All my amazon sites deindexed. Help???

[Adsman68]

This is a very valid quastion. would be nice if Jan could offer his thoughts as well ?

Originally Posted by corelle

BTW, here is Jan Roos' site, he showed this in one of his free training videos.

babymonitorswithcameraz [dot] com

Can someone review his site and see what's the difference?

Because if we follow Roos' formula and still get into trouble with Google, then what's next? Can we not do anything right by Google anymore?

[corelle]

Originally Posted by Dustin Wright

[*]In the "WSO" forum he offers his "course" for $97 and according to the rules of the forum, it is supposed to be a "deal" and cheaper than the public site. It's not. Is that a red flag?[*]From my reading it appears all (or most?) "review" sites I find are affilate marking thus a pure fabrication?

Jan Roos is a respected "guru". But the gurus don't work for Google. They, too, are trying to play Google. If Google changes the rules, it could affect them too.

My question now is, have the gurus been teaching us to be too aggressive?

I don't mean to sound like I'm questioning the wisdoms of the gurus, many of them have been very helpful to us newbies. But sometimes I wonder if what they teach still works *today*.

They all teach us to get to #1 position as quickly as possible. Maybe what we should be doing is NOT get to #1 too quickly, at least not get to #1 using aggressive backlinking methods. Maybe we'll have to take a year.

[natewc]

@corelle- there isn't any difference in his site and mine as far as I can see because I used his formula

things that people said I did wrong
-contact form (his is the same)
-to many affiliate links per review (I opened up his first review and like mine he has 9 links to amazon including the pic)
-hidden google link (didn't look but I took that straight from his course)
-no articles just reviews (he doesn't have any reiviews)

My point is only to reiterate that my websites were the result of following what I read in several guru's WSO's. I think what I did was pretty standard. I guess I just had some bad luck.

@corell & Dustin- I think this formula can still work, but now you can go in knowing some of the risks

[cooler1]

@natec. Someone on the first page of the thread mentioned that there is a keyword appearing about 33 instances on one of your articles. Could keyword stuffing be the reason? What was the density for that keyword?

What do you mean by hidden google link?

[natewc]

nah, not sure how many times the word "pilates" appears, but I use an seo pluggin and always have my keyword density at around 2% so in this case the keyword was "pilates machine" so in my 600 word review it would appear about 12 time but the word pilates may appear more. From my research that seemed to be about the sweet spot, however I'm open to suggestions.

[tylerjaysen]

yeah the jury is still out on whether or not to put google analytics on your sites that have adsense. I've heard from big name bloggers that make a killing via adsense to never put analytics on the site. Maybe they're being paranoid....but hey if google can see everything that is happening with your sites and all the ones you own....then there might be a reason to be paranoid.

[natewc]

Oh, also the "hidden google link". So I learned from the "gurus" that you should link out to an authority site. I usually use google or wiki. So I link to something pertinent on one of those sites however instead of making the text a different color to denote a link I keep the color the same as the surrounding texts.

It's not really hidden in that if you scroll over it the cursor changes and the link can be clicked on it's just not highlighted or underlined.

[natewc]

Oh, also the "hidden google link". So I learned from the "gurus" that you should link out to an authority site. I usually use google or wiki. So I link to something pertinent on one of those sites however instead of making the text a different color to denote a link I keep the color the same as the surrounding texts.

It's not really hidden in that if you scroll over it the cursor changes and the link can be clicked on it's just not highlighted or underlined.

[Dev!l]

Did you interlink all of the sites?
If you haven't done anything shady then continue building links like nothing has happened and hope that your sites get back on Google.

[Bill_Z]

You guys pointing to Jan's site, it's the same. He just hasn't been "caught". It's a known FACT that there are manual reviews of sites. And if sites are found out there that are thin affiliate sites that exist "only to make money", then Google deems it unworthy and will zap it.

This is not speculation. This comes straight from Google quality guidelines as well as an internal Google document that went around that instructs "at-home" workers going thru sites manually to determine their "value" according to Google's definition.

It might not have been this site that got the OP zapped. It could have been any of the other 11.

