dropped from MSN - why?

[mktplace]

I think I was dropped from MSN sometime last month because my stats dropped in 1/2 for July over June, and no referrals at all in August.

The site is http://www.home-security-alarm-systems.com

I started seeing data from MSN, HotBot, DogPile and Mamma after I was listed in DMOZ. I am still in DMOZ, but not on these sites.

Any ideas why I was dropped, and how do I get back in (without having to pay Overtures for listing AND CPC - what a rip-off!)

[jbgilbert]

mktplace,

I think you already have an idea of what is happening... what is your best guess?

In this case, if you answer, we can all learn something.

[mktplace]

I am not sure I understand your post jbgilbert. I am trying to read it literally, and also trying to read between the lines but still not sure. . .

I had posted this question in the "review my site" and J Grewal posted:

I checked your site for some keywords and I think
- A word count from 3 to 5 is suggested for the Title area. Your word count is 14 right now so you might consider decreasing your word count in the Title.
- A word count from 1 to 163 is suggested for the Link Text area. Your word count is 225 right now so you might consider decreasing your word count in the Link Text.
- A keyword frequency from 1 to 2 is suggested for the Body Text area. Your frequency is 26.5 right now so you might consider decreasing your Keyword count in the Body Text.

But I find this hard to believe, as I have not added any words to my title, and have read too many conflicting comments on "keyword density" to make the difference.

I did used to have Google Adsense on the site, but went away from that as too many people were leaving the site prematurely.

Should I be interpreting J's comments as the search engine thinks I am spamming?

I have always had a list of states in my footer, and I recently (in the last week) changed that to be a little more keyword rich, after doing my homework over at Wordtracker. . . Maybe those should not be on every page, but maybe a page of their own?

Don't wait until I guess it to say "yup, you are right". If you can tell me something specific is wrong, I will be glad to change it. I have shortened all my titles already (thanks JG)

[cbp]

I am surprised that Google have not dropped you as well. Talk about building sites for the search engines and not for the user.

Rule no 1:
Build sites for the user and not the search engines.

Search engines algorithms are all getting more sophisticated and are getting better at picking up the unnatural use of words ....

Search engines are also putting more emphasis on 'quality signals' - your stuffing of keywords all over the place is a really poor quaility signal.

CBP

[mktplace]

cbp,
Interesting comment. When I started this site, it was "very skinny" as all I am really doing is providing the comparison matrix and links to the target sites for consumers to be a little more educated.

Since I was not getting much traffic, I decided to create pages about burglar alarms, home security, saving money on insurance, etc... This didn't help much, so I started working on reciprocol links, which I am continually trying to improve.

Meanwhile, along the way, I was on page 12 of the search results at Google for any of the keywords WordTracker indicates people are typing, so, based on a lot of the discussion at webproworld, I beefed up my text with more keywords (including title, h tags and body). Also following suggestions here about the importance of good anchor tag text, I added cross links to all my pages, so when I said home security in the text, I linked to the home security page.

Now I am told I am too SPAMMY. When I read the text, it seems a little verbose, but not overly so. You say build for the users, which is what I had done originally, but was getting no traffic; so I expanded to add build for the search engines as well.

There must be a happy median somewhere. Lots of people visit my site, most go to the comparison chart, and some choose to click through to the website of the monitoring company they want to use.

And I keep getting higher in Google, and can see the changes almost immediately when I increase the keyword density on a given page for a set of keywords. What is up with that vs. your comment?

Sign me: more confused then ever!

[jbgilbert]

Should I be interpreting J's comments as the search engine thinks I am spamming?

Yes... you read between the lines quite well.

Do you also have a few other sites similar to this one that are all interlinked to gether?

[OneMoreBite]

Do you also have a few other sites similar to this one that are all interlinked to gether?

Is this helpful or are you trying to provoke something?

Kathryn

[mktplace]

OneMoreBite

Good question! The moderators of this forum seem to speak in riddles. . . not much help as far as I can tell.

I have removed some of the "extra" keywords, but the site still seems to read fine to me. . .

Still no hits from MSN or Yahoo though.

[OneMoreBite]

I'd have to agree that occasionally a request for help seems to bring nothing but the wrath of those who we've entrusted to be the "leaders of the pack." If they found something wrong, it would be much more useful to all reading these posts if they'd simply state what they see as a problem, instead of asking you to guess. Not everyone is an expert webmaster. I thought that was the point of these forums: a place to ask questions and get replies without attack. Maybe someone just had a bad day.

I've seen lots of sites with excellent placement who repeat their keywords repeatedly in links and titles, etc., but it is generally considered a very bad idea and is best avoided. Your site would become much more "people" friendly by adding less keywords and a bit more text.

If people are going to the comparison page, then you might want to work on your "call to action" on that page. In other words, what do you want the people to do once they are there? If you want them to click on one or the other of the sites you list at the bottom of the page, make them more obvious, and ask the person to do so.

