my penalty problem

[gabs]

Oky,

I've bought this problem up on a few forums we no real answer.s. IMHO I have to wait it out ..

Basically I updated my phpbb forum which messed up my session key script I wrote (guest = no session)

2 days later google picks up a load of session keys which I fixed but its to late... indexed page went from some 3k to 200k over 3 months..

Google then went "hold on a minute" 95% are dup content.. The h/p then got deindexed .. so i waited and the h/p got back into the index and start to recover the serps..

But..
The forum is a subdirectory linking to the main site.. the main site wasn't effected for about 2-3 months then it got deindexed for about 2-3days.. once back in the index 1/2 the serps returned within 1 month and 2 months, after anothe month the other half of serps completely recoved..

Great all was back to normal for about 1-2 months.. but for the last month i've lost 1/2 the serps for the h/p of the main site but allin's are still #1..

I'd love to hear any opinions and how to recover faster.. Its not about links or backhat its a clean site with some amazing auth links..
The site i'snt new and has ranked in the top2 for 22 months for its main term that the penalty have been applied on...

Thanks

(might write a paper on this once its resloved ?)

[gabs]

Checking on 66.249.93.104 (the big one) all penalties are remove..

Maybe the infrastructure has sort out any 301's :D

Fingers crossed.. Not enough 2-3 months lol

[dazzlindonna]

I had one site go into the dup/deindexing mode when Google noticed that all the meta descrips and keywords were the same on every page. (It was an old, forgotten site that I'd not updated in years - long before I knew anything about seo). I noticed the problem when I got around to wanting to sell it. So, instead of selling, I used it as an seo test. I corrected the problems, and waited. I don't remember right now how long it took (but I can probably dig that info up from my blog), but it wasn't very long. Maybe 3 months? In any case, once G started reindexing, (one page at a time), it didn't take very long for it to make through the site and have everything back to normal. however, it was a small site, so the larger the site, the longer it will likely take. As long as you've solved the problems, my guess is that all you can do is wait it out.

[gabs]

Thanks...

Yeh its very different.. all meta's are differnet.. non www. 301'ed which may be a cause.. but hey i'm waiting..

plus it's only the h/p :confused:

All sub pages are fine inlcuding the serps for them..

It became a bit of a auth site for its niche so all I can see is gaining 200k of bl's from a sub domain then loose its auth status.

Penalty time = % lost linkage * by set time.. ( maybe ) !!??

[pk_synths]

Hey gabs,
Did you use the Google url removal tool by any chance? Matt Cutts was recently blogging about url canonicalization and mentioned:

Q: If I want to get rid of domain.com but keep www.domain.com (http://www.domain.com), should I use the url removal tool to remove domain.com?
A: No, definitely don’t do this. If you remove one of the www vs. non-www hostnames, it can end up removing your whole domain for six months. Definitely don’t do this. If you did use the url removal tool to remove your entire domain when you actually only wanted to remove the www or non-www version of your domain, do a reinclusion request (http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/reinclusion-request-howto/) and mention that you removed your entire domain by accident using the url removal tool and that you’d like it reincluded.

[Enlightened]

Here is what I don't get if this is Google or Matt speaking.... and I hope not too far off topic


removing your whole domain for six months

and then there's this

do a reinclusion request and mention that you removed your entire domain by accident using the url removal tool and that you’d like it reincluded.

If its going to be six months will the reinclusion report shorten the period of waiting to be reincluded???

Next question..

removing your whole domain for six months

Why do they say this?? Are they trying to say it takes them six months to first, find a site, crawl, index, and then finally return results??


Peace

[gabs]

Hey gabs,
Did you use the Google url removal tool by any chance? Matt Cutts was recently blogging about url canonicalization and mentioned:
Nop..

Was about 1 year ago for the 301...

I really feel its the links but maybe i'm wrong..

[gabs]

G is again deindexed the h/p..

um.. when will it sort itself out.. ahh ..

[Enlightened]

Hi gabs

You mentioned the non www 301s

Have you fixed this with an htaccess mod for the symlinks and canonical links?

Clint

[gabs]

I'm back again today.. Its seems amazing how long these thing last..

Hope it sticks :D

[gabs]

I lost my main rankings again.. for a few weeks.. but just now i'm back and better than every.. maybe just maybe google worked out the links from the forum..