The days of thin, ****ty affiliate sites are over. If you do this, then you better space out your hosting, registration, etc and cover your tracks and not link them. Because if they catch one they will zap them all. If they aren't deindexed, they will get hit with an algorithmic penalty. And honestly when it comes down to it, it's basically the same. You might as well be deindexed if you are not on teh first page, because you aren't getting traffic anyway.

Your sites must give VALUE to the visitor. They must not OBVIOUSLY be for commission only. Yes, I know it's hard to determine this. And I know 90% of sites out there want to make money, but it's Google's world and you have to follow their rules if you want to get traffic from them.

Build quality sites. That's it.

And if you get caught, you fix them up and do what I told the OP to do to try to get them back.

EDIT: One more thing...you can still easily make money with Amazon, just to answer some of the 'panic' in this thread. Just beef up your sites! Don't include all review articles. Put in some articles that aren't reviewing a product. Don't use like 5+ affiliate links in your article. I would use 2 at the most. Will you get less click-thru's? YES. Will you have a better chance of passing a manual review? YES. Will your sites bring more value to the visitor, and last longer? YES.

Google is using the term "doorway page" for penalizing sites. If your site is seen as a doorway page, you get the boot. A doorway page is considered any page that makes it obvious that it only exists to get the visitor another page to buy something. No offense to the OP, but his site and sites like Jan's example are prime examples of this. They work, and you can get them up quickly, and you can rank them, but be careful if you do this!

IMO the better way is bigger, more authoritative and quality sites. Add outbound links that don't go to Amazon. Add videos. Have the BEST review on teh product that you can find on the interwebz. I know it's more work, but no one says IM is easy (except for MMO product creators of course) Make it a page that you would send a friend to if they want information on a product.

[cooler1]

Originally Posted by Bill_Z

You guys pointing to Jan's site, it's the same. He just hasn't been "caught". It's a known FACT that there are manual reviews of sites. And if sites are found out there that are thin affiliate sites that exist "only to make money", then Google deems it unworthy and will zap it.

This is not speculation. This comes straight from Google quality guidelines as well as an internal Google document that went around that instructs "at-home" workers going thru sites manually to determine their "value" according to Google's definition.

It might not have been this site that got the OP zapped. It could have been any of the other 11.

The days of thin, ****ty affiliate sites are over. If you do this, then you better space out your hosting, registration, etc and cover your tracks and not link them. Because if they catch one they will zap them all. If they aren't deindexed, they will get hit with an algorithmic penalty. And honestly when it comes down to it, it's basically the same. You might as well be deindexed if you are not on teh first page, because you aren't getting traffic anyway.

Your sites must give VALUE to the visitor. They must not OBVIOUSLY be for commission only. Yes, I know it's hard to determine this. And I know 90% of sites out there want to make money, but it's Google's world and you have to follow their rules if you want to get traffic from them.

Build quality sites. That's it.

And if you get caught, you fix them up and do what I told the OP to do to try to get them back.

So when big G do a manual review on a site, do they actually read the content to see if it gives value to the visitors? Because merely filling a page with lots of words doesn't equate to providing value.

Are you saying that Jan's site doesn't provide value? In what way? Lack of quality content or not enough content?

[Cool Hand Luke]

Originally Posted by corelle

BTW, here is Jan Roos' site, he showed this in one of his free training videos.

babymonitorswithcameraz [dot] com

Can someone review his site and see what's the difference?

Because if we follow Roos' formula and still get into trouble with Google, then what's next? Can we not do anything right by Google anymore?

That site may be owned by Jan and be the one he used in his recent webinar, but the site was NOT built to his specifications in his WSOs at all, it was built EXACTLY as all of the other sites are built by this vendor here:

http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...fs-inside.html

How do I know? Because I've used this exact service multiple times and know exactly how Andrew (the vendor) sets them up. The website you mention as Jan's is DEFINITELY made by Andrew and his team. There are some VERY big differences in how Jan Roos sets up sites in "The Physical Affiliate" and "Proven Income Method" and how the vendor sets up these sites.

While I make the majority of my living off of Adsense sites, I can tell you there is merit to Amazon review sites, but it is NOT as easy as it used to be, and as Kevin says, you MUST, 100% HAVE TO, GOT TO offer real value to your readers.

