Anyone noticed unexpected drop in Google search results? I have been in the
top 10 on all major key terms for years. I am now in the 50-60's on the
same key terms this morning. I have recently changed the hosting service,
everything else remains the same. I don't think changing the host can
trigger this decline. By the way, this host provides home for some adult
websites as well. If an innocent site (like mine) shares a server with "bad
guys", can it possibly affect my standing with Goodge? Please speak up.

John Cluster schreef:
> Anyone noticed unexpected drop in Google search results? I have been in the
> top 10 on all major key terms for years. I am now in the 50-60's on the
> same key terms this morning. I have recently changed the hosting service,
> everything else remains the same. I don't think changing the host can
> trigger this decline. By the way, this host provides home for some adult
> websites as well. If an innocent site (like mine) shares a server with "bad
> guys", can it possibly affect my standing with Goodge? Please speak up.

Short: Yes it can.



--
Webontwerp: http://vision2form.nl/webontwerp/
Korte handleiding zoekmachine optimalisatie / gevonden worden:
http://vision2form.nl/webontwerp/gevonden-worden.html
Lifestyle - wonen reizen en genieten : http://vision4living.com

Hi John

We've been on page 3 for the search term 'jewellery' for about 18 months and
moved about from pages 2-4 over that period, sometimes disappearing for a
few days but usually popping back up again in roughly the same place (I can
live with that). About a week ago we dropped to page 12 overnight, then
page 15, and currently are on page 26. No idea why. No changes made by us,
no switch in hosting (we are being hosted by Clara.net - don't know of them
doing anything bad recently unless they have suddenly upset Google). Only
thing I have noticed is that many of our backlinks pages seem to have lost
ranking, again for no apparent reason.

I'm at a loss to explain what's going on. I'm in no way an SEO expert but
was quite pleased with our performance for this search term over the last
couple of years and had the view of if it ain't broke don't fix it. I can
only assume that Google have yet again changed their criteria or algorithms
in some what that has now meant we have fallen foul of some hidden rule or
unknown pitfall.

If anyone else has any idea what's going on or what we may have done or not
done, I'd be grateful for the input as well.

Ian Middleton
www.argenteus.co.uk

"John Cluster" <John_Cluster@noaddress.noway> wrote in message
news:Fd9bi.15865$296.11315@newsread4.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
> Anyone noticed unexpected drop in Google search results? I have been in
> the top 10 on all major key terms for years. I am now in the 50-60's on
> the same key terms this morning. I have recently changed the hosting
> service, everything else remains the same. I don't think changing the
> host can trigger this decline. By the way, this host provides home for
> some adult websites as well. If an innocent site (like mine) shares a
> server with "bad guys", can it possibly affect my standing with Goodge?
> Please speak up.
>

Ian Middleton schreef:
> Hi John
>
> We've been on page 3 for the search term 'jewellery' for about 18 months and
> moved about from pages 2-4 over that period, sometimes disappearing for a
> few days but usually popping back up again in roughly the same place (I can
> live with that). About a week ago we dropped to page 12 overnight, then
> page 15, and currently are on page 26. No idea why. No changes made by us,
> no switch in hosting (we are being hosted by Clara.net - don't know of them
> doing anything bad recently unless they have suddenly upset Google). Only
> thing I have noticed is that many of our backlinks pages seem to have lost
> ranking, again for no apparent reason.
>
> I'm at a loss to explain what's going on. I'm in no way an SEO expert but
> was quite pleased with our performance for this search term over the last
> couple of years and had the view of if it ain't broke don't fix it. I can
> only assume that Google have yet again changed their criteria or algorithms
> in some what that has now meant we have fallen foul of some hidden rule or
> unknown pitfall.
>
> If anyone else has any idea what's going on or what we may have done or not
> done, I'd be grateful for the input as well.
>
> Ian Middleton
> www.argenteus.co.uk

Hi Ian,

First of all, please try to post underneath the part you are replying to.

I did see a lot of directory's and linklists go supplemental in the
results. It is a process that has started a while ago now.

Google doesn't like directory's that sell links, or exist merely on
reciprocal links.

So, if you have build your ranking upon those directory's and lists for
a great deal, you will for certainly drop in the rankings now.

