Site just will not be reincluded in Google's Index
-
I asked a question about this site (www.cookinggames.com.au) some time ago
http://www.seomoz.org/qa/view/38488/site-indexing-google-doesnt-like-it
and had some very helpful answers which were great. However I'm still no further ahead. I have added some more content, submitted a new XML sitemap, removed the 'lorem ipsum...'
Now it seems that even Bing have ditched the site too. The number 1 result in Australia for the search term 'cooking games' is now this one - http://www.cookinggames.net.au/ which surely is not so much better to deserve a #1 spot whilst my site is deindexed?
I have just had another reconsideration request 'denied' and am absolutely out of ideas/. If anyone can help suggest what I need to do... or even suggest how I can get feedback from the search engines what's wring that would be fantastic.
Thank you
David
-
Hi again, Keri,
Thanks for all your analysis.... I think the pages you found on archive.org are the root of the problem - this was when the domain name was 'parked' at WhyPark... I think that's where Google gave it the original penalty - not fair IMO but at any rate I have confessed my sins in this regard ages ago to no avail.
Thanks for the content tips too - I'll fix them up now (there are 5 games currently on the site btw - not sure why you couldn't see them).
Thanks agin
David
-
FYI, I don't know if something's up with my browser (I have issues with Flash at times), but I can only seem to find one game on the site. The links page just has "page content here" as a placeholder, and there's a typo on the cooking mama games page. Those might be signals of lower quality content, but certainly nothing to get you banned.
I browsed as Googlebot via the SEOmoz toolbar and didn't see any problems.
Looks like the site had a lot of duplicated content on it in the past before you bought it. Pulling a couple of phrases off the pages of the wayback machine (http://wayback.archive.org/web//http://www.cookinggames.com.au/) shows hundreds or thousands of sites indexed for the same phrases. I don't see anything that looks like hacked pages on this one though.
-
I hear you - I suspect content quality could go up quite a bit with creativity, some work on the design/layout, etc. Having "more unique content" than competitors is quite a bit different than having an amazing resource that every parent wants to share with their friends because it's so phenomenal.
Re: the domain name - sadly, that might mean you need to slog through every link you've acquired and get rid of it, just to earn the clean slate Google seems to be demanding.
Good luck David!
-
Did Google give any type of answer with denied -- like it's an automated penalty and not by hand? That's some of the feedback that they are starting, and gives at least a hint about the type of penalty.
I see you at least got picked back up in Bing, which is at least a little help.
-
Thanks Rand - appreciate the response.
Trouble is with going the path you've described, the value is in the domain name itself. I'd scrap the site in a heartbeat but I'm hoping to take advantage of the EMD because the search volume is massive - 2,240,000 exacts (that's why CookingGames.com sold, domain name only, for $300,000 a couple of years ago).
Regarding content - look it's about cooking games so it's quite hard to write much authoritative stuff about 'Dora is Cooking', if you know what I mean! I already have more content than all of my competition and am reluctant to spend much more time on it if it's all in vain.
No easy answers, hey? But thanks again all for your consideration.
Cheers
David
-
Hi David - there's only a few things it could be, since you've filed for re-inclusion and not gotten back in:
- On-site spam/manipulation
- Cloaking/redirect stuff
- Backlink spam
I think, like others who answered above, the third one is the most likely. This leaves you with two options - try to get all the manipulative links removed entirely (apparently, Google doesn't think as of your last re-consideration you've gone far enough) or redirect the site to a new domain and start over with SEO.
If I were in your position, I'd probably do the latter, just because even if I could clean everything up, it might take months or even years for Google to review and agree to lift those penalties.
One last thing - it's also possible that Google's keeping the site out of the index because they don't think there's enough unique value in the content. You could try making a more unique, useful site and see if that helps/works, too (I'd probably recommended this anyway for a future version).
-
Hi Keri,
Thanks for the note - answer is no I still have no idea. Those links that Nemek mentioned I traced back to when i bought a 'manual directory submission' service a couple of years ago.
I have actually used this service many times before for various sites to no detriment (in fact when I used the service for cookinggames.com.au it was one of 5 sites in that order -0 the other 4 were unharmed)
Anyway I confessed my sins to Google, named the submission service, explained that IU'd learnt my lesson and requested reinclusion. Denied.
I'm at a complete loss... I've now requested reinclusion about 6 or 7 times now, each time after attending to something or other that might be the key.
I remember about 6 mths ago Matt Cutts posted a vid where he said one of the priorities at Google was going to be giving more specific feedback about things like this. Can't come soon enough for me...
Thanks again
David
-
Hi David,
Did you ever request reinclusion, and have you learned anything more about why Google is still not letting you in their index? I see the site is still not there, and wondered if you could give us an update and if there's anything more we could do to try to help.
-
Hmmm - yeah I see those links. Thanks for pointing them out.
What do you think I can do about them? I have no idea how they got there - whilst I have had an SEO work on this site I've never had a problem with any other sites they work on.
Shall I just acknowledge to Google I recognise these are crappy quality links?
Thanks again
David
-
Yeah, it looks like you got hit with a penalty for back-link quality. A bunch of links is from a group of domains very similar domains (link+word.info) all hosted on one IP. Probably you got slapped for link manipulation.
-
what is the site URL
-
Well the second question is the key! But Google will not tell me despite my pleas. Check the site for yourself - it's no masterpiece but not that bad either.
