Google is "Easily" buggered

[Wardy]

Tweet

I was just going to visit Easily.co.uk but instead of typing the full url into the address bar I just typed "easily" into Google thinking that would give me the link I was after.
However, googles amazing algo didn't actually list easily.co.uk on the first page, or infact on the first 10 pages (I only looked as I wanted to know where it was actually ranked).
I then thougth I'd look for "easily UK" just to see if it showed up for that, but no.
So I thought, I'll make it really simple and go for "easily domain registrar" yet again, no result in top 10.
Last search was for "easily.co.uk" but you guessed it not a thing other than their paid position.

Now I know some sites get banned, but we are talking about a domain registartion site that has been around years and has 462,000 references of "easily.co.uk" in google yet they don't have their own organic listing.

I thought I'd share it with you all, another one for Googles amazing search results!

Cheers
Wardy

[DioBach]

I think they've hit a +30 like penalty. I've had the same thing happen to several of my sites - not ranking for even your URL, looks like easily.co.uk has done something to offend the googlebot and incurred the penalty. Could be anything that's caused it - hidden doorway pages, hidden text, cloaking,etc.

[csn]

It still has a PageRank of 5.

[Stuart]

I tried and got the same in google .co.uk and .com - they are no where to be seen...!

Regards
Stuart

[Mogga]

I think they've hit a +30 like penalty. I've had the same thing happen to several of my sites - not ranking for even your URL, looks like easily.co.uk has done something to offend the googlebot and incurred the penalty. Could be anything that's caused it - hidden doorway pages, hidden text, cloaking,etc.

a +30 penalty?


I've got a site that died recently in google and all the crap which is listed first is stupid scrapper sites.

[Brendon]

Looks like a full-blown ban to me

[Adi]

Sounds strange. Let me admit I came to know about this wierd Google practice recently and I've never been hit by this (cross my fingers!). What leaves me confused is how easily can you trigger this penalty? I guess you can’t get a penalty for content that's unique, like IBL. Have the rules changed?

Also, is -30 different from +30?
Google leaves me confused.

[DioBach]

a +30 penalty?


I've got a site that died recently in google and all the crap which is listed first is stupid scrapper sites.

Sorry, -30 penalty. The effects the same though, annoying. In the past I've also heard of -99 and -1000 penalty. But I can't find said articles. As to how true it is, it's still open to debate.

The scraper sites shouldn't effect a site listing for its own domain name.

[Wardy]

Looks to have been sorted now http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...LG:en&q=easily

Cheers
Wardy

[gunneradt]

join the club

annoying isn't it when you see ridiculous sites ranking above yours for keywords.

typical google.

a +30 penalty?


I've got a site that died recently in google and all the crap which is listed first is stupid scrapper sites.

[Brendon]

>> annoying isn't it when you see ridiculous sites ranking above yours for keywords

*shrug* Learn some SEO. Getting good enough to beat obviously ****e sites really isn't hard, even with no budget. If you do have budget (especially if you can afford a few grand) you can get in front of some top talent at an SES / PubCon type event (tip : go to the after-hours networking stuff, and go talk to the speakers that impressed you. Most of them are very approachable if you behave lijke a normal human being too)

If you can afford a bit more, try an Elite Retreat / SEO days type thing, both expensive, but well worth it in the long run

[3wdl]

To be fair, it's not just google that kicks sites for things like this.

My blog domain is still buggered in a few search engines (infact google is the only one driving traffic) since it was killed for years of abuse by comment spammers and no 404 page (went straight to the homepage).

Although it's listed it's ranked v. badly on Yahoo and MSN and it's not though lack of links or trying - still trying to work out how to get it back

[Lee_Owen]

If there's penalites then they should be transparent.

[Operandi]

and no 404 page (went straight to the homepage).

Did your 404 handling drive the user to the home page? How did that cause problems?

I drive 404 traffic to the home pages of some of my sites and now you've got me wondering if that could cause SEO problems.

[Brendon]

>> If there's penalites then they should be transparent.

Never going to happen. If the penalties were transparent, they'd be worthless, and so would the SE that implemented such a policy. About 90% of all anti-spam efforts are physcological. Why do you think Matt Cutts is such a public figure?

>> I drive 404 traffic to the home pages of some of my sites

Definitley. 404 spam is a bit of an "old skool" tactic, but that means it's well embedded in the automated spam detection systems. You used to be able to do some awe-inspiring things with wildcard 404's and stupid submission tools.

Also, check the HTTP error code you deliver - 200 on a 404 page, which r/dirs to the home page looks a bit fishy. Delivering a 404 code is better, if confusing. Delivering a 404, to a 404 page (which it is perfectly legitimate to have linking to your home page) should be fine

>> still trying to work out how to get it back

Harass a Yahoo engineer Depending on the time frame (and it may be long enough, IIRC) you may actually be seeing a hangover from the Inktomi integration :O