From number one to gone

[flanok]

6 weeks ago I was number on MSN for the term breakdown cover. I had been there for about 18 months solid. Then on 22nd OCT, I suffered what some others have and disapeared from the rankings over night. However today yeilds another sad day, in that every single page has now been delisted from MSN. I have been following the posts here and on WMW, the best anyone can come up with is irelevant links out.
I am not convinced because up until today I had no irelevant links going out of my site in fact I can say I only had 10 affiliate links going out total, that obviously were all related to breakdown cover.
The affiliate sites below me are still there, so I dont think this ist it.

(I have added nearly 900 pages of content today after this bad news, because I have to try something which now contain links out, but before today only 10 links out)

I can't understand why the site has disapeared rather than just dropping in rankings. The last pages to go were probably the ones that should have gone first and the first to go the better quality.

Clealy I have been banned rather than needing to change the site to suit a new algorithym
As my previous posts state, MSN help is a total waste of time, my 14yr old daughter had more understanding.

I don't state that my site still deserves to be number one, but I cant see anything wrong to deserve it being removed all together.

My site is www.breakdown-cover.net if you want to comment.
Ironically most of my previous posts have been associated with being no 1 on MSN and Yahoo but nowhere in Google. Today I have moved to position 51, not great but 6 weeks ago I was nowhere.
There may be a happy ending in that MSN becomes irelevant with high rankings on Google, but I still would like to know why!!

[Webnauts]

Flanok check my post here http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=69811 , and if your site compliant to those 15 tips, let me know so I can have a closer look at your site if you don't mind. :)

[suesheboy]

Originally Posted by flanok

have added nearly 900 pages of content today

900 pages of fresh relevant original quality content?

I see a giant red flag.

[incrediblehelp]

How about irrelevant links IN?

MSN Dumb Decision on Unrelevant Links

[flanok]

Hi,
My issue was not about rankings but about being banned.
Webnaughts I would say 12 out of 15 points are ok, and the other 3 borderline, It may affect my rankings but can't see how it would be banned. Of course you can look at the site

Suesheboy You may be right, but I am doing it anyway. The way I see it I have nothing yo lose as it is probably going to take a new site anyway to recover.

Incrediblehelp I obviously did not understand the previous thread, I assumed it was irelivant links going out. Yes I would say I have links from directories and article sites that would not be relevant. If this is true, this would be the most likely culprit as I did have more links to it than my competition hence number one. I could also say I have irelevant links here on this post.
But also to say, I have other sites that also have links from directories and article sites that are still unaffected.

thanks guys

Mark

[Mads Dam]

How can anyone possibly write 900 original pages overnight?
Are you sure you havn't just added 9oo pages of duplicate content?

But perhaps someone scaped your original content in the first place?
This problem could go both ways...

In any case, you could check both issues here:
www.copyscape.com search for copies of your page on the Web.

regards from Copenhagen,
Mads Dam / www.mads-dam-larsen.dk/english.htm

[Mads Dam]

I just took a look at your site, and I think there might be another possible answer:
You have had this site for 1½ year - on the net that's a long time.
Have you checked your competition lately..?

In any case, I noticed several things you could do:

LAYOUT:

Choose a consistent orientation: Either left-justified or centered.

Choose a consistent layout: Same pagemargins on all pages. Same space between columns.

Use a template to create subpages, instead of each subpage looking more or less different.
Keep a coherent style, and stick to a theme...

Make tablecell-borders invisible, and add space between paragraphs and columns;
much easier to overview. (Besides, visible tablestructures looks like 90ties design...)

As it is now, it's difficult to see the difference between links and highlighted text.
Reserve colours for links, and emphasize ordinary text otherwize (italics, bold, capitals).

CODE:

I found errors in every 2-3 line on your frontpage. And your subpages also seem to suffer.
Use a validation-prgram to spot and correct these html-errors. Try this: http://validator.w3.org/
If you use Firefox? Tidy is a very handy plugin...

Verify your links as well: http://validator.w3.org/

Your doctype is "Loose" - that signals old code.
Why not go for "Strict", and be futureproof..?