Jan 30, 2006 1 + 2
Jan 27, 2006 9,999
Jan 26, 2006 83
Jan 25, 2006 82
Jan 24, 2006 84
Jan 23, 2006 9
Jan 13, 2006 51
Jan 12, 2006 60
Jan 11, 2006 64
Jan 10, 2006 66
Jan 9, 2006 62+63
Jan 6, 2006 60
Jan 5, 2006 9,999
Jan 4, 2006 9,999
Jan 3, 2006 62+63
Jan 2, 2006 9,999
Dec 22, 2005 59
Dec 21, 2005 59
Dec 20, 2005 59
Dec 19, 2005 59
Dec 18, 2005 26
Dec 16, 2005 7
Dec 15, 2005 7
Dec 14, 2005 7
Dec 13, 2005 7
Dec 12, 2005 7
Dec 9, 2005 7
Dec 8, 2005 9,999
Dec 7, 2005 5
Dec 6, 2005 6
Dec 5, 2005 5
Dec 2, 2005 9,999
Dec 1, 2005 9,999
Nov 30, 2005 9,999
Nov 29, 2005 9,999
Nov 25, 2005 5
Nov 24, 2005 5
Nov 23, 2005 5
Nov 22, 2005 2
Nov 21, 2005 4
Nov 19, 2005 10
Nov 18, 2005 4
Nov 17, 2005 4
Nov 16, 2005 4
Nov 15, 2005 2

The world of bouncing..

[Enlightened]

Hi Gabs

Great to hear

Google is in some dance it seems.. Hopefully things will settle for you now.

Peace

[gabs]

40% of the DC's i'm in .. lol

come on google sort it out lol

[pk_synths]

Rumor has it that BigDaddy is populating. Cross your fingers.

[gabs]

Looks like it to me..
Anyone want the ips ?

[gabs]

64.233.171.99
64.233.171.104
64.233.171.104
64.233.171.147
64.233.179.99
64.233.179.104
64.233.185.99
64.233.185.104
64.233.189.104

only 1 99
216.239.37.99

no 64's

216.239.37.104
66.102.7.104

no 105's
and
no 104's
According to mcdar..

[stone.cold]

I had one site go into the dup/deindexing mode when Google noticed that all the meta descrips and keywords were the same on every page.

think about this ..... what logical reason would google have for dumping your website if the meta data is the same? google wants to index pages, google wants pages to be their index, why dump a site because of data that isnt even displayed on the page, how is that a good measuring stick for a bad website. millions of websites have the same meta data, who can be bothered making it diffrent for every page? think about this logically for a second please.

if your website was dumped from the index, it was because of something else, or quite simply because your it sucks.

[gabs]

if your website was dumped from the index, it was because of something else, or quite simply because your it sucks.

Nice... NOT.. ps.. might be worth reading the post before commenting on it ?

[Enlightened]

think about this ..... what logical reason would google have for dumping your website if the meta data is the same? google wants to index pages, google wants pages to be their index, why dump a site because of data that isnt even displayed on the page, how is that a good measuring stick for a bad website. millions of websites have the same meta data, who can be bothered making it diffrent for every page? think about this logically for a second please.

if your website was dumped from the index, it was because of something else, or quite simply because your it sucks.

Actually Google and most of the senior seo's would advises against using a single meta data file sitewide.

A lot of people who want to rank for multiple keywords for multiple pages will take the time. I do it for each of my clients.

Why wouldn't you take all the steps needed??

[pk_synths]

Actually Google and most of the senior seo's would advises against using a single meta data file sitewide.

Yes and most say dont even bother with it because it's not used to rank nor will it penalize you (deindexed). It's old technology and is ignored by 99% of all engines (besides META-Crawlers of course). You may get worse rank if you stuff it with viagra keywords when your site is about pet clothes though but never deindexed for something like that.


I had one site go into the dup/deindexing mode when Google noticed that all the meta descrips and keywords were the same on every page.


I think that was when Google had a bad dup filter update. I remeber people talking about that but it was months ago when the dup filter was abit sensative. That issue seems to have been resolved.

if your website was dumped from the index, it was because of something else, or quite simply because your it sucks.

Play nice. Constructive critisizm is always welcome but pure out flame wars are not needed nor appreciated.