Just a mere 400+ links i saw when searchin for your domain and a lot of
them marked with supplemental.

Make sure you get links from good directory's and authoritative pages
that do get the credit they deserve

--
Webontwerp: http://vision2form.nl/webontwerp/
Korte handleiding zoekmachine optimalisatie / gevonden worden:
http://vision2form.nl/webontwerp/gevonden-worden.html
Lifestyle - wonen reizen en genieten : http://vision4living.com

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:56:10 +0100, "Ian Middleton"
<imid@argenteus.co.uk> wrote:

>Hi John
>
>We've been on page 3 for the search term 'jewellery' for about 18 months and
>moved about from pages 2-4 over that period, sometimes disappearing for a
>few days but usually popping back up again in roughly the same place (I can
>live with that). About a week ago we dropped to page 12 overnight, then
>page 15, and currently are on page 26. No idea why. No changes made by us,
>no switch in hosting (we are being hosted by Clara.net - don't know of them
>doing anything bad recently unless they have suddenly upset Google). Only
>thing I have noticed is that many of our backlinks pages seem to have lost
>ranking, again for no apparent reason.
>
>I'm at a loss to explain what's going on. I'm in no way an SEO expert but
>was quite pleased with our performance for this search term over the last
>couple of years and had the view of if it ain't broke don't fix it. I can
>only assume that Google have yet again changed their criteria or algorithms
>in some what that has now meant we have fallen foul of some hidden rule or
>unknown pitfall.
>
>If anyone else has any idea what's going on or what we may have done or not
>done, I'd be grateful for the input as well.
>
>Ian Middleton
>www.argenteus.co.uk

Hi Ian
email me offline, [webmaster @ firstpeople.us ] I have a PR5 page I
can put you on if you give us a link back from a good PR page.
http://www.crystalbuffalo.com/americ...external2.html

You and I already exchange with one of my other sites.

I was looking at my SERPS this morning [around 6am] and all sites
dropped a bit, but not much.

plh
Paul

--
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/pearl/necklace-202.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/beaded/necklaces-207.html

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:11:49 GMT, "John Cluster"
<John_Cluster@noaddress.noway> wrote:

>Anyone noticed unexpected drop in Google search results? I have been in the
>top 10 on all major key terms for years. I am now in the 50-60's on the
>same key terms this morning. I have recently changed the hosting service,
>everything else remains the same. I don't think changing the host can
>trigger this decline. By the way, this host provides home for some adult
>websites as well. If an innocent site (like mine) shares a server with "bad
>guys", can it possibly affect my standing with Goodge? Please speak up.

Um. Possibly. Why not avoid it even becoming an issue by joining a
"clean" host in the first place? One less worry, no? On the subject of
dropping places, how often do you refresh/renew your content?

BB

--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-mark...l-business.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-marketing-uk.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/giving/

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:56:10 +0100, "Ian Middleton"
<imid@argenteus.co.uk> wrote:

>Hi John
>
>We've been on page 3 for the search term 'jewellery' for about 18 months and
>moved about from pages 2-4 over that period, sometimes disappearing for a
>few days but usually popping back up again in roughly the same place (I can
>live with that). About a week ago we dropped to page 12 overnight, then
>page 15, and currently are on page 26. No idea why. No changes made by us,
>no switch in hosting (we are being hosted by Clara.net - don't know of them
>doing anything bad recently unless they have suddenly upset Google). Only
>thing I have noticed is that many of our backlinks pages

How are you defining backlinks pages?

> seem to have lost
>ranking, again for no apparent reason.
>
>I'm at a loss to explain what's going on. I'm in no way an SEO expert but
>was quite pleased with our performance for this search term over the last
>couple of years and had the view of if it ain't broke don't fix it. I can
>only assume that Google have yet again changed their criteria or algorithms
>in some what that has now meant we have fallen foul of some hidden rule or
>unknown pitfall.

You ot about a zillion paid links to your site, by any chance? Not
from directories like Yahoo where there's an element of merit in the
link, but sites or directories that will happily link to anyone who
ponys up?

