Indexing, Ranking, Frustration...

[emersont]

Problem:

I have a Google PR 5 ranked small business site with 1500+ back links. Suddenly, the Google ranking for my key search phrase went from page ONE to NIL. By nil, I mean it can’t be found by drilling down 100 pages of returns even when the key phrase is quoted! Completely unrelated sites with no PR and completely accidental key word bridging show up down there somewhere, but not mine. For that same key phrase, the site still ranks page ONE on Yahoo, MSN, Netscape, Altavista, et al. It disappeared in November, and of course, along with it not only nearly half of my business, but the potential for users to find what they're looking for on Google, at least with respect to what I have to offer.

Five months later, dozens of visits by the Googlebot, and waiting patiently for the "hard working" Googlebot to do it's job again, and still, for that phrase, carefully included in honest content, in my title, in my description, once ranked page one, still ranked page one on Yahoo, MSN, etc., and Google's index cannot find the site at ALL for that phrase. I'm indexed, because a search on the URL finds the site. BARELY! And I presume the site is not banned, because a site:url.com search shows several Google listings. But I actually have to actually quote a virtually UNIQUE 8 word phrase from the title or content to find the site using Google. I've run through the Google Webmaster guidelines twice against my site, checked everything I know, resubmitted a half dozen times, waited months, filled out the Google webmaster feedback form twice (very likely never read by any human), watched the bot visit and visit, and don't think I'm in violation of any rules here.

This has nothing to do with keyword relevancy. If it did, I could at least attempt to fix the situation by catching up with what's expected and just be patient.

Here's what I consider proof:

I have two sites, with different URL’s, one much older, and one newer business site. They have completely different deep content, design, paging, etc. The one thing they both have in common is similarly designed splash pages, both as index.html, different looking, but technically almost exactly the same to the spiders, both pages with nearly but not completely identical keyword phrasing in title, description, and content. The older one still appears on page one of Google for a search on the respective keyword phrase, the newer one, which used to appear a few notches ABOVE the old one, is gone, gone, gone to oblivion. So you see, if you're logical, keyword relevancy is not the issue. Either Google's data archiving is broken, or the missing site has been somehow thrown into oblivion intentionally – for SOME reason I have yet to comprehend. Unfortunately, after the splash page, my own newer, dropped site, was much more expensive and better thought out with respect to the visitor, so it produced much more business.

Technical problems? For five months and dozens of visits by the Googlebot? And the only way to find the site on Google is with a long, unique, quoted phrase? Google insists its bot doesn't 'bully' individual sites. Well, they can say anything they want, but from the evidence, I'll be dammed if it wouldn't be easy for a person to come to that conclusion. Either that, or the Google technology has a significant glitch or two. I know things change, but this is unquestionably a rather DRASTIC bit of change.

And I'm not just making a complaint that I'm no longer on page one. Right now I'd be satisfied if my site appeared for the target key phrase anywhere in the first 100 pages of returns, even QUOTED! At least then I'd know it was recognized with the potential to slowly grind its way back up a bit, and for searchers looking for my service, a little chance of connecting.

Does anyone have a clue what's going on? Is Google technology broken with respect to Yahoo, MSN, Netscape? If not that, then WHAT?

Yes, I know it’s whining. Google has no obligation to anyone but its stockholders. But I also firmly believe that if this happened to one of Microsoft’s important sites, or an Intel site, some executive somewhere at Google would be getting a phone call and someone at Microsoft or Intel would be getting an explanation. But as unimportant as I am, I still really wish I could find an explanation and manage a fix here.

Naturally, a somewhat frustrating experience. If I said exactly how much money it has cost me, that would be completely presumptuous, but not without meaning. Google's clearly interested in making money too. But there is in life a certain longing for at least a hint of principle from time to time. Even a bug squashed by a steamroller might cry out a tiny, barely audible, little 'eeeek'!

[jclark16]

If you have good back links and not spamming with keywords. Then G must have you banned. Have your tryed w3c valdation to chekc for problems.

[emersont]

If you have good back links and not spamming with keywords. Then G must have you banned. Have your tryed w3c valdation to chekc for problems.

Well, it's almost impossible to keep up with it all. I'm definitely not spamming with keywords, and I have as many backlinks and a G PR at least as good as those that replaced me.

I was also under the impression that if a site by a given URL was banned by Google, it would be unindexed. It's all guess work though, because Google does not officially let anyone know anything about the indexing and retrieval characteristics of individual sites (the big boys excepted, I'm quite confident). And I'm sure the URL is indexed because a search on the URL finds the site. It just can't be found with anything else but a unique quoted search phrase, and then it usually shows up all by itself.

As far as w3c is concerned, yes, I've run it by their checker several times, fixing anything I could.

The rest is beyond me. Logically, the best I can come up with is it's either an example of Google indexing and retrieval that really breaks from time to time, or some intentionally programmed method of relegating a given 'spanked' URL to the bottom of any possible search. That's because the site in question did not just drop in rank for specific keywords/phrases, but for almost ANY search phrase with the EXCEPTION of some odd phrasing unique to the site.

I sure wish there was a way to fix these things though. It really seems that if a URL is thrown down like that, it stays in limbo for quite a long, long time. Indefinitely? Who knows.

But the too bad, so sad part, only works when it's applied to the other guy. If it's 'your' URL that ends up screwed like this, then suddenly you notice. The trouble is that even if you comply, try your best, bay at the moon, there's apparently no way to easily correct this kind of trouble.

