Google reinclusion requests do work...

[QVA - Emma]

I just wanted to a write a quick note to all those that have trouble with their sites in Google.

I recently had to undertake some extensive research for a client whose site had nose dived out of Google never to be seen again. It involved checking all backlinks, server and IP used, checking the website itself etc.

I then created a report with all the possible reasons why it had crashed out and worked backwards from there - it seemingly all boiled down to a few links coming from a reputable site - which had apparently been hijacked, therefore making it a bad neighbourhood in the eyes of Google. Now I know this goes against the holy grail of SEO being that inbound links cannot harm your rankings (in most cases) but in this case they did.

A qucik email to the googly ones themselves and the site has been reincluded with the backlinks from said site seemingly ignored.

If you have tried everything, researched thoroughly and you still have no success put together your case and submit to Google via your webmaster tools.

Good Luck!

Emma

 

[Ali-v-8]

WOW you have been busy. And I agree with you. I have notice that linking from a bad website give you problems. I'm glad you proved it.

 

[Galway]

How do you know that the problem was the links, re-inclusion requests are often successful when a site has had a problem but your post suggests the links were not removed so maybe there were other reasons, perhaps it was just unlucky or that the automated system got it wrong, maybe the site was improved elswhere.

It would be so easy to take down sites with dodgy links, if people have a problem then they should follow your advice and work through the site before a re-inclusion request but your experience does not prove that bad one way links can harm a site to the degree that gets it penalized.

If you have factual evidence then I would love to see it though.

 

[SFD]

I think I was penalised recently for some backlinks.

Some **** who was supposed to be getting me highly targeted, relevant links put links from 6 sites which were basically just link farms.

They were all PR4 pages, each with hundreds of links on.

Then, after a steady increase in SERPS over 6 months (through continued SEO), my site dropped from page 1 to gone. I checked all my backlinks and realised all four of these sites had had their PR removed.

I'm guessing I was penalised along with those sites.

We are requesting re inclusion shortly, so hopefully will get a good result.

 

[QVA - Emma]

HI Galway,

I am glad you asked and agree with your points it could just have been a Google glitch. However whilst looking into the problem I found the incoming links appeared approximately 2 weeks before the site crashed out.

The domain in question is 2 years old and had rankings previous to QVA taking over to improve results.

The initial rankings improvement was beyond expectations and was ticking along nicely in all SE's.

A sudden lack of any visits from Google (and only Google) alerted us to a problem. All other SE's favoured the site for top keywords.

Research was undertaken from that point.

The site that links in had been done by the client themselves even though previously being asked to inform us of any linking undertaken even for legitimate advertising purposes.

The site in question no longer has the pages that the links came from after I informed the site owner in the USA that his site was under attack(!) The entire site is now removed and has been for the past 3/4 weeks. Googles cache confirms this.

Even though those links no longer existed in ernest a reinclusion request was still required in order to inform Google the situation had been rectified to disassociate our clients site from the bad neighbourhood.

I do not accept a Google sandbox or fixed penalty was the cause of the problems.

5 days after the reinclusion request was sent Google confirmed it was being considered. Within one week the site appeared once again. From the 6th of June there were zero rankings for the site - to date there are over 105 and improving every day. I can also confirm that no other changes were made to the site during this time including links and onsite SEO.

Proof I beleive that the removal of the links and reinclusion have rectified the situation? Comments and opinions always appreciated

 

[QVA - Emma]

I think I was penalised recently for some backlinks.

Some **** who was supposed to be getting me highly targeted, relevant links put links from 6 sites which were basically just link farms.

They were all PR4 pages, each with hundreds of links on.

Then, after a steady increase in SERPS over 6 months (through continued SEO), my site dropped from page 1 to gone. I checked all my backlinks and realised all four of these sites had had their PR removed.

I'm guessing I was penalised along with those sites.

We are requesting re inclusion shortly, so hopefully will get a good result.

Good luck SFD, I would provide Google with as much info as possible including who built the links and any other written confirmation you have from them. It is entirely up to you if you include their details or call them Mr X - personally I would out them for bad practises. (Not here to Google)

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Inbounds from spammy sites are not too bad generally, but bad links from a respected or semi respected can kill you dead.

Not going to get into the old argument that inbound linking can harm a site, as for years I was berrated for claiming that outbound links can help a site

 

Not going to get into the old argument that inbound linking can harm a site, as for years I was berrated for claiming that outbound links can help a site

well it would seem pretty obvious to me that outbound links help google et al.

I mean if no one had outbound links .

where would we all be.

No more web.

Interesting stuff Emma.

