How long will Google wait...?

[kevsta]

ok a client and friend of ours has been backed into a bad position by their (incredibly unprofessional Ibiza-based) web company here, who orginally built their site for them nearly 3 years ago.

an awful lot of money was paid for a pretty but very badly performing site which when I started working on it 10 months ago was lucky to be receiving 5 visits a week. over this time we have dragged it up the charts until its now appearing first page for several of their big terms and has been generating business and referrals steadily for a good while now

all sounds good yes? well, except that in a financial dispute over hosting & maintenance rates, they just shut the site off 2 days ago, now showing 404 errors.

the dispute is irreconcilable and site is being handed over on a CD with authentication codes for a domain transfer (allegedly) this afternoon. we're going to re-host and get it up again ASAP but knowing Spanish manyana type attitude I have doubts about how quickly it will be back up.

so the question is once a site goes down, how long before Google will give up on it completely? I know obviously when they recache etc rankings will fall of the face of the earth, (better than customers getting 404's to be fair) but if it took a few weeks, but was then reinstated exactly the same, is it rescuable rankings wise?

presumably if all IBLs / content are the same, it should get back to where it was naturally at some point?

whats the longest gaps in service people have seen or had and still come back from?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by kevsta

presumably if all IBLs / content are the same, it should get back to where it was naturally at some point?

Yes, fairly fast if there are no other concerns with the SE's.

Originally Posted by kevsta

whats the longest gaps in service people have seen or had and still come back from?

I can only say that my shortest gap was 5 minutes. I blocked everybody exept my own IP in one site and 5 minutes after I allowed all, it was registered in Google.

[advancedmerchant]

Unless the hosting and maintenence rates are astronomical, they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Best advice: Pay the hoster to get bask up ASAP, and have the site moved and ready to go before the next month's billing. THEN quit.

[nottheusual1]

Little off topic, but food for thought:

Be sure to make the mental note that working with people who don't own/control their domain name(s) can be dicey.

We've learned that lesson expensively. Now we pretty much require that the customer have direct absolute control or escrow it with us (we have an agency agreement to cover that for their sake and ours, as we've also been victims of WIPO proceedings because of customer conduct).

Makes for one less mine in the minefield of dealing with less web-savvy customers.

[greg artim]

advancedmerchant has it right on.

[datetopia]

If anything gets de-indexed it will get indexed back. Don't worry. The bigger problem is about the customers you lose while the website is down.

[deepsand]

Google's not going to "give up on it completely;" it is not the case that, after a certain period of time, the site will never again be indexed.

More importantly, though, is the question of what effect this will have on the site's users, and, therefore, the ability of the site's owner/operator to attain his goal(s).

[Palindrome]

Hi

Advanced Merchant's point should be carefully considered. Business and personal principles aren't always the best companions, if you can find a way to get the site back up and manage a move over time, then do so.

The outcome of sustained downtime really is site dependent but a site we became involved with recently is in a similar position. This was down for about 9 days, until the end of June, then back up
1st July. If there has been a surprise, that was how dramatically their SERPs have suffered, so make sure your owners are aware of the cost their principles may have. Very much in line with the case you outline, the site I mentioned is by no means a large or important website but did have a few very useful and consistent page 1 slots. With the inevitable delayed action, they have seriously dived.

Everything possible has been done, solid hosting and a few fresh draws for bots but the first real sign of retrieving the position only came late last night, with the site limping onto the bottom of page 1 for their least competitive term (they were at the top). As said before, there is no set rule but from other cases that have been reported, this period of weeks, rather than months does seem typical. The upside is, others in the same position have stated that when recovery does start, this tends to accelerate by itself.

Again, avoid the situation if you can but good luck either way.

[craigmn3]

At some point I had heard that it will take atleast two spidering cycles. But YOW talk about cutting off your oxygen to despite your lungs. Not only do you loose your ranking (albeit temporarily) you are not getting any business and your competitors are.

[deepsand]

Whether or not the effects on either SERP or traffic are sufficient to warrant paying the current host so as to avoid a lapse in accessibility depend on factors that are unknown to any other than the OP; therefore, any suggestions to pay said host first and move later are speculative at best.