Also, separate c-class ips are key and NO Google Analytics!

[thecableguy]

Oh, also the "hidden google link". So I learned from the "gurus" that you should link out to an authority site. I usually use google or wiki. So I link to something pertinent on one of those sites however instead of making the text a different color to denote a link I keep the color the same as the surrounding texts.

It's not really hidden in that if you scroll over it the cursor changes and the link can be clicked on it's just not highlighted or underlined.

That might be it. maybe someone pointed it out and they did a manual review. Here's what the Webmaster guidelines says:

Hidden text and links - Webmaster Tools Help

Hidden links are links that are intended to be crawled by Googlebot, but are unreadable to humans because:

The link consists of hidden text (for example, the text color and background color are identical).
CSS has been used to make tiny hyperlinks, as little as one pixel high.
The link is hidden in a small character - for example, a hyphen in the middle of a paragraph.

If your site is perceived to contain hidden text and links that are deceptive in intent, your site may be removed from the Google index, and will not appear in search results pages. When evaluating your site to see if it includes hidden text or links, look for anything that's not easily viewable by visitors of your site. Are any text or links there solely for search engines rather than visitors?

[Nero Arcnumé]

Maybe I missed it on your site but it seems your privacy policy isn't in complete accordance to Amazon. If you look at the Associates Program Operating Agreement point #10, you'll read:

Identifying Yourself as an Associate

You will not issue any press release or make any other public communication with respect to this Operating Agreement, your use of the Content, or your participation in the Program. You will not misrepresent or embellish the relationship between us and you (including by expressing or implying that we support, sponsor, endorse, or contribute to any charity or other cause), or express or imply any relationship or affiliation between us and you or any other person or entity except as expressly permitted by this Operating Agreement. You must, however, clearly state the following on your site: “[Insert your name] is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to [insert the applicable site name (amazon.com, endless.com, smallparts.com or myhabit.com)].”

And if you use the product advertising API, check out that license agreement, #4.q:

If you display Product Advertising Content consisting of text on your application, you will include the following disclaimer in plain view to end-users of your application: "CERTAIN CONTENT THAT APPEARS [IN THIS APPLICATION or ON THIS SITE, as applicable] COMES FROM AMAZON SERVICES LLC. THIS CONTENT IS PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR REMOVAL AT ANY TIME.

Now, I doubt Google de-indexed you because of this but if you're making more sites in the future, make sure your policies are compliant to Amazon as well, cause you never know.

Skip this post if you have these things on your website and I didn't see them ;P

[natewc]

@nero- ah, thanks for that point. I missed it.

@cool hand- I did follow Jan's spec on this site. I even originally had the original theme that he suggested us using. When I found this new theme several months ago I switched this site over because I really liked it. That's why there are 301 redirects on this site, because this new theme makes you use "/reviews" in the URL. Then as far as I know Jan also started using this theme and now I believe recommends it. (although I'm not sure about this part).

[corelle]

Thanks Cool Hand Luke & Bill_Z, both your comments are very helpful.

What's a good free alternative to Google Analytics?

[Bill_Z]

Originally Posted by natewc

@nero- ah, thanks for that point. I missed it.

@cool hand- I did follow Jan's spec on this site. I even originally had the original theme that he suggested us using. When I found this new theme several months ago I switched this site over because I really liked it. That's why there are 301 redirects on this site, because this new theme makes you use "/reviews" in the URL. Then as far as I know Jan also started using this theme and now I believe recommends it. (although I'm not sure about this part).

What 301's are you talking about? I didn't notice this. Can you clarify?

[bluemanhand]

I would say the "spun articles", low amount of pages, not cloaking your affiliate links and hidden links are the main problems. Also, did you link to sub-pages as well or just the homepage? Linking only to the homepage is not natural.

[chrislangley]

You could ask for a re-inclusion request, and hopefully ask what it is you've done wrong, someone might reply with info pertaining to that

[larkykid]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand Luke

Also, separate c-class ips are key and NO Google Analytics!

Hey Luke, that's interesting, did you find using separate c-class ips make a significant difference in your rankings?

[Bill_Z]

Originally Posted by cooler1

So when big G do a manual review on a site, do they actually read the content to see if it gives value to the visitors? Because merely filling a page with lots of words doesn't equate to providing value.