Earl

 

[Galway]

Inbounds from spammy sites are not too bad generally, but bad links from a respected or semi respected can kill you dead.

Not going to get into the old argument that inbound linking can harm a site, as for years I was berrated for claiming that outbound links can help a site

Hi OWG,

Not sure what you meant by bad links from a respected site, just wanted clarity there if your OK with that. Thnx

In general I am not convinced otherwise it would be too easy to bounce sites out of G, if you link back then thats a different matter, my own theory is that in most cases sites dissapear because their link count was low and the new spammy links helped for a while, when the benefit from those links is stripped then naturally the site loses position.

I have witnessed some pretty hard hitting and intense efforts to undermine sites that included proxy hacking, bad link purchase and link farm population, redirects and none were very successful, generally it takes a proper plan that targets a sites fallibility before you can make progress.

That said our world is one where there are no absolutes and so I can always appreciate there can be anomolies (is that spelt right lol) but it is not a rule.

good debate though.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

if a site is good in all other aspects, then Google bowling is unlikely to work. bad links from trusted sites hmmm. how to explain without revealing a black hat methood

 

[david64]

It would be so easy to take down sites with dodgy links

I heard of a guy who was buying paid posts for a competitor and then reporting them in the hope that Google would ban the competitor. I think all that would have done is got a load of splogs PR whacked.

If you are going to take down a competitor, there is only one choice - XRumer them into the ground.

 

[QVA - Emma]

Bare in mind this was a reputable site at one stage with links to a niche market. The links from the site would have benefited the site in question had it not been flagged by Google as having malware.

The poor site owner in the US seemed quite shocked when i informed him of his sites plight

I also have clients who I have asked to get links removed to improve positioning which has worked out nicely - one site has gone from 250 links to ten and has climbed steadily for the past two months with no additional link building required so far...

We all know there are no set rules in SEO and I think some market sectors respond better to different techniques.

BTW Shaun I nearly applied for a job at your company as you are so close by...

 

[paretowasright]

I heard of a guy who was buying paid posts for a competitor and then reporting them in the hope that Google would ban the competitor. I think all that would have done is got a load of splogs PR whacked.

If you are going to take down a competitor, there is only one choice - XRumer them into the ground.

David,

I may be tired but could you explain that in English ?

Sorry

 

[IainW]

Why do SEO companies or Clients get involved in Link buying, dodgy SEO tactics and all the under-current quick fix possibilites.

There are SEO companies that quite openly advertise underhand SEO, it amazes me and it amazes me more that people sign up to it.

Emma, Good you got a responce from Google.

Iain

 

Why do SEO companies or Clients get involved in Link buying, dodgy SEO tactics and all the under-current quick fix possibilites.

There are SEO companies that quite openly advertise underhand SEO, it amazes me and it amazes me more that people sign up to it.

simply because when your going for the big ones its all hands to the pumps,and who cares what colour those hands are, this is business not a sunday school outing.:|

I really get slightly peed with this moralistic attitude to SEO ,as if there is a rule book that everyone should abide by especially as the least moral are the search engines themselves,grabbing all the bleeding pies.

Earl

 

[webpromoterservice]

thanks Emma.that could explain some issues i experienced with some clients before.Google seems to be getting stricter each day

 

[IainW]

simply because when your going for the big ones its all hands to the pumps,and who cares what colour those hands are, this is business not a sunday school outing.:|

We all can't take on the big boys so have to attack from a different angle rather than underhand tactics that get our customers banned which they can't afford and the big boys can.

I'd prefer harder routes that will eventually prove successful than always looking over my shoulder for Google to ban my client because of some trick I may have pulled.

 

We all can't take on the big boys so have to attack from a different angle rather than underhand tactics that get our customers banned which they can't afford and the big boys can.

See there you go again.Underhand tactics.:|

We are talking about getting high rankings on a search engine.

Not plotting a military coup against the Government.

Now why would you get banned.?

Unless you were driving uninsured.

Earl

 

[IainW]

See there you go again.Underhand tactics.:|

We are talking about getting high rankings on a search engine.

Not plotting a military coup against the Government.

Now why would you get banned.?

Unless you were driving uninsured.

Earl

Sudden loss of SERPs cos of bad link farming
immediate disappearance of sites cos of untoward SEO tactics.

I don't do any of this, I just practice good clean SEO work, it works for my clients and for me.

No military coup for me to take on.

Iain

 

[david64]

David,

I may be tired but could you explain that in English ?

Sorry

XRumer is an app that automatically posts spam out on the Internet en mass. I have heard of it being used to get sites banned.

 

[Valeryvow]

Great news!XRumer 5.0.12 Palladium was released, just ask Google for more info