And re JC Penney - no the SEO guys I used briefly are pretty good with no problems on other sites. Even JC Penney only got kicked down the ranks nor de-indexed.
Thanks
David
-
Oops sorry about that - try this link:
http://www.seomoz.org/qa/view/38488/site-indexing-google-doesnt-like-it
(think other link was in 'My Questions' or something)
-
First, the SEOmoz link you posted is 404. Second, why are they denying you re-inclusion? Third, what is on your site that is so bad?? There must be some really spam type content or linking.
Did you hire the J.C. Penney SEO team? LOL
-
Oops!
We can't find the page you're looking for!
You should repost the link or post the url of your site.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Google not Indexing images on CDN.
My URL is: https://bit.ly/2hWAApQ We have set up a CDN on our own domain: https://bit.ly/2KspW3C We have a main xml sitemap: https://bit.ly/2rd2jEb and https://bit.ly/2JMu7GB is one the sub sitemaps with images listed within. The image sitemap uses the CDN URLs. We verified the CDN subdomain in GWT. The robots.txt does not restrict any of the photos: https://bit.ly/2FAWJjk. Yet, GWT still reports none of our images on the CDN are indexed. I ve followed all the steps and still none of the images are being indexed. My problem seems similar to this ticket https://bit.ly/2FzUnBl but however different because we don't have a separate image sitemap but instead have listed image urls within the sitemaps itself. Can anyone help please? I will promptly respond to any queries. Thanks
Technical SEO | | TNZ
Deepinder0 -
To integrate a blog tool onto site - or build a blog solution - what's better for SEO?
Currently looking at adding a blog to our company site subdirectory and wanted to know if there was a SEO distinction between the following methods: Integrating a bolt-on blog tool with the site to create the blog VS. just using the current site infrastructure to build blog functionality. What's better for SEO? (and if tool integration is the overwhelming response - which tool?). Cheers.
Technical SEO | | Oxfordcomma0 -
Just read Travis Loncar's YouMoz post and I have a question about Pagination
This was a brilliant post. I have a question about Pagination on sites that are opting to use Google Custom Search. Here is an example of a search results page from one of the sites I work on: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/search-return?q=countryman I notice in the source code of sequential pages that the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags are not used. I also noticed that the URL does not change when clicking on the numbers for the subsequent pages of the search results. Also, the canonical tag of every subsequent page looks like this: Are you thinking what I'm thinking? All of our Google Custom Search pages have the same canonical tag....Something's telling me this just can't be good. Questions: 1. Is this creating a duplicate content issue? 2. If we need to include rel="prev" and rel="next" on Google Custom Search pages as well as make the canonical tag accurate, what is the best way to implement this? Given that searchers type in such a huge range of search terms, it seems that the canonical tags would have to be somehow dynamically generated. Or, (best case scenario!) am I completely over-thinking this and it just doesn't matter on dynamically driven search results pages? Thanks in advance for any comments, help, etc.
Technical SEO | | danatanseo1 -
Moz Reporting Incorrect 404's
Hi Guys SEOMoz is telling me that we have 191 404 errors f. I have checked this with several other crawlers and this not the case. For example, http://www.opticalexpress.co.uk/eyecare/corporate-savings.html%0D%0A2027 But correct links its http://www.opticalexpress.co.uk/eyecare/corporate-savings.html which is fine... We have no record of these links so why is it appending these characters at the end of the URL which is causing the 404's....
Technical SEO | | EwanFisher0 -
Google's "cache:" operator is returning a 404 error.
I'm doing the "cache:" operator on one of my sites and Google is returning a 404 error. I've swapped out the domain with another and it works fine. Has anyone seen this before? I'm wondering if G is crawling the site now? Thx!
Technical SEO | | AZWebWorks0 -
Google Duplicate Content Penalty On My Own Site?
I am certain that I have hit a google penalty filter for my site http://www.playpokeronline.ca for my main keywords "play poker online" in google.ca I rank 670th and used to be on the first page between 1 and 10 in June. On Bing I am like 9th On my site I found the entire site duplicated as follows Original: www.playpokeronline.ca Duplicate www.playpokeronline.ca/playpokeronline/ this duplicate was not intentional and seems to be a result of my hosting at godaddy. for every page on my site and it shows up in webmaster tools I blocked the duplicate with robots.txt and a few days ago dropped it and wrote a rel=connonical tag in the top of each page visitors dropped from 100 per day in august to 12-20 in the last month. Google says that if duplicate content is made to try to game serps they may filter or penalize my site. Have I triggered this penalty or a different sort of over optimization penalty? Will the rel= canonical tags fix this or should i do something else? This Penalty Business is Not my Idea of a good time Thank You Jeb
Technical SEO | | PokerCanada0 -
Access To Client's Google Webmaster Tools
Hi, What's the best/easiest way for a client to grant access to his Google Webmaster Tools to me? Thanks! Best...Michael
Technical SEO | | 945010 -
Google has not indexed my site in over 4 weeks, what's the problem?
We recently put in permanent redirects to our new url, but Google seems to not want to index the new url. There was no problems with the old url and the new url is brand new so should have no 'black marks' against it. We have done everything we can think off in terms of submitting site maps, telling google our url has changed in webmaster tools, mentioning the new url on social sites etc...but still nothing. It has been over 4 weeks now since we set up the redirects to the url, any ideas why Google seems to be choosing not to index it? Thanks
Technical SEO | | cewe0