Are you saying that Jan's site doesn't provide value? In what way? Lack of quality content or not enough content?

It doesn't matter what I think

Yes, the content is actually read. In my opinion yes the site does not provide enough value in amount of content and quality of what is there. According to the research I have done, they don't necessarily zap the site based on JUST the "value" of the content. It is a variety of factors...but sites like these have alot of those warning signs as I stated in my other post.

And also - I just looked at a post above, apparently the OP had hidden links in his text. Ummm yea that is likely another possible reason why you got deindexed instead of just penalized. Using hidden links is a big mistake.

[dp40oz]

Can people please stop spouting out BS like "you don't have enough pages combined with too many affiliate links". Do you guys know how much of the internet is made up of 1 page sales sites and 1 page legitimate business pages. If Google started deindexing every site that only had a few pages and lots of sales links then half the internet would be gone.

[natewc]

@dp40- so what do you think the problem is

@bill_z- I had reveiws originally posted as domain/pilates-machines after I changed the theme I had to change the url to domain/reviews/pilates-machines (just an example) so I had to use 301 redirects for all the links going to the old pages. This was several months ago so I don't think this had anything to do with it. Plus I only had to do that on a couple of sites.

[cweber]

Originally Posted by natewc

@dp40- so what do you think the problem is

@bill_z- I had reveiws originally posted as domain/pilates-machines after I changed the theme I had to change the url to domain/reviews/pilates-machines (just an example) so I had to use 301 redirects for all the links going to the old pages. This was several months ago so I don't think this had anything to do with it. Plus I only had to do that on a couple of sites.

The 301 redirects aren't the problem here. I did the same thing as you with one of my sites. I originally had it set up with a different product review theme then I saw the proreview theme and really liked it so when I switched to it I had to do the 301 redirects to it as well and it didn't affect me at all.

[dp40oz]

Originally Posted by natewc

@dp40- so what do you think the problem is

Assuming the OP is fully disclosing everything he knows. The only way all these sites would be de-indexed is because of analytics. There are no other ties. Once again assuming the OP didn't have any reciprocal link schemes going on with these sites or other sites that he's not discussing (maybe a plugin.. possibly?)

So assuming all is clean it means a manual review happened and they felt the system was being gamed so much that the search department called over to the analytics department, which mind you are completely separate and de-indexed his sites. Such a bold manual intervention into the algorithm would only happen if they felt the system was being gamed. Hence backlinks.

[athenistic]

I agree with dp40oz, but I thought I'd point out that you still have a number of links that are still being followed. That's the biggest thing I can see that would have a major impact. I've seen entire sites go down because I've had a single affiliate link with no nofollow tag.

[Expert35]

First check your webmasters tools and see what's the problem. Your site didn't seem professionally SEO so if you used the same keyword strategy for all, plus out sourced your backlinks by the same company that's a serious problem.

[natewc]

@athenistic- not sure what you mean....your saying because the affiliate links are do follow that is a problem? Or this "I've seen entire sites go down because I've had a single affiliate link with no nofollow tag."?

@expert I wasn't using webmasters tools before, but I added two of the sites in after someone suggested the same and no messages or errors.

I was the professional SEO ...by that I mean I didn't pay anyone else to do links etc, other than my VA who used SENUKE, ALN, and BMR (for a couple of months) all under my direction

@dp40 nothing to hide and that's the whole story, that's why I outed one of my sites that has been a steady earner for me

[MaverickUK]

Come on , let's be realistic here. Google will only ever de-index a site or group of sites if they were in serious breach of their guidelines. Duplicate content is highly unlikely to cause a site, or group of sites, to be de-indexed.

Whatever the problem was there was obviously a factor that was apparent across all of the affected websites. Just because you own ONE website that goes against their guidelines it doesn't mean that they'll come at you all guns blazing and decide to de-index all of your sites, just because one of them were dodgey.

I strongly suggest you review your practices and websites to ensure they're compliant. Google didn't de-index you for fun, they did it to ensure the quality and integrity of their results.

