Banned From Google! Careful, This May Happen to You

[Tom Goodwin]

Mike-

The point of my approach was not a controlled experiment (which would be next to impossible, IMHO). The point is that I firmly believe that I have a site which is on the first page of google with significantly fewer links than most of the competing sites, and a lower percentage of "relevant" links.

I'm hoping at the end the day, it will spit out something like "here are the 20 backlinks for this site", and it should hopefull be crystal clear by comparing that to other sites near it in the rankings that there is absolutely no way that the site could be ranking with just relying on the "relevant" backlinks.

One of the issues I think could occur is that the relevancy tool might spit out something nonsensical, like "This profile backlink on a site dedicated entirely to this blogging platform is relevant to this site relating to how to make money with affiliate marketing." If the program/tool does do that, it would seem that the majority of links from Angelas or Pjs or whomevers' packets would be deemed relevant, which is fine with me.

Again, from a commonsense standpoint I don't see how anyone could deem more than 10 or so of my backlinks are from relevant sites, but i'm waiting to see what his tool tells him. Keep in mind that most of the competing sites have 3-4+ times as many backlinks, a much higher percentage of which appear (to me) to be from relevant sites. Again, the point is not to be scientific, just to create an example where one can look at it and say that there is no possible way that if only relevant sites are counted it could be where its at.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Hi Thmboodw,

Heres the problem you are going to run in with Don's approach to this. Theres no way to isolate the effect of your irrrelevant backlinks, from your relevant ones and then isolate it from other factors that affect your site. We all know that there are scores if not hundreds of things Google looks at.

So will we be able to extract what might be relevant links - Yes
and will be able to look at Irrelevant links - perhaps.

But Don's approach to this point has failed every time to identify the weight given to each. Now if he would add that to the table then we could eat some good food rather than McDonald's two day old food. He merely assumes that the irrelevant links have no weight WHATSOEVER by pointing to the existence of your relevant backlinks .

The problem with that is that ANY site that has been promoted AT ALL is going to have both and only a controlled site setup to keep things equal is going to give you good dependable results.

You'd have to be sitting down in the office of Google with the algorythm and then look at your site from their perspective to know the weight be given to each factor IF you don't have a controlled test.

I can't believe how simple and common sense this is but Don can't get it. KKchon does and thats why we proposed a test where the factors can be controlled for.

Think about it - is it rational for anyone to claim that IBM's support page not ranking for the keyword phrase "dog training" is an example that proves that irrelevant backlinks don't have ANY value? What is this the twilight zone? I'm looking or Ashton to jump out of my closet and say surprise you've been punked. (have fun with that one Don )

Isn't a simpler reason why IBM doesn't rank for "dog training" and GE doesn't rank for "Green Energy" that NEITHER page has the content to rank for it or is SEOd on page for that term? And if you check the backlinks that no great anchor text weight in the backlinks is there for those terms either. This is just basic common sense. howinthe world does that prove that irrelevant links have absolutely no weight whatsoever when the page is SEOd for a term?

So unless Don has a way of isolating all the other factors in a test or your site then I can't see the point in it.

Do you have a scientific way of isolating the other factors Don?


Don't be fooled by Guru posturing. You can't run a study based on a faulty methodolgy that on the basis of its flaw gives you no evidence and then claim that the abscence of evidence from your flawed study is evidence for anything. Thats gibberish.

[Tom Goodwin]

Originally Posted by shah57

Backing linking would be the appropriate reason for the banned. Invalid click might be happen so it got banned. i had the same problem which indicates on the email they sent to me.

Huh? This is your first post here and i have no idea what you are saying.

[tjcocker]

I've never made relevant links, and my sites are on page 1, some result 1, in Google for my chosen keywords and other keywords I decided to go after later.

I wouldn't know what a relevant link is for some of my keywords...

Just my experience.... and no I'm not a guru, but I do have successful sites with my totally irrelevant and somewhat spammy links. It's hard to PROVE my irrelevant links are what's ranking me, could be my on-site SEO, could be lack of competition, could be that the magical Google fairy has a special place in it's cold dead heart for me, who knows...

Oh that's right, nobody knows for sure. Do the research and share it if you know for sure, or sell a WSO, something... Just stop arguing for the sake of arguing, it's ridiculous.

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by tjcocker

I've never made relevant links, and my sites are on page 1, some result 1, in Google for my chosen keywords and other keywords I decided to go after later.

