A Sinking Ship!

[murphypj]

After looking at the site, I thought I just didn't know how to spell jewelry

It's just another one of those "Across the Pond" things. In the UK and Ireland the spelling is "jewellery" ( stuff made by a jeweller ), while in the US the standard spelling seems to be "jewelry" ( stuff made by a jeweler - again standard US spelling ). A search on Google.co.uk for "big costume jewelry" shows at #9 ( #13 on Google.com, with the English spelling at #5 ), so Google's semantics seem to have that covered. Obviously don't know what global reach the OP's site had, but at least this means that if it's fixed, it should be fixed globally.

If there has been no warning message on Google Webmaster Tools, there probably isn't a penalty involved, just a devaluation of many of the inbound links. Carstensch has laid out a good checklist for addressing this. As Clay said, linking from the logo, and a review of on-page keywords, synonyms etc would also help, although a brief look at the home page shows a good amount of occurrences of 'jewellery' and trade-related terms.

Given that the drop was sudden, and Google's stated intent with regard to dubious linking, I would concentrate on a "Google-friendly" ( I know, I hate that term too... ) link building campaign as outlined in the previous post.

PJ

[NJ]

Yeah, I noticed that too. Not so good to advertise that way. I also wonder why you optimized for Jewellery when the vast majority of the people spell it jewelry?

I wondered that too! Even in these days of texting, spelling matters. Once or twice a quarter, I teach a basic web development planning class for business owners. On Day 2, I poll them for what "bugs" them most about websites. Bad writing, bad grammar, bad spelling and such matters comes up most every quarter.

[NJ]

It's just another one of those "Across the Pond" things. In the UK and Ireland the spelling is "jewellery" ( stuff made by a jeweller ), while in the US the standard spelling seems to be "jewelry" ( stuff made by a jeweler - again standard US spelling ). A search on Google.co.uk for "big costume jewelry" shows at #9 ( #13 on Google.com, with the English spelling at #5 ), so Google's semantics seem to have that covered.
PJ

Ahh, that is a UK spelling I didn't know about! Thanks for the info.

[marknc]

Putting aside the spelling issue for the moment. I just wanted to add that I can proceed with some of the great suggestions that have been made here but what I need to know is, is there anything I can do immediately to break the connection to these bogus links in to my site and regain a foothold in the search engine results for our main keywords/phrases?

[weegillis]

Nothing you can do on your end will change what the SE's see on the theirs'. Sad, but true.

[Doc]

Mark, as far as "immediate", I'd say there's little you can do about the inbound links. Certainly, you can send out requests to some of those sites (I'd focus on those that are least relevant to your site), and ask for them to modify your anchor text or remove the link entirely. Time will tell how much response you'll get.

Going forward, I'd say you definitely need to concentrate on building a more diverse link profile. You need links of various types, and with varying anchor text. It's also wise to have some portion of your IBLs nofollow, in the interest of diversification. The goal is to make your entire link profile look casual and natural.

As for a reconsideration request, my advice would be not to do so. If you decide to do so, then you may as well wait until you've cleaned up the mess, or it'll be an exercise in futility anyway. In all probability, you've been caught out by the algorithm, and a recon. request would simply elevate it to a human level. I see no gain for you there.

[ronchalice]

In a truly global economy, why couldn't you optimize around jewellery for a com.uk or co.uk domain and jewelry for the .com? I visit sites everyday that have globalized versions of the same content. Some target by source IP others just offer some localization options.

[Doc]

In a truly global economy, why couldn't you optimize around jewellery for a com.uk or co.uk domain and jewelry for the .com? I visit sites everyday that have globalized versions of the same content. Some target by source IP others just offer some localization options.

I believe that this is one of those instances in which Google will do what it's good at, Ron, and find the site for searches in either spelling, much as it does in favor/favour or flavor/flavour. Given the location of the business, the UK spelling is probably the wiser way to go, and optimization (or optimisation) for both is unnecessary, IMO.

[weegillis]

On the way out in left field front, one could always sniff out the geo-location of the request and keep a PHP string handy to supply the correct spelling for that locale. One spelling for Commonwealth countries, and the American spelling for all others. It's a thought, but a way down the list priority, I agree.

[PoisonJam]

In a truly global economy, why couldn't you optimize around jewellery for a com.uk or co.uk domain and jewelry for the .com? I visit sites everyday that have globalized versions of the same content. Some target by source IP others just offer some localization options.

Using IP you can only ever optimise for one langauge though as all the crawelers are US based.