was excessive and it likely caused a penalty (judging from the relevance of the sites from the, on average, 13 pages that separate our pages now from where they were prior.
I bit the bullet and emailed Google today asking for a manual review. I hope this doesn’t backfire.
[edited by: Rollo at 10:07 pm (utc) on Nov. 13, 2004]
The problem isn't webpage design as our site is optimized exactly like the top 5 in our target keyword paris and could probably serve as a model for Google's guidelines, as well as having a strong PR. At present the pages are ranking behind pages upon pages of sites that have nothing to do with the subject and maybe have an offhand mention of one keywords in the keyword pairs in thier meta description and PR 2 or 3.
I guess I'll have to wait out the next radical algo change and see if things improve (or at least the new MSN in which most the pages are in the top 5 for their keyword in the Beta at present... sort of like they were in Google prior to Sept. 23rd.
<snip>
[edited by: martinibuster at 4:50 pm (utc) on Dec. 1, 2004]
[edit reason] Reproducing Email Communications Violates the TOS. [/edit]
Well, the short of the letter was: "we think you're great, but nothing we can say about your site or anyone elses... thanks!"