Your metatags are very basic - could be twice as many. How are your competitors doing it..?

Your images generally lack the ALT tag.

Consider using css, and avoid old proprietary tags.

Hope it all helps...

more regards from Copenhagen,
Mads Dam / www.mads-dam-larsen.dk/english.htm

[Webnauts]

Flanok here are possible spamming issues:

1. Presence of tiny text in your body.

You are using tiny text which can be considered spamming. Your used size is 1.

The use of tiny text loaded with keywords is considered to be spamming. You're using a font size under the default size of 2. Your tiny text may be a copyright notice at the very bottom of the page, or even your contact information. If so, that's fine. Just make sure that you're not spamming the engine by using keyword after keyword in a very small font size.

2. Repetition of words within body.

Repetition of words can be considered spamming. You have repeated 2 words. [compare,vehicle]

[flanok]

HI Guys,
thanks for your replies again

Mams Dad: Thanks for the address Copyscape, I have tried it.It brings up directories where my sites are listed and pages that do not have the same content, but are of the same subject, so I am not quite sure about why it does that. No pages that look exaclty the same. Or even remotley the same. I suppose it is whether a search engine spyder sees tham the same.
I am not a web designer, I originally bought templates, but over the years I have stripped these of their code to get better and better rankings, hence lots of differnt styles throughout the site. When I got to number one on MSN and Yahoo I pretty much left it in case I did something to spoil the results.
I know it is not w3 compliant, but again most sites aren't, so yes I would lose rankings, but not be banned.
Little meta tags has worked for a long time now and given good results, less code the better I think, only give meta tags where they are going to be used, hence no keyword meta tag.
When I had more alt images I probably was too keyword rich as soon as I took them away, good rankings again.

Webnaughts: Did not know about smaller text being seen as spam, I certainly did not this to spam but by design, it looks better. If fact that area is to take the spyders to content within the site. Again though this has not changed in 6 months, so it does seem strange for it to be an issue now.
I have changed the text to size 2, anyway just in case.

Thanks again, I can handle lossing position, I can fight back, I just want answers over my site being totally delisted, without changing anything.

mark

[hrpr45]

It might just be that MSN is trying different things to produce better SE results.

I was on top with Google in a very competitive subject and then poof - gone. In panic I emailed Google and they said it might just be there bot or other issue - not all to clear - of course they are not going to say much or do much.

However, within 3 weeks I was back in the top results, but slightly better - so it is possible that some restructure or programming changes at MSN might cause a prob - maybe?

[Webnauts]

Flanok did you know that you can make your HTML validate within a couple minutes?

1. Line 32 column 18: there is no attribute "BORDERCOLOR": <tr bordercolor="#DFDFDF">

2. You have no alt attributes. If you do not want to use them, you still can add in your images: alt=""

Then your pages will validate. Why not fix them?

[flanok]

Thanks Wenbnauts for your post.

I have reintroduced the alt tags, but have chosen relevant but small terms, so hopefully wont go over the optimisation line.

However I dont understand about line 32 and the attribute that should be there.
Its not an an image?
Can you give an example.

Thanks again
Mark

[Webnauts]

Marc about the use of the alt attribute read my post here. If you follow those instructions, you will be safe: http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=70255

About line 32, you are trying to define a background color in a row. Take that out and just have there <tr>.
If you see any color changes on your page, let me know what and where and we can fix that in a second. :)

[flanok]

Thanks webnauts.
Actioned easy, no problems

Mark

[flanok]

Hi webnauts,
I have dropped over 600 places today for one term and dropped and most others too.
the only thing I have done was introduce alt tags.

I am taking them away now.
I think in this case its too much optimisation

Mark

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by flanok

Hi webnauts,
I have dropped over 600 places today for one term and dropped and most others too.
the only thing I have done was introduce alt tags.

That has for sure nothing to do with the alt attributes, if you did not try to spam with them.
See how to use Meta Tags safely and productively: http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=70255

[flanok]

Hi webnauts,
I have left the attributes in but took away the keywords.
The results came back shortly after.
Mark