What's new

Website Not Good Enough For Google

Chris.C

Top Contributor
Lets face it, we are talking a 14 year old girl's first attempt at building a website, maybe I should have put more effort into the design, but she needs to learn herself.
I wholeheartedly agree.

I know over the years I have learned a lot more from my failures and set backs than I have my successes. If nothing else it will be a great learning experience.

The adsense I will remove for the next reconsideration, even though it's not breaking any of their rules by having 3 leaders on each
The important thing to remember is that Google doesn't "define" anything and they like keeping everything ambiguous.

Whilst the AdSense policy is that you are allowed a maximum of three ad units that doesn't mean that the Google search algorithm that ranks your site doesn't take into consideration the ad to content ratio, and may deem it to high.

My understanding is that most areas of Google work independently, i.e. the AdSense team work separately to their search quality team which work separately from the youtube developers. Each team is aiming to improve their section of Google, "largely" regardless of what implications that has of the other sections.

My point is that the policy of one part of Google doesn't validate another part. They work independently achieving independent goals.

The content was written by textbroker and as Jonathan pointed out is 100% unique, my daughter paid for it with her own saved money.
The fact it is "unique" doesn't make it "good" quality.

I'm not saying it's bad quality, I'm just saying that most leading experts are chatting about Google becoming increasingly aware of the subtle differences between good and bad quality content and no doubt they will begin to start factoring these qualitative indicators more.

Now as far as website software to use, I personally don't think it makes any difference as I use xsitepro which is the same she used for this and have numerous number 1 websites.
To each their own I guess.

;)


My gripe with Google is they don't tell you what it is exactly they are not happy with.
They are not obligated to. Their secrecy is essential otherwise gaming the system would be that much easier - and let's be honest, that's exactly what we are all trying to do.


Actually it DOES break the "Made for Adsense SITE" Rule.
Agreed.

Though with that said there are huge number of sites whose "unofficial objectives" are to increase AdSense revenues, but as I mentioned in a previous post the majority of these sites do a good job of at least giving the "impression" that making money is not the main objective.

As others above have also said, I would only have 1 Banner ad.
Place it just under the Header or swap it for a 160*600 skyscraper in a sidebar.
Add a couple Graphics in text. and maybe place a border around the site.
I think these are good suggestions.

I'd also like to throw in there that link units tend to be quite effective when well-positioned and they are small enough that when glancing at a site they don't make you think MFA.

Also from what I have been reading lately (yes John I do a lot of reading) is that having ads on your site isn't an issue in itself, but where they are positioned can matter (particularly above the fold).

So for example if you have large ad blocks at the top of your page above your content with link units and maybe a large header image the people who come to your site are initially only seeing ads, maybe a picture and some navigation links, which will be great for ad CTRs, but is bad for user experience as Google is directing them to your site because Google believes that your site has the content they are looking for.

I know I personally am moving to designs that avoid putting large ads above my content and I'm opting for the larger ads appearing directly below content and within navigation bars.

These can achieve good CTR without the site looking like an MFA.

Of course this isn't the official line from Google, but from what I'm reading and what I've experienced personally I would be surprised if this wasn't the case.


I think you are giving an opinion that it's MFA when it's just as easy to argue that it was not. I doubt a 14 year old girl started her first site with MFA in mind.
It was only my opinion that it "looks" like a MFA site. And I'd expect that a Google website reviewer would probably think the same, not to mention that a number of people within this thread also seem to agree that it looks like an MFA.

Now I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but one has to be realistic about the likelihood of success when asking for reinclusion request when this is the case.

Anyone who takes your advice would be quite foolish to act upon it.
I think djuqa runs allot of sites, has a lot of experience and obviously does well for himself - so from that perspective alone, anyone who doesn't at least "listen" to him is probably doing themselves a disservice.

I'm not saying I agree with everything he says or act on it, but he is definitely someone that I will at least listen to.

The site isn't breaking any of the Adsense rules and it's a little bit silly (I'd love to say ignorant..oopss... just did!) to suggest that's the reason a reconsideration request was not approved. In fact, the ad placement is very tame and not optimised.
You can call me ignorant if you want and if you really think that I don't know what I'm talking about I'd encourage you to block my posts via your forum settings.

You're definitely not obliged to listen to what I have to say.

And at the same time I'm more than happy to dedicate more of my time to working on my own business if people don't get any value from what I have to say.

Sounds to me like Cncventure is just repeating what he read online; example being the Shoemoney quote "don't make Google look stupid" and talking about Panda when this issue obviously has nothing to do with that update at all.
Your damn right I paraphrase, cite and even quote those that are the leaders in their respective fields whether it be Jeremy Schoemaker or Aaron Wall (who are the biggest proponents that a key ingredient to success is not making Google look stupid).

And, yes, I stole a term Jerry Shoemaker coined years ago, but that's why I used the term in inverted commas.

I don't claim that all my thoughts are original, they're not, nor that I have perfect knowledge, I try to talk with caution because there is so much ambiguity in internet marketing.

Most importantly I'm not out there repackaging an info product and pushing it on gullible people. I know that there are smarter people than I that have all said it before. I was just trying to help Geo understand why a Google reviewer might not feel compelled to push the site back into the index.

