Comments on: Step into my shoes… http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/step-into-my-shoes/ neat fun stuff Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:55:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Home Fish Aquarium Fan http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/step-into-my-shoes/#comment-133493 Home Fish Aquarium Fan Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:16:01 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=13#comment-133493 damn life in he day of a google employee looks like a lot of stress with all the angry webmaster wanting to know why they aint number 1 :) damn life in he day of a google employee looks like a lot of stress with all the angry webmaster wanting to know why they aint number 1 :)

]]> By: CYlai http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/step-into-my-shoes/#comment-18497 CYlai Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:21:01 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=13#comment-18497 Matt: You said "If this site cleans up the scraped/copied/off-topic content, it can still be reincluded." I know many personal sites which obviously do not have a so called "topic" and theme. Say I have a site that is about my life. Obviously there's no central theme. I can write anything I want. If I came across a great report on money saving tips by the US Gov(Public Domain info) and decided to put on my site to share with my visitors, can you actually say this is off-topic content? I am confused! Matt:

You said
“If this site cleans up the scraped/copied/off-topic content, it can still be reincluded.”

I know many personal sites which obviously do not have a so called “topic” and theme. Say I have a site that is about my life. Obviously there’s no central theme. I can write anything I want. If I came across a great report on money saving tips by the US Gov(Public Domain info) and decided to put on my site to share with my visitors, can you actually say this is off-topic content?

I am confused!

]]> By: CYlai http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/step-into-my-shoes/#comment-18496 CYlai Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:13:26 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=13#comment-18496 Matt: I noticed in your emails that you mentioned the webmaster scraped the contents from the .gov website. However, all .gov websites are government sites that contain public domain information. It is perfectly legal to copy, distribute and reproducte those information. So why do you flag the site??? aren't you goin over board??? Matt:

I noticed in your emails that you mentioned the webmaster scraped the contents from the .gov website. However, all .gov websites are government sites that contain public domain information. It is perfectly legal to copy, distribute and reproducte those information. So why do you flag the site???
aren’t you goin over board???

]]> By: vary http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/step-into-my-shoes/#comment-14602 vary Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:46:55 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=13#comment-14602 As we know, google don't like doorway sites, why I found there are so many results indexed by google for "site:del.icio.us" or "site:furl.net" ? As we know, google don’t like doorway sites, why I found there are so many results indexed by google for “site:del.icio.us” or “site:furl.net” ?

]]> By: Drew C. http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/step-into-my-shoes/#comment-984 Drew C. Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:54:59 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=13#comment-984 Hi: Like many others, my site was completely dropped last week in Google. It has been up for just over a year now with over 600 pages indexed. The ranking has been great as well. Still new at this I did learn when researching this about "hidden text" I have a small amount of text at the top of each page and did it for cosmetic reasons. Its being fixed as we speak. That is the only thing I can think of as to why they would drop me and why after all this time? I have not made any major changes in about 8 months. Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated. Hi:

Like many others, my site was completely dropped last week in Google. It has been up for just over a year now with over 600 pages indexed. The ranking has been great as well. Still new at this I did learn when researching this about “hidden text” I have a small amount of text at the top of each page and did it for cosmetic reasons. Its being fixed as we speak. That is the only thing I can think of as to why they would drop me and why after all this time? I have not made any major changes in about 8 months. Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated.