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-mark...l-business.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-marketing-uk.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/giving/

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:44:09 +0200, Tonnie Lubbers
<t.prasing@chello.nl> wrote:

>Ian Middleton schreef:
>> Hi John
>>
>> We've been on page 3 for the search term 'jewellery' for about 18 months and
>> moved about from pages 2-4 over that period, sometimes disappearing for a
>> few days but usually popping back up again in roughly the same place (I can
>> live with that). About a week ago we dropped to page 12 overnight, then
>> page 15, and currently are on page 26. No idea why. No changes made by us,
>> no switch in hosting (we are being hosted by Clara.net - don't know of them
>> doing anything bad recently unless they have suddenly upset Google). Only
>> thing I have noticed is that many of our backlinks pages seem to have lost
>> ranking, again for no apparent reason.
>>
>> I'm at a loss to explain what's going on. I'm in no way an SEO expert but
>> was quite pleased with our performance for this search term over the last
>> couple of years and had the view of if it ain't broke don't fix it. I can
>> only assume that Google have yet again changed their criteria or algorithms
>> in some what that has now meant we have fallen foul of some hidden rule or
>> unknown pitfall.
>>
>> If anyone else has any idea what's going on or what we may have done or not
>> done, I'd be grateful for the input as well.
>>
>> Ian Middleton
>> www.argenteus.co.uk
>
>Hi Ian,
>
>First of all, please try to post underneath the part you are replying to.
>
>I did see a lot of directory's and linklists go supplemental in the
>results. It is a process that has started a while ago now.
>
>Google doesn't like directory's that sell links, or exist merely on
>reciprocal links.
>
>So, if you have build your ranking upon those directory's and lists for
>a great deal, you will for certainly drop in the rankings now.

Not before time either, otherwise it's just a battle of the budgets.

>Just a mere 400+ links i saw when searchin for your domain and a lot of
>them marked with supplemental.
>
>Make sure you get links from good directory's and authoritative pages
>that do get the credit they deserve

Cue Andrew...

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-mark...l-business.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-marketing-uk.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/giving/

> Um. Possibly. Why not avoid it even becoming an issue by joining a
> "clean" host in the first place? One less worry, no?

Agree.

> how often do you refresh/renew your content?

Quite infrequently. The content is good, stable, current. Why change?

"Big Bill" <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:161r63t1da885vl3p4mo6sqhupou7ql68q@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:11:49 GMT, "John Cluster"
> <John_Cluster@noaddress.noway> wrote:
>
>>Anyone noticed unexpected drop in Google search results? I have been in
>>the
>>top 10 on all major key terms for years. I am now in the 50-60's on the
>>same key terms this morning. I have recently changed the hosting service,
>>everything else remains the same. I don't think changing the host can
>>trigger this decline. By the way, this host provides home for some adult
>>websites as well. If an innocent site (like mine) shares a server with
>>"bad
>>guys", can it possibly affect my standing with Goodge? Please speak up.
>
> Um. Possibly. Why not avoid it even becoming an issue by joining a
> "clean" host in the first place? One less worry, no? On the subject of
> dropping places, how often do you refresh/renew your content?
>
> BB
>
> --
>
> http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-mark...l-business.htm
> http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-marketing-uk.htm
> http://www.crystal-liaison.com/giving/

Hi Bill

Backlinks in my book are links that link back to my pages. Sorry if I have
the terminology wrong. Like I said I'm no expert.

To my knowledge there are no paid for links on my site whatsoever. I have
certainly never paid for any and I don't use an SEO service or anyone else
to get links for me. The only link that could be construed as paid for is
the Safebuy service which we have to subscribe to. So don't think that's
the answer.

All my links have been built the hard way and in response to requests to
link to our site. I generally don't ask other sites for links as I get more
requests than I can handle at the moment anyway. I am fairly selective
about the links I accept but I can't check everybody out in detail. I do
try to reject anything that looks like a link farm or similar.

