Another GOOG Beta - Webmaster Warnings Before Being Banned

[greeneagle]

I recently took the controversial initiative to lock a thread that promised to document GOOGLE’s Website Banishment Procedures and the recovery steps involved. I did so for several reasons:

It had become convoluted, deteriorating value.
It had become unprofessional with sniping and personal attacks.
It was more combative than informative.
It had misleading information about GOOGLE’s Banishment procedures.
It did not include the latest information on Banishment notices In "BETA”.
Because it took a turn toward PMs as opposed to a Public Forum Continuum
And 2 other reasons not listed.

There are quite a few Site Owners and Webmasters that get “blindsided” by a GOOGLE banishment. Many times this “effect” is caused by unscrupulous or unknowing 3rd parties, such as “Black Hat” SEO companies. Google is aware of that fact and has initiated a less “heavy handed” approach to banning Sites.

GOOGLE has recently introduced another “BETA”, Warning Webmasters/Site Owners of Banishment worthy transgressions. Here is what Matt Cutts had to say about it.

Here is the “Search Engine Watch” Article on it.

Article:”Google Pilot New Webmaster Communications Initiative” This article has the full edited body of the letter being sent.

Article: ” Google Notifying Sites When They’re Banned”

GOOGLE has received a great deal of webmaster criticism for their “heavy handed” admonishments and alg shifts. Recently they seem to be attempting to communicate a little better.

I sincerely hope that this thread welcomes discussions on “Banishment” and “Banned Site Recovery”. We can chronicle recovery, the steps involved and the recognition of recovery states. I welcome anyone sporting those injuries to discuss their Sites openly for mutual benefit here if they choose.

This thread should remain professional. It will not become a GOOGLE anger venting medium, an imaginary springboard for Banned Site recovery, a self promotional tool, and will not degrade into personal attacks or sniping. GOOGLE is not “Screwing” anyone when they get banned or demoted in the SERP, and they are trying to make that clear.

Although the new program may seem "personal", the letters going out are "canned" within the new program, as shown above. GOOGLE does not dedicate resources to write personal letters warning every transgressor and never will!

Having said that though, I believe GOOGLE is moving in the right direction to communicate with their upper tiered constituency (webmasters and Site Owners), and I welcome it!

Ken

[cz]

I'd like to express my pleasure with Google - who was starting to appear as a cold, calculating juggernaut spouting out do no evil, while sites were inexplicably leveled.

I think this is "right on" and certainly something they have implemented to help communications, while letting us know - "hey we hear you - if you're messing up we're going to get you - and here's why".

Not to mention, "fix it and in 30 days these removed pages can be reincluded".

For many of you who are in the "Biz" of SEO this may not be a newsflash - when a site is banned and why it was banned. But there are tons of us who are SEO wannabe's. We can only afford to get some SEO tutelage and implement it, then try and try again until some method starts working. I could have a completely "out of order" situation on a page (maybe) and never know it. At least Google is not going to coldly trash my site and leave me wondering and spending a ton of money on SEO, not knowing what was even wrong.

Hats off Google! I feel a little bit of the ol' Google vibe coming back at us. They have been listening and they're proving they care.

If I'm way off base, please disregard and read the next post ;)

[glengara]

After an initial flurry I've read little if any mention of these recently, I'd have expected at least some in the aftermath of Jagger...

[google junky]

I think its a great idea for those honest websites that might have been removed and didn't know why.

Of course I would have to make an assumption on the part of hopefully how they will automate the process of reincluding a site that has cleaned up its act.

You can select "I'm a webmaster inquiring about my website" and
then "Why my site disappeared from the search results or dropped in
ranking," click Continue, and then make sure to type "Reinclusion
Request" in the Subject: line of the resulting form.

I understand that the email sent out will be automated.
When you follow the directions for reincluding your site as stated in the quote above, will they also automate reading your url in the form you post to them so its not dependent on a google employee to take care of? I suppose they would have a url box in the form to fill it in?

I only bring this up because of the lack of response when you send a report of severe blackhat techniques being used and the site never dissapears from the index.

Could they also be tying the two together , so that when someone sends a report of misbehavior the automated system also checks the url reports and needing no emplyee to look at anything.

[rlrouse]

This is an excellent move on Google's part and one that's long overdue. Some argue that ANY information from Google concerning what's allowed/not allowed will help the gamers game the search results.

I disagree. The gamers will always push the limits without waiting for assistance from Google and they can be dealt with accordingly.

I have always believed that a set of clearly established guidelines backed up by severe penalties for anyone caught violating them after a warning would lead to the cleanest SERPS that can be had using an algorithm.

[Mel]

humpfh... seems like this potentially interesting topic is getting very little action. Wonder why, could it be down to the first post in this thread where Ken laid down the law - MY way or no way.

Lighten up a bit Ken - your halos getting crooked.

[ADAM Web Design]

It could also be that there's really not much to debate in it. It's more of a news-style post. Usually the threads that drag out tend to be ones where there are protagonists and antagonists. In this case, there's neither.