I'm also very surprised at one of the replies in this thread from people who, sadly, don't really have a clue as to what they're talking about. It's amazing that people would think that because an affiliate link is dofollow, that it would affect rankings and/or the indexation of a site - this is insane.

[Steven Dybka]

Originally Posted by MaverickUK

I'm also very surprised at one of the replies in this thread from people who, sadly, don't really have a clue as to what they're talking about. It's amazing that people would think that because an affiliate link is dofollow, that it would affect rankings and/or the indexation of a site - this is insane.

No it won't affect your rankings but why would someone want to pass page rank to an affiliate offer they are trying to out rank themselves in Google,
That being said always nofollow affiliate links.
I found a interesting article about this subject on Andrew Hansens blog Here
Check out #3

Steve

[LiamP]

Originally Posted by Bill_Z

Sorry, but this is wrong. Do you have any idea how many sites do not show a physical address and phone number? Google doesn't even have phone support. And nowhere in Google's quality guidelines does it say you have to have this info.

Sorry Bill your information on Google's guidelines may not be complete.

Recently a private Google doc was released which was the handbook for Google manual reviewers team. Under the section "Helpful Pages versus Spam Webpages", it says "If the contact information includes physical addresses, phone numbers, ....., the page is helpful and not spam", and "Look to see if the page appears to have been created to help users: Look for features, such as ... contact information, phone numbers, physical addresses"

I have since read a post on another private forum by a manual reviewer stating how real offline contact info was a major determinant for them in judging whether a website was a spam site for not.

[Loloy Diango]

A lot of people here have pointed out that GA is the main culprit for OP's woes.

Do we really have proof of this?

I've read - and heard - of this type of speculation here on WF but there seems to be an absence of information providing incontrovertible proof that Google Analytics really is harmful to your online business's health.

Ironically, people who espouse this line of thinking make themselves sound so certain about what they believe and seem to have insider access to what Google does day in and day out, yet are not able to provide solid detailed proof of their claim.

Can we just stop spitting out speculations and misinformation which only contribute to promoting confusion and paranoia?

[jikanv]

One of my site got "de-Indexed" all of a sudden by google. Going from the first, second and third pages, to the last page overnight. Literally, Every one of the 23 pages were on the last page. I still had some traffic from bings and aol and stuff, but no google.

I stopped backlinking and waited. Close to two months have passed and a couple of days ago, I started to see google links. I checked the site and most of my keywords are on the first page now. (most of them) while before they were mostly on the second and third page.

I am not sure if the issues are the same with yours, but it's possible.

The site don't really gets de-indexed, because if you type in your domain name I am sure it'll come up. You had paid for the domain name and it'll display when you type it in.

[ninal]

Originally Posted by jikanv

One of my site got "de-Indexed" all of a sudden by google. Going from the first, second and third pages, to the last page overnight. Literally, Every one of the 23 pages were on the last page. I still had some traffic from bings and aol and stuff, but no google.

I stopped backlinking and waited. Close to two months have passed and a couple of days ago, I started to see google links. I checked the site and most of my keywords are on the first page now. (most of them) while before they were mostly on the second and third page..

Your site wasn't deindexed. You merely experienced either a dance, penalty or sandbox.

Deindexed is when you google 'site:mydomain.com' and nothing comes up.
So your case is completely different from that of the op's.

[bob100]

Google is a jealous master. If you are making them $$ you can get away with a lot. if you are only doing aff marketing and have no adsense at all then deindexing you does not hurt them, they can do it and feel they have improved the serps.

The site did look spammy with all the aff links but that is just an opinion, can't say for sure it hurt you but remember you only get one chance to make the right impression on a person landing on your site for a manual review.

One thing I have never ever done is place aff links on my home pages though adsense is on some of my WP sites home pages. I am now using a plugin on my newer sites that allows me to keep adsense off the home page so the site looks less spammy that way. Don't know if that actually means anything but I always felt better keeping that stuff off the home page. I just place a nice intro article there talking about the site, why it is there and what it is about.

One thing I did notice is the way you would have a category then one single review page on the drop down right under it. That bugged me some how.

As for GA, I would not run it due to the easy footprint thing but you do realize that google can easily find all of your amazon aff sites by reading your aff code in the amazon links right?