I wouldn't know what a relevant link is for some of my keywords...

Just my experience.... and no I'm not a guru, but I do have successful sites with my totally irrelevant and somewhat spammy links. It's hard to PROVE my irrelevant links are what's ranking me, could be my on-site SEO, could be lack of competition, could be that the magical Google fairy has a special place in it's cold dead heart for me, who knows...

Oh that's right, nobody knows for sure. Do the research and share it if you know for sure, or sell a WSO, something... Just stop arguing for the sake of arguing, it's ridiculous.

I just know this would happen someday - pissing somebody !

I agree with you, and as far as my own experience, irrelevant link have yet show much importance in ranking my site, but authority domain link does.

[tjcocker]

Originally Posted by kkchoon

I just know this would happen someday - pissing somebody !

Huh?! lol

I don't quite know what you mean there...

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by tjcocker

Huh?! lol

I don't quite know what you mean there...

Hahaha.... forget about it !

[dburk]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

So unless Don has a way of isolating all the other factors in a test or your site then I can't see the point in it.

Do you have a scientific way of isolating the other factors Don?

Hi Mike,

For the sake of getting to the truth, let's assume just for a moment that I have a valid method of isolating the data from other factors, would you agree to accepting Google's own interpretation of whether a page is relevant or not?

If so, we can accumulate data that both you, I and others have accepted as valid data, then we can move to the next step where we attempt to agree on valid methods of isolating and analyzing this data.

If we can come to a consensus on what is valid data and methods, we can then run tests against those methods and draw our own conclusions.

What do say, are you in?

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by thmgoodw

Mike-

The point of my approach was not a controlled experiment (which would be next to impossible, IMHO). The point is that I firmly believe that I have a site which is on the first page of google with significantly fewer links than most of the competing sites, and a lower percentage of "relevant" links.

I don't have any problem with your approach at all thmgoodw. None

Again, from a commonsense standpoint I don't see how anyone could deem more than 10 or so of my backlinks are from relevant sites, but i'm waiting to see what his tool tells him.

I think he's already relayed he doesn't have a tool. He's referring to Google tools we all have access to and none of them are going to anything close to telling you "this link has no weight at all".

Its all fluff and puff.

KKchoon would agree with me I think when I say that none of us who provide backlink packages sells only certain niche links. Some of us I think categorize our links (I know I do and I think so does KKChoon) but the greater majority of those who use our packages don't use just the links exclusive to their niche.

Heres a shocker. I do take alot of time looking for relevant backlinks. Not the kind of relevancy Don is talking about (but his definition of relevant may be a little elastic anyway). I do look for sites that are relevant enough to my main users they won't be seen as total spam. I skip religious sites, most (not all) gaming sites and almost all medical sites and certainly cancer and disease sites.

So if the definition of relevant is now becoming wide and beautiful then its all a moot point. If not there are tons of people using irrelevant backlinks and claiming success. Now to be fair to Don he would probably say that with anchor text a site isn't irrelevant but still the idea that the content of the referring site regardless of anchor text is weighted and that Google excludes ALL weight of referring links that are not relevant (and don't use the specific anchor text) would be and still is unproven.

[kkchoon]

I never categorize my links, but they cover many common niche and interested sites , why limit yourself when you've yet see the power of relevancy?

Only after the experiment, if necessary, I will categorize it !

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi Mike,

For the sake of getting to the truth, let's assume just for a moment that I have a valid method of isolating the data from other factors, would you agree to accepting Google's own interpretation of whether a page is relevant or not?

Google already has tools in their keyword tool that will tell you relevant words by which you can compare pages. Thats not the point and has never been in contention. You have to be able to isolate the weights that go toward SERP so that you can conclude that irrelevant backlinks have no value whatsoever. I've been asking you for this for several pages. As long as you don't pretend anyone has denied that you could determine relevant links from irrelevant ones as you now seem to be doing I'm fine with any methodology where you can properly isolate the other SEO factors out to draw conclusions one one.

What do say, are you in?

??? I"ve been in with KKChoon in setting up a controlled test for pages ago. I should be asking if you are in. No need for gamemanship. The forum has been here for several pages to put more convincing cards on the table. None of us has to assume anything. If you got something in a forum to put out just put it out. Its easy man. Make your fingers do the walking. I'm all ears (or eyes since I am reading)

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by kkchoon

I never categorize my links, but they cover many common niche and interested sites , why limit yourself when you've yet see the power of relevancy?

