Welcome to the Q&A Forum

It's a notice, not a warning. It's our way of saying "hey, take a look and make sure this is OK, it isn't always done properly". Keri

Hi thanks for the reply, Should we not have any shared scripts, how can we avoid this, just by removing them? Ideally we need the pages the same, but with different language versions, while not being punished. I will make all the changes you suggest. The Geo-targeting was not done for all, but we did it today. The drops were on Google regional and com search engines. Would these changes lift the penalties, or are they more permanent sometimes? You would not suggest subdomains and moving the foreign pages to the main site? Also I have just been told that having 'dashes' in the URL has become an issue, has anyone ever heard of that?? Many thanks

No problem hope you found what you were looking for.

Ha, I am dealing that with my programmer right now and I want to be shure. Thanks

Hi Scott, depending on the volume of new pages being created you could always make use of the 'Fetch as Google' contained in the 'Health' tab facility in your Webmaster account to make sure that your most important new pages are indexed. Periodically you could add a new sitemap but on a daily or perhaps weekly basis submitting the important pages for indexing through your Webmaster account could be the way to go.

Thanks for the response. Everything is all setup and good to go.

I have nothing to add here as Ryan has pretty much nailed it but "algorithmically disadvantaged" made me chuckle!

For some reason I can't "thumb" up any comments, but these are all good answers. In Ian's case, 40 domains is a reasonable amount. Most websites will have many more than this, often in the 100's or 1000's of spammy, low-quality links that they paid for over time. Also, there's no guarantee Google will ever lift the penalty, even if you remove 100's of links and submit multiple fully documented reinclusion requests to the Google Web Spam Team. I've known SEO's that have literally sent 1000s of emails and removed 100's of links to no avail. I've also seen smaller sites remove just a handful of links and their rankings bounce right back. Here's how I would tackle the problem: 1. Do you think you can reasonably remove 60-75% of the links? Or at least have a VERY good reason why you can't? Anything beneath this level and you'll most likely be fighting an uphill battle with Google. 2. In some cases, even if you've been penalized by bad links, some of those bad links still help you - even at reduced traffic levels. So you may be penalized, but you're still seeing more traffic than you would otherwise. In a few cases it's not worth it to remove the links at all. 3. Finally, as Ian said, how many good links do you have? If the sight is truly burned, can you walk away from the good links without too much regret? If the answer is yes, it may be time to start over. There's no right answer for all circumstances, so weigh your options carefully.

No recovery yet. Quick update... I put in a reconsideration request and was denied, saying No Manual Spam Actions found. From WMT: The Total Crawled count on the bad subdomains is steady, and there are still no Removed pages, but the Not Selected count is steadily increasing--in fact the total of Indexed and Not Selected is greater than the Total Crawled count -- how does this make sense? Thanks.

The domain that I want to forward is registered at 1and1. They have an option to forward the domain through DNS settings. Will that option allow me to keep the PR juice that have accumulated for this domain. It is/was PR4 site.

I don't know anything about javascript except their cool logo.  I know a little html.  How do I find the original page?  I guess it's on my hosting ftp somewhere, but I don't know where to look.  What would be the name of the file/ folder?  It's a wordpress blog.

Diane, the excessive ads for the hypnotherapy/weight loss help reduce credibility of the site. The travel news articles are outdated (the most recent one about holiday deals talks about it still being winter and about the upcoming Olympic games) and the Ryanair incident was from April 2012.Nothing has a date byline on it, so it makes it difficult for me to trust the article. To a regular user, it looks like you don't have enough content and are trying to stretch it, as I'm seeing the same celeb picture multiple times in multiple locations on the home page. The site seems to lack focus, or rather be focused on ads. Do people really care about that many bingo news features on a site that's supposed to (I think) be about celeb gossip? The About section at the bottom looks spammy because it's small and in italics, making it hard to read. It looks keyword stuffed and like people aren't meant to read it, but that it's just there for search engines. You may want to reconsider if you want to focus so much on the keyword "lifestyle magazine". What is the search volume like for that phrase? Are people really looking for that? I'm surprised that I don't see a cookie notice like I do on most European sites these days. Is the UK excluded from that?

you currently have https://www.paydaychannel.co.uk/cash-advance-loans/ & https://www.paydaychannel.co.uk/contact-payday-channel/ with that problem These are the internal links you need to change to fix it <colgroup><col width="393"> <col width="109"> <col width="83"></colgroup> | URL | Anchor Text | Alt text | | https://www.paydaychannel.co.uk/cash-advance-loans/ | Apply Now | | | https://www.paydaychannel.co.uk/cash-advance-loans/ | Close | | | https://www.paydaychannel.co.uk/cash-advance-loans/ | here | | | https://www.paydaychannel.co.uk/cash-advance-loans/ | Policies | | | https://www.paydaychannel.co.uk/cash-advance-loans/ | Articles | | | https://www.paydaychannel.co.uk/cash-advance-loans/ | | rss logo | | https://www.paydaychannel.co.uk/cash-advance-loans/ | | addthis logo | <colgroup><col width="393"> <col width="109"> <col width="83"></colgroup> | URL | Anchor Text | Alt text | | https://www.paydaychannel.co.uk/faqs-about-loans | Contact us here! | | | https://www.paydaychannel.co.uk/contact-payday-channel/ | Close | | | https://www.paydaychannel.co.uk/contact-payday-channel/ | here | | | https://www.paydaychannel.co.uk/contact-payday-channel/ | Policies | | | https://www.paydaychannel.co.uk/contact-payday-channel/ | Articles | | | https://www.paydaychannel.co.uk/contact-payday-channel/ | | rss logo | | https://www.paydaychannel.co.uk/contact-payday-channel/ | | addthis logo | | https://www.paydaychannel.co.uk/faqs-about-loans/ | Contact us here! | |

Hi Chad, Sorry to see you haven't gotten any responses in the past week. In the GWT screenshot, there's a note in red, where you show your link structure (for provided links) as www.tisbest.org/default/?pc={charitycode} Is that correct or is it possible there was a typo in that URL? In the list of URLs that GWT returned as errors, one example shows the following /default.aspx?pc=youthcare, which would be the appropriate way to append the URL... the "/" at the end of a dynamically appended tag ("?") would present URL errors.

Yes, add it to the robots.txt (use a Disallow and a NoIndex statement). I did find that Bing for example has not reliably in the past honoured robots.txt (especially in the case where you have an explicit "index" tag on the page and a noindex for a URL path).