Another thing lots of people don't know, google is a licensed domain registrar, though they don't offer this service to the public. They have access to all whois data and can track you that way if you use your real name and address to register all of your domains. I have on occasion used different names to reg domains but for the most part since I run adsense on almost every site I own, I don't worry about this.

I do think using java cloaked links helps keep that kind of footprint away from google.

Another thing, did you use all the exact same anchor text in your incoming links? Dead givaway to a spam site. When you get links naturally there is all kinds of link text used.

When link building use a lot of different long tail related keywords/phrases. use no-follow links also. use stupid crap some times like "click here" etc.

Watch the full steam ahead spam link building campaigns. Do more link pyramids. use a 4 tier site system. Spam link only to your 1st and 2nd tear sites then use only top quality links to your 2 top tear sites.

What is a top tier link? Something such as a squidoo link or wikipedia link or a link from a top tear blog such as edu or .gov. Do some research on link pyramids and up your link game next time. Do some facebook links and also some youtube links.

Hope something in this post helps you.

###

[kissofdeath]

did your sites have back links to each other?

[AudioRoxor]

So, what if we have all of our sites in GA and Webmaster tools? But we remove them all right now? Do you think the footprint will still exist in the future?

[bob100]

Originally Posted by AudioRoxor

So, what if we have all of our sites in GA and Webmaster tools? But we remove them all right now? Do you think the footprint will still exist in the future?

Yes, google never forgets. Your best bet is to make sure your sites are not spammy gateways with nothing but aff links every where. I believe natewc's sites were red flagged then manual reviewed.

The manual review is what nailed him to the wall. The GA and amazon aff footprint was what allowed them to find and review and de-list every site in his portfolio.

###

[cweber]

Originally Posted by bob100

Yes, google never forgets. Your best bet is to make sure your sites are not spammy gateways with nothing but aff links every where. I believe natewc's sites were red flagged then manual reviewed.

The manual review is what nailed him to the wall. The GA and amazon aff footprint was what allowed them to find and review and de-list every site in his portfolio.

###

How can they track you by your affiliate ID when you can have a different tracking id for every one of your amazon sites?

[natewc]

@bob nah, my affiliate links use a different code for each site so I can track them. No the backlinks I built used varied anchor text

@kiss no the sites weren't all backlinked to each other. I may of had one or two sites that had a one way link to another site within an article but no more than that.

[prowriter23]

Your content is not unique. Copyscape Premium says so. We can re-write your entire content for you and make it 100% unique. After that, simply email Google and ask them to re-evaluate your website. With 100% unique content, you will be back on track in 2-3 weeks.

[Bill_Z]

Originally Posted by LiamP

Sorry Bill your information on Google's guidelines may not be complete.

Recently a private Google doc was released which was the handbook for Google manual reviewers team. Under the section "Helpful Pages versus Spam Webpages", it says "If the contact information includes physical addresses, phone numbers, ....., the page is helpful and not spam", and "Look to see if the page appears to have been created to help users: Look for features, such as ... contact information, phone numbers, physical addresses"

I have since read a post on another private forum by a manual reviewer stating how real offline contact info was a major determinant for them in judging whether a website was a spam site for not.

Yes I'm familiar with that document. Those reviewers referred to in that document are there to test algorithm changes. I was referring to Google's webmaster quality guidelines. That document you are referring to is quite different. Jennifer wrote a good post talking about that here: Google Raters - All About Google Quality Raters | PotPieGirl.com

IMO the manual review that might have zapped the OP's site has nothing to do with the manual reviews referred to in the document. Someone making 10 bucks an hour wouldn't have the power to deindex a site.

This is all mostly guess-work, based upon what we see. For all I know, the algorithm could have zapped it!

Moral of the story, as I stated, is to make bigger and higher quality sites, with less 'affiliate' stuff in there. And don't use hidden links! Don't be scared if the someone clicks on a non-affiliate link! This advice that you read to make sure you only give visitors ONE option when they get to your page is out-dated.

[bob100]

Originally Posted by cweber

How can they track you by your affiliate ID when you can have a different tracking id for every one of your amazon sites?