Only after the experiment, if necessary, I will categorize it !

Not sure you understood me KKchoon. I don't limit the links. In my system right with the link is the kind of site which my subscribers can choose to look at or ignore. Its just an added feature.

I do look for and find backlinks that have less of a possibility of being removed is all I meant. It takes me more time but I find it better for my subscribers. I encourage my subscribers to particoate at least on some sites (I can't get into all the reason or sites as I don't want to give anything away) and I think its just tacky to have a signature link for IM in a cancer survivors forum. They have enough to deal with.

[kkchoon]

Yes, your method of doing profile takes more effort, but certainly with a higher stick rate!

I only collected those profiles that with public view, and I don't ask my customers to participate, it is all up to them...

There are some sites do need more activity or your profile would get deleted faster, but most sites seems to stay, and they don't really care if we created the profile for backlink purpose.

[MayaLocke]

Any chance your site was hacked? I've heard of something similar where the search traffic was being redirected to a "questionable site", but normal users could see the site. The only indication of a problem was the search traffic plummeted.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by kkchoon

Yes, your method of doing profile takes more effort, but certainly with a higher stick rate!

Well finding them is the hard part so its more my headache not the subscribers. They can chose to particpate as much or as little as they want. An example are sites that allow you to post articles that appear on the front page (MAJOR PR juice) for awhile. If the article is good enough it gets links to and it develops its own PR. Plus some of the sites are pretty open to networking with others.

Of coure to hear some people tell it PR has no use at all in SERPs.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Google already has tools in their keyword tool that will tell you relevant words by which you can compare pages. Thats not the point and has never been in contention. You have to be able to isolate the weights that go toward SERP so that you can conclude that irrelevant backlinks have no value whatsoever. I've been asking you for this for several pages. As long as you don't pretend anyone has denied that you could determine relevant links from irrelevant ones as you now seem to be doing I'm fine with any methodology where you can properly isolate the other SEO factors out to draw conclusions one one.



??? I"ve been in with KKChoon in setting up a controlled test for pages ago. I should be asking if you are in. No need for gamemanship. The forum has been here for several pages to put more convincing cards on the table. None of us has to assume anything. If you got something in a forum to put out just put it out. Its easy man. Make your fingers do the walking. I'm all ears (or eyes since I am reading)

Hi Mike,

It seems to me that your contentions have centered around my use of invalid methods. I am attempting to establish a consensus on what we might all agree upon as valid methods.

The truth is the truth, I'm not trying to win an argument, just get at the truth.

Someone of your integrity would never attempt to manipulate your methods to skew the results of a study, so I am asking you to join a consensus of agreed upon methods, so that when, I or anyone else draw conclusions, they will be based upon a consensus of valid methods.

I have yet to reveal my methods to you and there is no point in doing so if you are unwilling to join a consensus of agreed upon methods. I assure you that I have methods of isolating data that I believe most people will accept as valid. But first let's agree upon what is acceptable data.

If we are to do good science, we mustn't start with a desired conclusion and devise methods to reach that conclusion. That would be junk science. Instead, we should form consensus on valid datasets and methods, then apply those methods to our datasets to reach our conclusions.

I am asking you to agree with a consensus of acceptable data and methods. Are you willing?

[sousen]

If site do not come first in search engine it;s measn not it banned as long it will appear google indexed it not banned as I know

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by dburk

If we are to do good science, we mustn't start with a desired conclusion and devise methods to reach that conclusion. That would be junk science. Instead, we should form consensus on valid datasets and methods, then apply those methods to our datasets to reach our conclusions.

I am asking you to agree with a consensus of acceptable data and methods. Are you willing?

Don come on man. This is tiring. Haven't I even said that I hope and hoped that you were right. My goodness KKchoon and I have even come to agree to do a test and I voluntered and gave my reasons why I would like to prove your position right. we laid out a number of necessary controls so the kind of methodology and isolation of factors we want has been out there for pages now. You've been the only one hedging.

Exactly how many times Do i have to say that any viable scientific methodology that isolates just the effect of irrelevant backlinks is acceptable to me?

Get to it man. No staging necessary. Just please don't present the IBM "dog training" thing again.

[Mike Anthony]

Incidentally it doesn't improve trust when you write things like this

I have yet to reveal my methods to you and there is no point in doing so if you are unwilling to join a consensus of agreed upon methods.