[Enlightened]

PK

You make valid points.

I just follow Google guidelines plus when constructing head tags adding in GEO targeting DCs always help local merchants..

It;s a lot like baking I guess...head tags could be considered salt...not good for you ...used the right way won't hurt you...and if your making a chilli (SEO) might as well throw all the ingrediants at the judges (search engines).

Recipes to success perhaps..

Short cuts usually lead to being cut short.....

Peace

[pk_synths]

Now that I think about it. Yahoo and MSN both use meta keywords for mispellings but it doesnt help the rank of correctly spelled keywords.

[Enlightened]

Ok

If you were using them and had clients ranking on the front pages of all three engines ......would you stop using them??

[pk_synths]

For misspellings? Only Yahoo and MSN will use misspellings to rank a site but you have to have one kickass domain name for that to become profitable. Ranking for a misspelling of your ocmpany name isnt really what an SEO should be proud of nor is it what the client asked for. "Hey look your not ranked for the keywords you want but I got you #1 for this kickass misspelling no one will ever type in" ;P

Do it if you want to but I consider it a waste of time. There isnt very much traffic that you can get using them.

[Enlightened]

No not for misspellings

:confused:

Who cares about them??

If one needs to waste time targeting misspellings then they obviously are lacking in business skills elsewhere.

Im asking for optimizing for high traffic terms i...f it works for more than one client would you stop doing it???

[pk_synths]

Im asking for optimizing for high traffic terms i...f it works for more than one client would you stop doing it???

Well of course not. If u had success using an SEO method for one client why would u stop?? BUT you have to take into consideration that it might not be META. Alot of people confuse the benefits of meta with other SEO. Sometime you your anchor text might be targetting the exact same keywords your META tag is targeting and it might look like it's because of the meta when in fact it's the anchor text.

Enlightened, have you seen real results from JUST META tag keywords?? If so I'd like to check it out because of haven't seen any real proof they do anything whatsoever.

[Enlightened]

No pk not for meta keywords tags in a few years..

I do agree it could be an anchor text link targeting the meta keyword ...my thought with head tags is the title and meta description should be there so might as well toss in the meta keyword tag.

And if that helps one meta crawler pick up the site and link to it then thats one more link that came naturally as opposed to artificially...

a win win from my view.......

:cool:

[gabs]

One of main things I was trying to highlight in this thread was the fact that its NOT a site deindex and a page (homepage)..

Now the dup could be a problem due to the fact that google trys to index:
www.site.com
www.site.com/index.php
site.com
site.com/index.php

And all are of coursre identical..

I do still think loss of 100,000's of bl could be the cause..

[Enlightened]

gabs

Use 301 redirect to make all symlinks to canonical

As it would be in your example.. all are valid URLs, and each can have it's own PR, so by doing the 301 you will point all the PR to the correct URL thereby distributing the PR weight correctly.

As for 100,000 back links...depends how acquired...natural or artificially...plus links age, sites fall off line,, cannot pay hosting, etc..

Cannot stop that from happening....

[gabs]

Nop..

Was about 1 year ago for the 301...

I really feel its the links but maybe i'm wrong..

sorry quote myself .. :D

[Enlightened]

maybe the 301 was written wrong

can yoiu post it here??

[gabs]

RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^site\.co.uk
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.site.co.uk/$1 [R=permanent,L]

[Enlightened]

I would like others to verify but I believe yours is wrong


Should be


RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www\.yourwebsite\.com [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^$
RewriteRule ^(.*) http://www.yourwebsite.com/$1 [L,R=301]

Clint

[Enlightened]

Or




RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^yourwebsite\.com [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^$
RewriteRule ^(.*) http://www.yourwebsite.com/$1 [L,R=301]

This may be the better of the two

[gabs]

http://www.searchenginepromotionhelp.com/m/http-server-response/code-checker.php

returns correct header according to this..

I'll change it for sure if its wrong but seems to be working everywhere else..

[pk_synths]

RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^site\.com
RewriteRule ^(.*) http://www.site.com/$1 [R=301,L]

This is the correct format.

gabs I dont think your passing the 301 correctly.

[gabs]

Changed it to

Options +FollowSymLinks
RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^mysite.com [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.mysite.com/$1 [L,R=301]