Ian

"Big Bill" <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aa1r639ghhjleq64cj500ejtg3j6ngn5r1@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:56:10 +0100, "Ian Middleton"
> <imid@argenteus.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Hi John
>>
>>We've been on page 3 for the search term 'jewellery' for about 18 months
>>and
>>moved about from pages 2-4 over that period, sometimes disappearing for a
>>few days but usually popping back up again in roughly the same place (I
>>can
>>live with that). About a week ago we dropped to page 12 overnight, then
>>page 15, and currently are on page 26. No idea why. No changes made by
>>us,
>>no switch in hosting (we are being hosted by Clara.net - don't know of
>>them
>>doing anything bad recently unless they have suddenly upset Google). Only
>>thing I have noticed is that many of our backlinks pages
>
> How are you defining backlinks pages?
>
>> seem to have lost
>>ranking, again for no apparent reason.
>>
>>I'm at a loss to explain what's going on. I'm in no way an SEO expert but
>>was quite pleased with our performance for this search term over the last
>>couple of years and had the view of if it ain't broke don't fix it. I can
>>only assume that Google have yet again changed their criteria or
>>algorithms
>>in some what that has now meant we have fallen foul of some hidden rule or
>>unknown pitfall.
>
> You ot about a zillion paid links to your site, by any chance? Not
> from directories like Yahoo where there's an element of merit in the
> link, but sites or directories that will happily link to anyone who
> ponys up?
>
> BB
> --
>
> http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-mark...l-business.htm
> http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-marketing-uk.htm
> http://www.crystal-liaison.com/giving/

Hi

Thanks for the observations. Just to clear up any misgivings you may have
though

1. I'm not sure what you mean by 'supplemental'. Sorry if I'm being dense
but like I said I'm not claiming to be an SEO expert. Just for the record
though there are absolutely no paid-for links on my site. I don't have any
budget for that sort of thing so couldn't enter into any sort of battle

2. My site is very content rich and linked to a long established real world
retail business so not reliant entirely on reciprocal links. Plus we had a
fairly good ranking before I bothered with links. Also as you have noted,
we don't have that many anyway in the grand scheme of things.

Thanks for the analysis anyway and all the best

Ian

"Big Bill" <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5f1r63ll976ob9g447afseskqu5utb74ir@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:44:09 +0200, Tonnie Lubbers
> <t.prasing@chello.nl> wrote:
>
>>Ian Middleton schreef:
>>> Hi John
>>>
>>> We've been on page 3 for the search term 'jewellery' for about 18 months
>>> and
>>> moved about from pages 2-4 over that period, sometimes disappearing for
>>> a
>>> few days but usually popping back up again in roughly the same place (I
>>> can
>>> live with that). About a week ago we dropped to page 12 overnight, then
>>> page 15, and currently are on page 26. No idea why. No changes made by
>>> us,
>>> no switch in hosting (we are being hosted by Clara.net - don't know of
>>> them
>>> doing anything bad recently unless they have suddenly upset Google).
>>> Only
>>> thing I have noticed is that many of our backlinks pages seem to have
>>> lost
>>> ranking, again for no apparent reason.
>>>
>>> I'm at a loss to explain what's going on. I'm in no way an SEO expert
>>> but
>>> was quite pleased with our performance for this search term over the
>>> last
>>> couple of years and had the view of if it ain't broke don't fix it. I
>>> can
>>> only assume that Google have yet again changed their criteria or
>>> algorithms
>>> in some what that has now meant we have fallen foul of some hidden rule
>>> or
>>> unknown pitfall.
>>>
>>> If anyone else has any idea what's going on or what we may have done or
>>> not
>>> done, I'd be grateful for the input as well.
>>>
>>> Ian Middleton
>>> www.argenteus.co.uk
>>
>>Hi Ian,
>>
>>First of all, please try to post underneath the part you are replying to.
>>
>>I did see a lot of directory's and linklists go supplemental in the
>>results. It is a process that has started a while ago now.
>>
>>Google doesn't like directory's that sell links, or exist merely on
>>reciprocal links.
>>
>>So, if you have build your ranking upon those directory's and lists for
>>a great deal, you will for certainly drop in the rankings now.
>
> Not before time either, otherwise it's just a battle of the budgets.
>
>>Just a mere 400+ links i saw when searchin for your domain and a lot of
>>them marked with supplemental.
>>
>>Make sure you get links from good directory's and authoritative pages
>>that do get the credit they deserve
>
> Cue Andrew...
>
> BB
> --
>
> http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-mark...l-business.htm
> http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-marketing-uk.htm
> http://www.crystal-liaison.com/giving/

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:32:27 +0100, The Gobbling Goblin
<customerservices@houstoncrafts.com> wrote:

>>Ian Middleton
>>www.argenteus.co.uk

Hi Ian
I got your email and replied.
Check your spam tray as it is possible my reply is there.
plh
paul
--
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/pearl/necklace-202.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/beaded/necklaces-207.html

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Big Bill schreef:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:44:09 +0200, Tonnie Lubbers
> <t.prasing@chello.nl> wrote:

>> Make sure you get links from good directory's and authoritative pages
>> that do get the credit they deserve
>
> Cue Andrew...