How in the world can you expect me to agree to a method when I allegedly don't even know what it is? Put it out just like KKchoon and I did with ours - long ago. I can't agree that your methodology is solid until I can see that it is solid. That comes across as just baiting.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Incidentally it doesn't improve trust when you write things like this



How in the world can you expect me to agree to a method when I allegedly don't even know what it is? Put it out just like KKchoon and I did with ours - long ago. I can't agree that your methodology is solid until I can see that it is solid. That comes across as just baiting.

Hi Mike

thmgoodw was kind enough to offer up an example to verify the assertion that backlinks from irrelevant pages will help to rank for a targeted keyword. I intend to process this data using criteria and methods that we can all agree are valid.

thmgoodw, Kok Choon, and I have all agreed to accept the verification of page relevance to the targeted keyword by using the Google keyword tool. Kok Choon requested that you be asked to join in this consensus. This will allow us to accumulate a valid dataset based on an accepted criteria.

Next, we can try to reach a consensus of acceptable testing methods. But let us first agree on acceptable data.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

p.s. Don't worry I couldn't possible be baiting you, every one now knows just how simple and clueless I am, thanks to you pointing this out.

[Mike Anthony]

Post #242 Dburk tells thmgoodw that some of his backlink may be relevant.

Post #253 Mike Anthony explains that identifying relevant or non relevant links is not the issue. the issue is having a methodology to islolate all SEO factors from irrelevant links to demonstrate that irrelevant links have absolutely NO VALUE. Other wise known as a scientific approach.

Post #275

Mike Anthony asks for the third time straight for Dburk to present a methodology that will differentiate between the weight of non relevant links to relevant links and all other SEO factors. Mike Anthony reiterates for what appears to be the one hundredth time that data is not the issue but methodology of a scientific study is and wonders why since he and KKChoon already laid out their methodolgy Dburk refuses to lay his own out though repeatedly asked for it.

So Don for the umpteenth time your mission which you have chosen not to accept is not to find that all links are relevant in one site but rather to find irrelevant links and show that those links have no value. You must find an irrelevant link isolate it from the other SEO factors including relevant links and PROVE therefore that it has no value.

Stop wasting time. Stop stalling and staging and put the methodology for that as KKChon and I have done PAGES AGO in the study we proposed.

and then for the love of all who have no time to waste - get on with it.

[warrich]

is all 3 websites are on same IP address ? and what was Niche of your all 3 websites

[alliedgroup]

Hello Everyone,

This is my first post. And Im very delighted to be in this fantatsic forum.
Firstly Ive got problems with google not RE-crawling my website (especially my homepage). The last crawl on the homepage was october 7th, 2009 which was two months ago.
If some of you have seen my html code, Ive used site builder such as site delux to help me make the website (previously used cm4all).
I have updated the sitemap.xml frequently and used the recommended meta tags. Ive also linked my website to local directories and used some pinger (cant remember) and used it on my website.
I have been waiting patiently but no response from google. Im getting afraid I could be (B-word) from google however I never used any sandboxing technique. My mates website where he hired a pro-web designer master in html and his website is like in page 2 and im no where to be found (we started at the same time)

Please help me and advise on what can be done. My website : alliedantennas.com.au

Many Thanks and Merry Christmas,
Neil

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by alliedgroup

Please help me and advise on what can be done. My website : alliedantennas.com.au

Many Thanks and Merry Christmas,
Neil

You site is there but the first thing I can tell you is that its too light on content. Basically you are going old school. In the early days of the intenret people just basically put up little shops. Couple pages and few sales blurbs and links to purchase. You need to do a little more than that. A few articles on various antennaes would do wonders for you particulalry if you are aiming for keywords in the content. You also need to look at optimizing the page and then you can think about backlinks.

But your site is there so need to think its been banned. A few articles on ezinearticles wouldn't be bad either.

[captivereef]

not sure what happend but i had a 200 page mortgage site that i sold off. I had it since 2005 and a few times in the last 3 years it disappeared from google for months then came back out of the blue stronger then before. It has done well for the last year and a half. Was your domain new?

I just had a one month old blog get knocked from #2 and #3 to #142 then it came back in a week or two.

[sterlingtek]

Originally Posted by djbory

Yes to both questions for the last two sites...
The website that desapeared 4 months ago is not in Webmaster. I didn't have webmaster by that time, so for that site I wouldn't know.

Let me know if you want to take a look at my sites.

I would like to know if you resolved this.