It's also confusing, at least to me, that you seem to recommend Protect America (which makes sense) but why do you recommend ADT, when they are the most expensive? Obviously I only looked at cost, but that's what you need to know. What are people looking for in their comparisons - where does the page lead them, and are they wanting to get more info at that point?

hope that helps some.

Kathryn

[jbgilbert]

If they [moderators] found something wrong, it would be much more useful to all reading these posts if they'd simply state what they see as a problem, instead of asking you to guess. Not everyone is an expert webmaster. I thought that was the point of these forums: a place to ask questions and get replies without attack.

Well, you want the truth eh... right here in an open forum? Okay, here it is:

1) If you expect intimate detail on how to achieve rankings and exactly what is wrong with your site, people here (even moderators) don't have the time to do that. However, there are a few good SEOs on this forum that (for about $175/hr) could help you out a lot.

2) There is a problem with giving some specific answers -- see, you and I are not the only ones who read these forums! Yes, the SEs monitor the forums, so when you see what I say in #3 just know that the SEs also see it.

3) Only you know the real answers and relationships to the comments and questions that follow, but it appears you have (either own or partner with) some very shady/spammy/questionable sites that link to yours. Such as:

http://www.askafriend.com/

http://www.porn-star-sex-toys.com/po...l-pleasure.htm (really cute how you link to home security with this line:WARNING - ADULTS OVER 18 ONLY - If you are offended by adult products - Leave Now -- the Leave Now links to your home security site.

http://www.cheap-long-distance-phone...e_site_map.htm

The Banner Co-op Exchange Free Advertising & Cash To Promote Your Site! Join Here!

And more!

Does this help you understand why the SEs like MSN are having a problem with your site?

Now you may understand why we sometimes speak between the lines when we find things that can be embarassing to those who ask the questions.

Sorry to be so blunt, but it seems that (in this case) you wanted answers. Get rid of the spam... get rid of the spammy questionable links and get some quality, related links from reputable sources.

[OneMoreBite]

JBGilbert,

The quote you replied to was written by me, not the original questioner, and yes, I do think what you wrote here is much more useful than your original post when you said, "I think you already have an idea of what is happening... what is your best guess? In this case, if you answer, we can all learn something."

Your last post WAS helpful in that you pointed out exactly that with which you found fault. Someone that didn't know before, does know now, and that's what I believe these forums are about: The sharing of knowledge.

Kathryn

[mktplace]

No Kathyrn, I just beefed up your comment, which got me exactly what I wanted - an honest, truthful and COMPLETE answer.

At least now I know what to look at :) thanks JG

As far as worrying about the SE's. . . talk about a paranoid group. I am of the belief that the truth shall prevail, and if you only use these forums to get business, then shame on you!

Well, you want the truth eh... right here in an open forum?

What a joke. Why else are we here? To tell people things they already know, or that is common knowledge? I am looking for the collective wisdom of the group.

Many of the Moderators spout their opinions like they are fact. Funny, but I just noticed a corelation between lack of pictures and types of answers!

Now off to fix these problems!

[jbgilbert]

mktplace,

Funny, but I just noticed a corelation between lack of pictures and types of answers!

Tell me more (explain further) and I'll tell you why my picture is not out there.

[mktplace]

James,

If you are the jbgilbert who is also ebay's My-Treasures, reallyhot.org and antique-autos.com than I apologize.

I see you get around a lot of the forums, as well as all the replicated content forum copies, which, in my opinion, goes completely against the grain of the Internet. (I thought that's what hyperlinking was for)

Take good care of your kids, and god bless!

[bhartzer]

The search engines like links from unbiased sources.

If we hyperlink all websites that we own just to influence the rankings then that wouldn't be unbiased linking, would it?

Don't get me wrong, a few honest links from one site to another site is fine if it's good for the users and it's on-topic. But just don't go overboard with the linking.

[jbgilbert]

Mktplace,

James,

Nope, it's Jim

If you are the jbgilbert who is also ebay's My-Treasures, reallyhot.org and antique-autos.com than I apologize.

Well, you are wrong on 2 counts here.

I see you get around a lot of the forums

I'm registered with a few, but all my time is spent at WPW.

as well as all the replicated content forum copies, which, in my opinion, goes completely against the grain of the Internet.

If you are talking about jimworld, I was allowed to test a beta version of a script that replicated the forums -- we had to stop that at Google's suggestion. If you try to go to one of those old indexed pages you'll see it no longer exists.

Take good care of your kids, and god bless!

Wrong again! Good guess, but way off target.

[incrediblehelp]

I think CBP is right. I would try to build your website to be more user friendly and you will see your search rankings profit from it. Building sites like this one:

http://www.home-alarm.info/

and linking them all together, is not going to do much within Google, MSN or Yahoo for the long term.