You are right if the aff ID was/is different for every site then they can't. My experience is mostly with other aff systems such as sharasale and cj etc. I'll have to try and get up to speed on how amazon works.Sorry

###

[WallyworldWf]

Originally Posted by tshipp

Sorry to hear that. Its hard to say why without knowing more about your backlinking methods and frequency. One thing we do know is GA allowed them to easily hit the switch on all your sites. You probably caught their attention with 1 site and they punished you hard.

Well if you think GA is the problem, I assume that we can't have Google Webmaster Tools installed either? But like Yukon says, they know where the ads are being placed anyway via the PUB ID as far as adsense is concerned.

EDIT: I see others have thought GWT could be a culprit as well.

[TammieJJ]

What plugin are you using to keep adsense off your home page?

[TheFBGuy]

So much misinformation in this thread, it's comical, lol.

OP, do not waste another second thinking about those sites, they are dead, leave them be and build new sites. You are wasting time, however three quick suggestions when building new sites:

1. Avoid hyphens as much as possible, example Google prefers: buynewsunglasses.com or buynewsunglassesv instead of buy-new-sunglasses.com.

2. Do NOT use Google Analytics

3. Do NOT build only sites around Amazon, diversify.

( If you don't want to start from scratch, just buy aged domains and start from there since they already have age and trust, and even backlinks. )

[Mike Anthony]

DP is right. This probably came down to backlinks not the least of is the use of Senuke. A huge amount of manual reviews are done because sites are reported by competitors. Some of the easiest links for competitors to spot as spam are unfortunately what a lot of people rely on

Forum profile links
Bookmarks
web 2.0

Since the sites were all linked in GA only one competitor in one of the serps had to report the site to the web spam team.

So they can report them and then when the reviewer reviews the site and sees the weak content as well it becomes an issue to add to that. Op the only thing you can do is create a much better site, remove the spammy links and ask for a reconsideration but given your niche and monetization setup you have a very slim chance of Google reversing things.

Sorry to say but for now at least you might be at a dead end.

[yukon]

Something isn't right about this.

The site in OP is still in the Index only the IP is showing up instead of the domain name in Google SERPs.


"home studio or you’ve just decided to incorporate Pilates into your lifestyle" - Google Search

The date on the SERP is 11/25/2011. The date on the OP is 12/14/2011.

Did I miss something in this thread?

It's starting to look like a hosting/webmaster problem to me.

[coachbob]

Originally Posted by natewc

@Barry- Hi, as I said above all the reviews are unique and either written by me or a paid writer. The two articles on the side, I thought there was only one, (I put at most 4-5 throughout the 11 sites) are from vita-vees uniquely spun articles. A few things were changed like the title to tie them into the site however they are not unique. Most of my sites however have 100% unique content. I used these articles to submit to article websites and other web 2.0 properties.

If could PM you I would, so with that said, PM so I can ask you a question before I reply.

BA

[calvinyumi]

Originally Posted by Bill_Z

Sorry, but this is wrong. Do you have any idea how many sites do not show a physical address and phone number? Google doesn't even have phone support. And nowhere in Google's quality guidelines does it say you have to have this info.

OP - There is alot of flat-out misinformation in this thread. IMO you were deindexed because of 3 reasons:

1. Not alot of content (less than 10 pages)
2. Content there is thin
3. Each article has like 6 or 7 affiliate links, none of them cloaked.

And no, I don't think it has anything to do with your link building. One of your sites got flagged somehow, and most likely a manual review shot down your site and Google analytics connected to the rest. Stop using Google Analytics!

What you should try first is rewrite your content, make it more thorough, longer, and better. Get rid of all of those affiliate links...ALL of them. Link out to authority sites. Add video and more pics, and bring more value to the content.

Then add at least 10 or 20 more articles, all original.

Then sign up for Google Webmaster Tools and request for re-inclusion.

You should get a response within 2-4 weeks. If you are included again, you can then add affiliate links back in, but for god's sake don't add like 6 of them on each page with no other outbound links.

Good luck, totally sucks when this happens.

I found that Bill_Z's saying is correct. I do not think we do have to add physical address etc on our contact page.

My opinion is, you have to forget those sites, build new ones with more proper way. Obviously, "proper way" is relative to everyone