Why?

--
Webontwerp: http://vision2form.nl/webontwerp/
Korte handleiding zoekmachine optimalisatie / gevonden worden:
http://vision2form.nl/webontwerp/gevonden-worden.html
Lifestyle - wonen reizen en genieten : http://vision4living.com

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:44:19 GMT, "John Cluster"
<John_Cluster@noaddress.noway> wrote:

>> Um. Possibly. Why not avoid it even becoming an issue by joining a
>> "clean" host in the first place? One less worry, no?
>
>Agree.
>
>> how often do you refresh/renew your content?
>
>Quite infrequently. The content is good, stable, current. Why change?

Let's Googs know it's not stale out of date information. How is it
current if it isn't updated regularly? How can the big G divine that?
Are links still being added from 3rd party sites of quality and worth?
That would .

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-mark...l-business.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-marketing-uk.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/giving/

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:47:59 +0100, "Ian Middleton"
<imid@argenteus.co.uk> wrote:

>Hi Bill
>
>Backlinks in my book are links that link back to my pages. Sorry if I have
>the terminology wrong. Like I said I'm no expert.

So you're saying that sites linking to you have lost PR. This would
mean that the worth of their collective endorsements has dropped
accordingly. So you get to be lower in the rankings.

>To my knowledge there are no paid for links on my site whatsoever. I have
>certainly never paid for any and I don't use an SEO service or anyone else
>to get links for me. The only link that could be construed as paid for is
>the Safebuy service which we have to subscribe to. So don't think that's
>the answer.
>
>All my links have been built the hard way and in response to requests to
>link to our site. I generally don't ask other sites for links as I get more
>requests than I can handle at the moment anyway. I am fairly selective
>about the links I accept but I can't check everybody out in detail. I do
>try to reject anything that looks like a link farm or similar.

Probably then it's as I say above. That'd be my guess.

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-mark...l-business.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-marketing-uk.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/giving/

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:01:38 +0200, Tonnie Lubbers
<t.prasing@chello.nl> wrote:

>Big Bill schreef:
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:44:09 +0200, Tonnie Lubbers
>> <t.prasing@chello.nl> wrote:
>
>>> Make sure you get links from good directory's and authoritative pages
>>> that do get the credit they deserve
>>
>> Cue Andrew...
>
>Why?

Because he's Directory Boy!

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-mark...l-business.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-marketing-uk.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/giving/

I'm saying I have no idea why we have dropped. Might be something to do
with the quality of the links I have and perhaps Google changing the weight
they give to them.

I was just wondering if Google had messed about with their criteria again,
especially as the originally poster said he had lost ranking as well.

We do seem to be slowly moving up the pages again so I will wait and see how
far we get. Fingers crossed!

Ian
"Big Bill" <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nahr63tu68n2gn9jrqho3dradd10nhpgu7@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:47:59 +0100, "Ian Middleton"
> <imid@argenteus.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Hi Bill
>>
>>Backlinks in my book are links that link back to my pages. Sorry if I
>>have
>>the terminology wrong. Like I said I'm no expert.
>
> So you're saying that sites linking to you have lost PR. This would
> mean that the worth of their collective endorsements has dropped
> accordingly. So you get to be lower in the rankings.
>
>>To my knowledge there are no paid for links on my site whatsoever. I have
>>certainly never paid for any and I don't use an SEO service or anyone else
>>to get links for me. The only link that could be construed as paid for is
>>the Safebuy service which we have to subscribe to. So don't think that's
>>the answer.
>>
>>All my links have been built the hard way and in response to requests to
>>link to our site. I generally don't ask other sites for links as I get
>>more
>>requests than I can handle at the moment anyway. I am fairly selective
>>about the links I accept but I can't check everybody out in detail. I do
>>try to reject anything that looks like a link farm or similar.
>
> Probably then it's as I say above. That'd be my guess.
>
> BB
> --
>
> http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-mark...l-business.htm
> http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-marketing-uk.htm
> http://www.crystal-liaison.com/giving/

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:30:14 +0100, "Ian Middleton"
<imid@argenteus.co.uk> wrote:

>I'm saying I have no idea why we have dropped. Might be something to do
>with the quality of the links I have and perhaps Google changing the weight
>they give to them.