]]> By: Mike http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/step-into-my-shoes/#comment-209 Mike Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:27:29 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=13#comment-209 Thanks very much for posting this information and maintaining this blog, but (and you knew there was a but) I've got a not-so-hypothetical situation with a site that I can't seem to get indexed properly. The domain name was previously owned by a link-farming spammer type, but since we've taken it over we've done everything we can think of and yet we can't seem to get included and indexed correctly. I've submitted support requests for "inclusion" or "reinclusion" and haven't received a response. Is it possible some sort of block is on this domain name because of the activities of the previous site owner? The site performs very well on other search engines and is getting traffic from some high-profile blogs, yet the PageRank remains at "0". The most frustrating part is that this site is for a prominent political candidate who is doing everything the right way -- they've got an active blog, they frequently link to relevant content, they've got over 147 inbound links and we've even implemented the new Google Sitemaps -- but it seems the site is being penalized for things outside our control. I know it's possible to eventually get reincluded because I've read about it, but I don't know how to do anything more than I've done. Since so many sites are reusing old domain names which might have been owned by bad internet citizens in the past, this seems like a significant issue that needs to be dealt with. I just don't know what more I can do. Maybe a blog post on this topic or some sort of FAQ would help those of us in this tough situation. Thanks very much for posting this information and maintaining this blog, but (and you knew there was a but) I’ve got a not-so-hypothetical situation with a site that I can’t seem to get indexed properly. The domain name was previously owned by a link-farming spammer type, but since we’ve taken it over we’ve done everything we can think of and yet we can’t seem to get included and indexed correctly. I’ve submitted support requests for “inclusion” or “reinclusion” and haven’t received a response. Is it possible some sort of block is on this domain name because of the activities of the previous site owner? The site performs very well on other search engines and is getting traffic from some high-profile blogs, yet the PageRank remains at “0″.

The most frustrating part is that this site is for a prominent political candidate who is doing everything the right way — they’ve got an active blog, they frequently link to relevant content, they’ve got over 147 inbound links and we’ve even implemented the new Google Sitemaps — but it seems the site is being penalized for things outside our control. I know it’s possible to eventually get reincluded because I’ve read about it, but I don’t know how to do anything more than I’ve done.

Since so many sites are reusing old domain names which might have been owned by bad internet citizens in the past, this seems like a significant issue that needs to be dealt with. I just don’t know what more I can do. Maybe a blog post on this topic or some sort of FAQ would help those of us in this tough situation.

]]> By: David http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/step-into-my-shoes/#comment-139 David Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:18:43 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=13#comment-139 Someone said that you discussed the 302 hijacking at the San Jose SES.... What about a top ten site that someone scrapes, they add redirect scripts to all your original content pages and put copies of them on their site with the same directory structure, etc. It has all the markings of a 302 hijack but it is not. Google index uses all those pages and removes the top site as a duplicate. Any suggestions? Someone said that you discussed the 302 hijacking at the San Jose SES…. What about a top ten site that someone scrapes, they add redirect scripts to all your original content pages and put copies of them on their site with the same directory structure, etc.

It has all the markings of a 302 hijack but it is not. Google index uses all those pages and removes the top site as a duplicate. Any suggestions?

]]> By: Help Desk Software http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/step-into-my-shoes/#comment-120 Help Desk Software Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:14:28 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=13#comment-120 I agree with Kurian: Does Google help us by providing specific recommendations on fixes, or are we left to guess what to fix? And I weant to ask too.... Why don’t you have any adsense on your blog? I agree with Kurian: Does Google help us by providing specific recommendations on fixes, or are we left to guess what to fix? And I weant to ask too…. Why don’t you have any adsense on your blog?

]]> By: Stephanie Krebs http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/step-into-my-shoes/#comment-118 Stephanie Krebs Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:00:05 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=13#comment-118 In regards to the scraping/duplicate content - take for example the legal documents of a family of websites, the Privacy Policy for 10 different domains in 10 different industries, but owned by a parent company. Obviously the legal verbiage will be the same on all 10, save a search/replace for the domain name. Could this type of scenario be seen as duplicate content even though there's a legitimate reason for its presence? Intriguing. In regards to the scraping/duplicate content – take for example the legal documents of a family of websites, the Privacy Policy for 10 different domains in 10 different industries, but owned by a parent company. Obviously the legal verbiage will be the same on all 10, save a search/replace for the domain name.

Could this type of scenario be seen as duplicate content even though there’s a legitimate reason for its presence? Intriguing.

]]> By: Mr Spammer http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/step-into-my-shoes/#comment-110 Mr Spammer Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:44:58 +0000 http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/?p=13#comment-110 Spammers are cool, whitehats are clean and white but the blackhats rock and arn't afraid of a bit of dirt. Spammers are cool, whitehats are clean and white but the blackhats rock and arn’t afraid of a bit of dirt.

]]>