From previous experience with a similar situation, involving a dispute with an ASP who provided a site plug-in, not only were we able to negotiate a better deal than previously, but such generated a substantial number of e-mails inquires from potential clients, such that we acquired a significant no. of additional leads, which, by way of our informative responses, served to generate additional revenues. In short, by not simply paying the disputed amounts, our bottom line was improved.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by advancedmerchant

Unless the hosting and maintenence rates are astronomical, they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Best advice: Pay the hoster to get bask up ASAP, and have the site moved and ready to go before the next month's billing. THEN quit.

I used a variant of that strategy with success.

Don't throw out the "polluted water" before you have a better alternative.

[TryUsOut]

Paying the month's hosting fee as what has already been mentioned would be the best solution. It might take a while to have the rankings back. But as soon as the site gets crawled again and indexed, the same for your backlinks - your rankings in the SERPs would recover as well.

[kgun]

I did not say that that experience made me make this DigitalStart.net: The starting point for English speaking surfers and webmasters site that can save you money and much headace.

[ron angel]

Originally Posted by kgun

I used a variant of that strategy with success.

Don't throw out the "polluted water" before you have a better alternative.

as above get on to the phone call the them pay by credit card & get back up asap. Then talk to somebody high up in the company & explain the situation & that your client had been ill-advised by a third party or whatever & now that you are up to date with payments & would like to stay with them at present what can they offer. changing Ip can be time consuming if done with bad feeling the company may do things very slowly could take a couple of weeks.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by kevsta

presumably if all IBLs / content are the same, it should get back to where it was naturally at some point?

1. How can you tell the weight and the quality of the IBLs, if their internal Google PR values have changed?
2. Last year Google had over 450 tweaks. If the content is the same, how can you be sure that the site conforms?

My $0.2

[kevsta]

hey guys. sorry took so long to get back, thanks for all your responses.

unfortunately as i said the relationship is definitely irreconcilable and although my much preferred route would have been to sort the dispute out and keep it up, at least long enough to manage a transition to different hosting, but it wasn't possible and was already off the air by the time I knew anything about it.

frankly the way this company have behaved towards my client is astonishing but I cant say too much because it's probably going to go to legal action.

and as i suspected its looking like being 2-3 weeks minimum before it goes back up, maybe longer.

business wise its very fortunate that most of the emphasis has shifted onto their second and newer site recently and it shouldn't hit them too badly, but it could have for all these idiot locals knew, they just pulled it anyway.

and as you can imagine its a bit frustrating from my end, stuck watching 10months work dwindle away.

John what are you saying, that the broken links probably get devalued all the time there isnt a page on the other end of them? they likely do, dont they. for a time at least?

[jvm2ckms]

Google does not wait that much 1 week and it will pull you out but it does bring back the ratings as soon as the spider finds the bridges... it happened to one of my sites. If your company has a backup, then they may want to upload it ASAP and wait not for the CD.

A free hosting site could be a good temporary abode. Then again...

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by jvm2ckms

Google does not wait that much 1 week and it will pull you out but it does bring back the ratings as soon as the spider finds the bridges... it happened to one of my sites. If your company has a backup, then they may want to upload it ASAP and wait not for the CD.

A free hosting site could be a good temporary abode. Then again...

Not every site is treated the same. It depends on its crawl ratio.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Not every site is treated the same. It depends on its crawl ratio.

To be precise, with respect to IBLs, is it not the crawl rate of the referring sites that here controls?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

To be precise, with respect to IBLs, is it not the crawl rate of the referring sites that here controls?

Not that alone. It depends on a site's content freshness (updates) and if the site uses If-Modified-Since HTTP headers or not.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Not that alone. It depends on a site's content freshness (updates) and if the site uses If-Modified-Since HTTP headers or not.

With respect to the site in question being re-indexed, agreed.

However, as IBLs reside on the referring sites, such are gathered and indexed when those sites are crawled.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by deepsand

However, as IBLs reside on the referring sites, such are gathered and indexed when those sites are crawled.

They are gathered but not necessary crawled and indexed right away.