Chris

[jshotz]

As to all sites you create ask yourself the question, am I only doing this for the search engines? users first!

[Marketing Ignite]

Hi Djbory,
Sorry to hear that happened to you. Three way linking used to work well in the past but Google nowadays can detect the link relationships pretty quickly and filter those out and penalize as necessary. Your website is not banned if it does show up in the index but a penalty. You built your rankings based on "unethical practices according to Google". Link building using three way which is against Google Guidelines so this is why you got tanked. I can almost say this with a 100% chance that its due to your three way link building...Once identified as manipulating your rankings in Google its hard to gain back the trust again. I would remove all the three way links and then file for reinclusion and wait and see...

[alliedgroup]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

You site is there but the first thing I can tell you is that its too light on content. Basically you are going old school. In the early days of the intenret people just basically put up little shops. Couple pages and few sales blurbs and links to purchase. You need to do a little more than that. A few articles on various antennaes would do wonders for you particulalry if you are aiming for keywords in the content. You also need to look at optimizing the page and then you can think about backlinks.

But your site is there so need to think its been banned. A few articles on ezinearticles wouldn't be bad either.

-----------------------------------------------

Thanks Mike. I will look into it. I have submitted an article on goarticles, just awaiting approval. But its really frustrating to wait for google to crawl my homepage.lol
My first thoughts were : I wasnt using proper html as I was using site builder (site delux). And I had about 80 page 0 links from some ping service which may tell google " the website is unrelated to these links, why should i crawl" : /
Ive re-submitted my website to google and placed in a qeue.Im also building links and updating contents of the website every 2 days.

Cheers, alliedantennas.com.au

[warrich]

3 way linking is always bad , if you are doing it continuously , thn you will be catch sooner or later by google

[dburk]

Originally Posted by brucecaine

This has encountered to me a elite times. I have a mortgage site that has 2200 pages determined and is 5 years old. A few times the internet site became from 500 google visitants a day to nothing, still influenced but only traffic from yahoo, MSN and object directories.

This spambot is going like crazy on this forum, can we get a moderator to kick it out?

[misterkailo]

Originally Posted by djbory

It is not that easy. When you have been building links for 6 months and have over 400 quality links pointing to your sites you just don't forget about it.

And if you do it, you at least need to know what went wrong so it doesn't happen the same thing all over again.

400 quality links? Last time I checked, profile links do not count as quality links lol...

You're not banned if you are still indexed. If you have never been in the sandbox before, then you can still go into the sandbox even if your site is over a year old.

[N4PGW]

Originally Posted by djbory

Yes, but not in first page. they never were.

Did all your 3 way links target your first page?

If so, that may have triggered the unnatural look to your linking in your site.

[Soulofinfamy]

Why do you consider them banned if they're still indexed?

[BG48]

Originally Posted by djbory

Banned From Google! Careful, This May Happen to You

Please any advise…

I had 3 websites in first page of Google, for several keywords… They had been making me a pretty decent amount of money consistently for a while.

Suddenly one site disappeared from Google about 3 months ago; I keep building backlinks to see if it returned but nothing happened.

About 2 months ago, another site disappeared from the listings and about a week the other site went the same way.

They are still indexed by Google because when I do the search mydomain.com they show up, but after all of them being in the first page of Google for several keywords and suddenly not ranking for any keywords means to me that they were banned.

The only thing I was doing in common to all sites was ‘3 WAY LINKING’ Does anybody have had a similar situation? Or do you guys have heard about this or think this could happen because of the 3 WAY LINKING?

This is the only reason I came come up with since the sites all have original frequently update high quality content. They are SEO in-site optimized as well.

I was building profiles backlinks to them, but I don’t really think this is a reason to be banned…

I was thinking to remove myself from the 3 WAY LINKING and resubmit the sites to Google for consideration… Any comments?

Any advice or comment would be appreciated.

Djbory.

Did you build links on a consistent basis? Could have been your link velocity.

[rosarionet]

I have specific suggestion - Create yahoo answer account . Get 2nd level and put active links in source of your answer. I had similar problem few months ago and this action fixed my problem.

[altavista]

Hai Did you Try "Google Reconsideration Request " .. You have to try .. I am sure you will be back

[celente]

I flipped the birdie to google along tiem ago.

Many people think google is the holy grail, but there are many other resources you can use to make money. I am having some success with yahoo.

[ahmadbasyir]

This sound scary... I have update my site map recently for avoiding this.. Hopefully this will not happen to me..