More probably the change in the weight they give to links that are
several stages back, the people who link to the people who link to you
have lost weight.

>I was just wondering if Google had messed about with their criteria again,
>especially as the originally poster said he had lost ranking as well.

Yes, they're doing that.

>We do seem to be slowly moving up the pages again so I will wait and see how
>far we get. Fingers crossed!

Don't cross your fingers, re-write your principal pages, bring them up
to date where needed, shuffle a few paragraphs around where not
needed. Liven it up a bit generally.

BB

--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-mark...l-business.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-marketing-uk.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/giving/

"Ian Middleton" <imid@argenteus.co.uk> wrote ...
> All my links have been built the hard way and in response to requests to
> link to our site. I generally don't ask other sites for links as I get
> more requests than I can handle at the moment anyway. I am fairly
> selective about the links I accept but I can't check everybody out in
> detail. I do try to reject anything that looks like a link farm or
> similar.

But what will it look like in three weeks time?

Only accept a link exchange from a stranger if:

1. The content of their site is in broadly the same niche as you
2. You are prepared to check your link to them AT LEAST every two months,
removing deadlinks, redirects, porn sites, etc.

Don't worry about the links to you (other than the 'link farm' risk you are
already aware of), just accept that most of your incoming links gained by
reciprocation will be useless and absent in three months.

But YOUR links to THEM are entirely your responsibility, and will be counted
against you if the 'go bad'.

There's nothing 'wrong' with reciprocal linking ... provided you remain
careful and relevant. But most people find the benefits are so negligable,
and the checking so boring, that frankly, it just ain't a useful way to grow
old!
--

Andrew
http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/
http://www.seo2seo.com/
First things first - but not necessarily in that order.

> I was looking at my SERPS this morning [around 6am] and all sites
> dropped a bit, but not much.

I'm reminded of a British politician who said he would not be happy
until all children received an above-average education.

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:02:12 -0700, Phil Payne
<phil@isham-research.co.uk> wrote:

>> I was looking at my SERPS this morning [around 6am] and all sites
>> dropped a bit, but not much.
>
>I'm reminded of a British politician who said he would not be happy
>until all children received an above-average education.

We all know British politicians lie - just like any other country.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Phil Payne wrote:
>
> > I was looking at my SERPS this morning [around 6am] and all sites
> > dropped a bit, but not much.
>
> I'm reminded of a British politician who said he would not be happy
> until all children received an above-average education.

"...Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are
good-looking, and all the chidren are above average." --Garrison
Keillor, A Prairie Home COmpanion

Big Bill wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:44:19 GMT, "John Cluster"
> <John_Cluster@noaddress.noway> wrote:
>
>>> Um. Possibly. Why not avoid it even becoming an issue by joining a
>>> "clean" host in the first place? One less worry, no?
>> Agree.
>>
>>> how often do you refresh/renew your content?
>> Quite infrequently. The content is good, stable, current. Why change?
>
> Let's Googs know it's not stale out of date information. How is it
> current if it isn't updated regularly? How can the big G divine that?
> Are links still being added from 3rd party sites of quality and worth?
> That would .
>
> BB

So, supposing his site was about the laws of gravity - would he have to
rewrite them every so often to keep google happy? Move some planets to
affect the gravity they apply? Achieve perpetual motion, perhaps?


I doubt that non refreshed content is the problem.

Jez.

Thanks Andrew

Points all noted. I was coming to that conclusion as well. Link checking
is tedious and I was thinking of investing in one of those software packages
that s you do it. Bu while we were around page 2 or 3 I wasn't that
bothered.

Good news though is that we are moving back up again. Moved from page 26 to
11 this morning so I'm hoping that Googe was just doing some re-indexing or
something.

all the best

Ian
"Andrew Heenan" <andrew3@heenan.net> wrote in message