Ban by Google?

[Manpasand]

I have a site which I had launched on April of 2004 but since then i have not found that site in Google even more than 50 backlinks are there. That site is relatively good in Yahoo and registered in Yahoo Directory too.

Is that site banned by Google or somethign else.

Thanks

[rustybrick]

When you search on sitename.com, does it come up?

If you like, post the URL here, we can then take a look for you.

[Manpasand]

No, isn't come up through site name too.

Here is the url Negative Drug Test (http://www.negativedrugtest.com)

[rustybrick]

Quick glance, looks to have some type of penalty. You do have a pretty big "resources" section. Seems to be very link farm'ie.

Here are sites that contain the term negativedrugtest.com in google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&sa=G&q=%22%2Bwww.negativedrugtest.%2Bcom%22), are you interlinked with many of them?

[Manpasand]

Resource section we have created but negativedrugtest.com in google (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%2Bwww.negativedrugtest.%2Bcom%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&start=10&sa=N) this was done by earlier SEO company.

YES, earlier it was but after Aprial 2004 now we aren't doing.

What should we do to for back in Google?

Thanks

[rustybrick]

I would remove the link exchange and email google.

[Manpasand]

Your mean should i remove the resouce pages from the website and send an email to Google?
If yes then should i email at help@google.com ?

[rustybrick]

I never had this problem, I am sure other's had clients with this situation. Let me ask someone to share with you their experience.

[Phoenix]

Rusty asked me to see if I could possibly help out. I kinda like dealing with these situations. In any case, it will take a little trouble shoting to figure out the root cause. I am guessing however, that since your site was launched in April 2004, then this what would be expected. 50 links would not be effective enough for a successful ranking. Yahoo is much sweeter in that regard, and generally way more responsive than google these days.

If you do plan to email Google do so with the following:

Do this in about a week: You will need to email Google at: webmaster@google.com with 'Reinclusion Request' in the subject line.

You also mentioned that your site had been previously SEO'ed by some type of company. Can you be a little more clear on what they did. Did they use doorway, bridge, gateway, whatever you want to call them pages? Was there anything that the SEO company did to point, direct, or modify the site? used in conjunction with other sites?

Also, some more questions. Is this the only site you have that is like this? Are there any other sites that are similar, exactly the same, or based on the same site architecture. If so you might want to look at that. Duplicate sites is a no no.

Are there any parts of the site that contain links at the bottom of the pages? This would mainly be pages that have relatively few links in the body, but mainly links at the bottom.

Suggestions: Might get rid of the link exchange, those can cause problems sometimes. Use variation in the meta-tags. Work on more links from good sites already listed in google, yahoo, msn. Clean up anything from past work or types of promotion that might influence the rankings. Anything external basically.

Hope that helps, or at least gets yeah in the right direction.

[seomike]

Noted all of the above and then saw this. http://negativedrugtest.com/pharmacy.html

Looks like you got tagged as an affiliate site bro and/or linked into a bad neighborhood.

[Manpasand]

You also mentioned that your site had been previously SEO'ed by some type of company. Can you be a little more clear on what they did. Did they use doorway, bridge, gateway, whatever you want to call them pages? Was there anything that the SEO company did to point, direct, or modify the site? used in conjunction with other sites?

I dont know how they promoted the site :(

Also, some more questions. Is this the only site you have that is like this? Are there any other sites that are similar, exactly the same, or based on the same site architecture. If so you might want to look at that. Duplicate sites is a no no.

Are there any parts of the site that contain links at the bottom of the pages? This would mainly be pages that have relatively few links in the body, but mainly links at the bottom.

No, our other sites are going well in search engines in respective keywords. First time i am facing this type of problem. :(

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

It looks like you have some cleaning up to do. Weather you like it or not you will have to find out what exactly that other SEO company did. It looks like they got you into some dirt and before you remove that completely I would NOT e-mail Google. You have to show Google that you now have full control over your site, have identified the dirt, removed it and will not do it again. You do NOT want to be detected for spamming again after the reinclusion. I have never heard of anybody get in the second time.

I would move very fast on this. If you have more sites invlolved in the same "linkfarms" there is a high risk they will go soon too. Fix it before it hits you. :)

[Marcia]

There are archived pages at the Wayback Machine going back to January, 2004. If you click on one of the pages, there's then a link to see the rest of the archived pages from the site at that time.

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://negativedrugtest.com

It looks like it's no longer being archived, but on one of the archived pages found there's a graphic linking to this site

http:*//www.findrxonline.com/

Very, very touchy area. That's dealing in controlled substances being offered for sale without prescription, and there was a bit of a fuss raised by the FDA last year.

Sure, there's positive identification as an affiliate related site

http://www.associateprograms.com/cgi-bin/search/rateit.cgi?ID=1080079110

You might also want to do searches for some exact phrases that are unique to the site to make sure it hasn't been mirrored elsewhere or been treated to some "creative" type of redirection, just to know.

Then there's the ability and possibility of checking whois for sites associated by linking to see if there's common ownership, as well as the complete history of the domain name. At this point, given the circumstances and history, I'd make sure it's as clean as a whistle in every way possible.