[emersont]

Any SEO experts that might be able to shed light on this problem? I'd love to know what an expert thinks is the explanation to why the site in question suddenly became invisible to the Google search mechanism, and why even after five months, has not returned.

[cbp]

the explanation to why the site in question suddenly became invisible to the Google search mechanism

Google is forever tweaking the algo - what gave you the edge previously is probably not weighted as high now.

CBP

[cbp]

BTW - what is the phrase and what is the URL?

CBP

[scallihan]

I have two sites, with different URL’s, one much older, and one newer business site. They have completely different deep content, design, paging, etc. The one thing they both have in common is similarly designed splash pages, both as index.html, different looking, but technically almost exactly the same to the spiders, both pages with nearly but not completely identical keyword phrasing in title, description, and content. The older one still appears on page one of Google for a search on the respective keyword phrase, the newer one, which used to appear a few notches ABOVE the old one, is gone, gone, gone to oblivion.

When you have two sites shooting for the same keyphrase, if Google figures out they're both your sites, you can't expect both to rank in Google for that keyphrase, at least not over the longer run. Could be some combination of the so-called "network" and "duplicate" content filters.

[emersont]

Google is forever tweaking the algo - what gave you the edge previously is probably not weighted as high now.

Well, that makes sense if the site in question drops down a few notches, even a few pages, perhaps even a few dozen pages, but when it suddenly goes out of the top 1000 for that keyphrase, it suggests something more than keyphrase relevancy. Don't you think? Also, the missing site can now ONLY be found on Google with a search on the URL, or a search for completely UNIQUE phrasing, where it shows up alone. Otherwise, it's nowhere.

The site is:

http://www.tntwebdesigns.com/


The keyphrase was, unquoted, Sacramento Web Design.

The second site was a different site altogether, completely different, different layout, different design, with the search phrase modified to Sacramento Web Site Design, and content according. The one thing the two had in commond was a splash page set up for white seo, different graphics, different content, slightly different keyphrase targeting, but almost precisely the same technical HTML management. Both sites still show a Google PR of 5, the remaining site has about 600 back links, while the missing one has about 1500. Both sites still show up with a Google site: url search. The inner sites, beyond the splash pages are TOTALLY different. No spider could ever possibly confuse the two.

Now the funny thing is the site that's still ranked remains in the top 22, for the search phrase intended for the site that's now gone. The missing site used to fluctuate from 4 to 10 for the same phrase. Now it's out of the loop completely.

One more thing. I guess there were two possibilities as possible causes. One, blacklisted (if such a thing exists) for one reason or another; two, a broken or intermittent Google data archiving mechanism. Both seem logical. But I'd add one more: the missing site is hosted with a very inexpensive company on a shared server, possibly with an IP shared by many other sites. Is it possible someone else on that server was guilty of spamming and Google's spam killer (whatever that might be) took down everyone else with the same IP? I'm not server savvy enough to know this for sure. Just a thought.

One thing's for sure to me: Google is definitely one huge cluge of a messy enigma.

[cspelts]

Can you provide the URL for the second site as well?

This may not be what you want to hear, but it really does sound like duplicate content - "Sacramento Web Design" and "Sacramento Web Site Design" are essentially the same target. But we need both URLs to get a better idea.

[daxtrader]

WOW..... beautifull sites (siq)

Why do you need two sites with almost (almost exactly) the same content, title, description, (and de facto more too)???

Are you trying to bet on two horses here? Launch the younger whilst older is still in air? Obviously Google doesnot like copies and they are right about that. Everyone can say Hey I am Sacramento webdesign (be it by joke)

[garbageaccount]

I can empathize with you. I've walked into a problem here where they had 2 sites nearly identical (the idea of the sites is to have a different look and feel for the second in order to gain a younger demographic).

So what I have done is try to make the two sites as different as possible, unfortunatey they still sell all the same products with very similar text on the pages but I've been making changes to how the sites in order to make them 'different'. Also they have different keywords (although there is some overlap) that can't be helped, but on the second site the focus is different and I hope that it is reflected that way to the search bots.

I have had incremental indexing of the site up until this past week and suddenly the indexed pages in Google went 'Down'. I'm a bit perplexed. If anyone has any ideas let me know. The urls for the two sites are in my signature.

[freehits]

If the sites are really not identical, I think this dup content filter is a whole lot of hype.

would be interested in a specific example or 5 of this occuring ecspecially when the content "was just targeting the same subject" but not identical.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...q=direct+tv+NY

If i recall correctly blue-dolphin, you had recently changed domian names as well, so there are quite a few more variable that could have caused trouble for you.

[garbageaccount]

"If i recall correctly blue-dolphin, you had recently changed domian names as well, so there are quite a few more variable that could have caused trouble for you."

Oh yes so many variables are happening I can't figure out what to do to fix things fast enough. Right now I'm trying to concentrate on getting Inbound Links more then anything else to see if that helps at all.

Also looking at a possible overhaul of the way BlueDolphin's site looks with additional text that is better optimized.

Any other ideas?

[emersont]

Why do you need two sites with almost (almost exactly) the same content, title, description, (and de facto more too)???

Well, the long URL was the older site. From the beginning, it was not received as well among some viewers as others. So when the shorter URL became available, I built a second site, dual Flash/HTML trying to fit the discretion of a diffrent set.

Originally, both sites had different target key phrases, both studied and selected. But after the one went out of the top 1000, I made them almost identical just to wait and see what will happen. Also, while waiting for something to change with the missing site, at least I still get some incoming traffic from the older site with respect to the better key phrase.

[cspelts]

emersont, can you tell us the second URL?