Minus 30 Google penalty: anyone here affected?

#1

Hello everyone,

Is anyone here affected by this particular penalty:

http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3119215.htm

It's easy to spot if you are: simply search for your own domain name and
see if your site shows up at #31 place instead of usual #1.

I hope you are not, but if you are, please post some data about your site:
how old, how many links per page max, ever been a part of linking
cooperative and so forth. I am trying to troubleshoot what's happening and
need more factual data.

--
Cheers,
Dmitri
See Site Sig Below

--
+------------------------------------------------+

Quote:

Follow alt.internet.search-engines threads |
with your Firefox Live Bookmarks! Set it up at |
http://www.1-script.com/forums/ |
+------------------------------------------------+

#2

"www.1-script.com" <info_at_1-script_dot_com (AT) foo (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Hello everyone,

Is anyone here affected by this particular penalty:

http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3119215.htm

It's easy to spot if you are: simply search for your own domain name and
see if your site shows up at #31 place instead of usual #1.

I hope you are not, but if you are, please post some data about your site:
how old, how many links per page max, ever been a part of linking
cooperative and so forth. I am trying to troubleshoot what's happening and
need more factual data.

--
Cheers,
Dmitri
See Site Sig Below

www.sim64.co.uk

#31 and #32

#3

"T.J." <no1 (AT) home (DOT) invalid> wrote

Quote:

"www.1-script.com" <info_at_1-script_dot_com (AT) foo (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:4RQYg.125828$N72.85635 (AT) fe12 (DOT) news.easynews.com...
Hello everyone,

Is anyone here affected by this particular penalty:

http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3119215.htm

It's easy to spot if you are: simply search for your own domain name and
see if your site shows up at #31 place instead of usual #1.

I hope you are not, but if you are, please post some data about your
site:
how old, how many links per page max, ever been a part of linking
cooperative and so forth. I am trying to troubleshoot what's happening
and
need more factual data.

--
Cheers,
Dmitri
See Site Sig Below

www.sim64.co.uk

#31 and #32

Just to add, that site is 31 for all of these as well

Serps
Sim64
64 days and counting

#4

www.1-script.com wrote:

Quote:

Hello everyone,

Is anyone here affected by this particular penalty:

http://www. webmasterworld .com/google/3119215.htm

It's easy to spot if you are: simply search for your own domain name and
see if your site shows up at #31 place instead of usual #1.

I hope you are not, but if you are, please post some data about your site:
how old, how many links per page max, ever been a part of linking
cooperative and so forth. I am trying to troubleshoot what's happening and
need more factual data.

Very interesting reading. I have one site that recently dropped and I'm not
sure why. The first drop was about 8 spots for each of my main keywords --
from #2 to #10, and from #6 to about #14. The second drop took the #10 to
#14, and left the other one at #14.

#5

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:13:05 GMT, info_at_1-script_dot_com (AT) foo (DOT) com
(www.1-script.com) wrote:

Quote:

Hello everyone,

Is anyone here affected by this particular penalty:

http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3119215.htm

It's easy to spot if you are: simply search for your own domain name and
see if your site shows up at #31 place instead of usual #1.

I hope you are not, but if you are, please post some data about your site:
how old, how many links per page max, ever been a part of linking
cooperative and so forth. I am trying to troubleshoot what's happening and
need more factual data.

--
Cheers,
Dmitri
See Site Sig Below

Are your internal links absolute or relative?

BB

--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lithographs.htm

#6

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:35:46 +0100, "T.J." <no1 (AT) home (DOT) invalid> wrote:

Quote:

"T.J." <no1 (AT) home (DOT) invalid> wrote in message
news:G6KdnYYZzuGZeq7YRVnysw (AT) bt (DOT) com...

"www.1-script.com" <info_at_1-script_dot_com (AT) foo (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:4RQYg.125828$N72.85635 (AT) fe12 (DOT) news.easynews.com...
Hello everyone,

Is anyone here affected by this particular penalty:

http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3119215.htm

It's easy to spot if you are: simply search for your own domain name and
see if your site shows up at #31 place instead of usual #1.

I hope you are not, but if you are, please post some data about your
site:
how old, how many links per page max, ever been a part of linking
cooperative and so forth. I am trying to troubleshoot what's happening
and
need more factual data.

--
Cheers,
Dmitri
See Site Sig Below

www.sim64.co.uk

#31 and #32

Just to add, that site is 31 for all of these as well

Serps
Sim64
64 days and counting

Are your internal links absolute or relative?

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lithographs.htm

#7

Big Bill wrote:

Quote:

Are your internal links absolute or relative?

Hmm... Interesting thought. Mostly relative but most of those relative
links have "/" in the front so, unless I’m on a wrong subdomain, I should
be fine. Also, I am very careful about canonical issues after couple of
early 2006 debacles.

Would absolute links with the whole URLs in them save me? ;-)

Do share what were your thinking about.

--
Cheers,
Dmitri
See Site Sig Below

--
+------------------------------------------------+

Quote:

Follow alt.internet.search-engines threads |
with your Firefox Live Bookmarks! Set it up at |
http://www.1-script.com/forums/ |
+------------------------------------------------+

#8

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:48:00 GMT, info_at_1-script_dot_com (AT) foo (DOT) com
(www.1-script.com) wrote:

Quote:

Big Bill wrote:

Are your internal links absolute or relative?

Hmm... Interesting thought. Mostly relative but most of those relative
links have "/" in the front so, unless I’m on a wrong subdomain, I should
be fine. Also, I am very careful about canonical issues after couple of
early 2006 debacles.

Would absolute links with the whole URLs in them save me? ;-)

No, I was thinking they could be the problem. Guess not.

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lithographs.htm

#9

info_at_1-script_dot_com (AT) foo (DOT) com (www.1-script.com) wrote:

Quote:

Hello everyone,

Is anyone here affected by this particular penalty:

http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3119215.htm

bug me not :-)

Quote:

It's easy to spot if you are: simply search for your own domain name
and see if your site shows up at #31 place instead of usual #1.

As in: http://www.google.com/search?q=johnbokma.com
or http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ajohnbokma.com
?

As for BB's Q:
"Are your internal links absolute or relative?"

I think I posted this before, but technically a bot *should* turn each
relative URL into an absolute one in order to fetch the other pages.

The only times I see this fail is when those crappy written email
harvesting bots visit my site. I doubt that Google and any spider written
by a programmer who takes himself / herself serious would choke on
relative URLs.

Moreover, I see no point in rewarding one over another at the spidering
stage.

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html