There is nothing wrong with the site. It's not a Google requirement or condition that you have the best design in order to be indexed; the amount of crap they serve up is a testament to that.
I don't disagree that Google may not penalise a lot of crap sites out there, but in my experience Google operates largely on one strike and you're out policy.

They have always been ruthless with the quality of their search index just like the rest of their products and services. So you can bet your bottom dollar that when it comes to reincluding sites they are not just going to reindex junk just because there is other junk already in there.

If you don't get that, then I think you're missing the bigger picture.

I checked the content, it's original and well written; no copied content. There is nothing wrong with the title tags either or really anything else. Amatuer site? Yes but so what? Sometimes they're the best performers!
I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. You're saying why "shouldn't" this site be included in the index. The Google reviewer is looking at the site from the perspective that it has already been kicked out, why "should" this site be included in the index.

When coming at it from the other way the is case a lot harder to win because the site isn't of what I would call "high value".

Now this is a bit of an unusual case in that the site was built on a domain that was already kicked out. Truth be told if this sort of site and content was on a fresh domain that had no black marks with Google it most likelihood it would still be in the index and ranking well.

Even I have sites that are worse looking with less value than this site that still rank, and still rank well, but they get the benefit of the doubt because they haven't been kicked out yet.

Avoid switching to Wordpress unless it's a change you want to make. Don't do it for the sake of uploading some unique theme as cncventure suggests because that is not the issue here.
I'm not saying a switch to WordPress is necessary or anything, I only suggested that because I think it easier to make a site look like a decent site using WordPress than a software system like xsitepro which just looks like an MFA site (the at the moment).

You could try again but I think your time would be better spent moving onto another domain.
Agreed.

Unless you are going to have a real go at making the site something more substantial I think it might not be worth the uphill battle and you resources might be better spent elsewhere.

We don't mind passionate exchanges of views, but civility is important.
Agreed.

And with that said this will be the last post I'll be making on this thread, I don't have time to offer my insights if I am only going to be slandered in the process.

Best of luck Geo.
 

neddy

Top Contributor
And with that said this will be the last post I'll be making on this thread, I don't have time to offer my insights if I am only going to be slandered in the process.

Best of luck Geo.

You obviously put a lot of time and thought into this post, and I commend you for that.

I can't say who is right, and who is wrong, because I'm a troglodyte when it comes to this sort of stuff.

However, the purpose of this forum is to exchange points of view, and share knowledge. If people don't agree with someone else, that's absolutely fine - and anybody and everybody is welcome to say so.

But please, can everybody play nice? Treat people like you would like to be treated yourself. Otherwise it just degenerates into a slanging match. No one wins from that.

"There endeth the lesson from the old fart Admin".
 

neddy

Top Contributor
davidunderhill.com.au is
1/ not my SITE or domain
2/ yes it is my Mobile number , abn and Company name but NOT any of my EMAIL Addresses that is listed
3/ I live at 28 fisher street CLIFTON 4361 Queensland NOT VICTORIA HILL 4361.
4/ I will be advising auDA , google (it appears to be created using their joint venture with MYOB) and Federal Police for that Malicious intent SITE that was fraudulantly registered in MY NAME.
5/ Whoever created it is not a NICE person.

I see that the site has been taken down, and that the domain is now in "pending delete".
 

geodomains

Top Contributor
Okay, my daughter has rebuilt the website www.glutenfree.com.au and I've now done a re-consideration with Google, so fingers crossed they'll accept it now. :)

Don
 

geodomains

Top Contributor
Good news www.glutfree.com.au was accepted by Google today for reinclusion, yippee :D

Now to calm down my daughter, she's already talking seo this and do that.

Don
 

Rhythm

Top Contributor
Did a search for gluten free and this is ranking 2nd after wikipedia.

Ditto for many other keywords. EMD FTW
 
Last edited:

geodomains

Top Contributor
Did a search for gluten free and this is ranking 2nd after wikipedia.

Ditto for many other keywords. EMD FTW

Yes has been #1 for last 6 months and ranking well for lots of keywords, but dropped last week with latest algo update.

Daughter was doing nicely for a while, she's too busy with study to do anymore work on the website, but she is certainly hooked on getting passive income.

Don
 

Rhythm

Top Contributor
Yes has been #1 for last 6 months and ranking well for lots of keywords, but dropped last week with latest algo update.

Daughter was doing nicely for a while, she's too busy with study to do anymore work on the website, but she is certainly hooked on getting passive income.

Don

The thing about the site that (IMO) could be tweaked is the high font variation - too many different fonts - and maybe lose the top menu (left menu fits in better).

Of course if the clicks drop after my proposed tweaks than ignore everything I said and put it back to how it was before.

RIP SEO (great custom number plate idea for Matt Cutts)
 

marketingweb

Top Contributor
I didn't have the benefit of seeing the origional site. BUT to me the one thing that still lets it down is the lack of a logo.

A logo can be a wordform as heading text, doesn't have to be fancy. But in the standard font it is in, as well as being jammed a few pixels too high up on the page, this lets down the whole rest of the site.

Also, the "credit" on the footer goes over the bottom border, at least on firefox, haven't bothered to check on anything else.

Just a thought.
Matt
 

Community sponsors

Domain Parking Manager

AddMe Reputation Management

Digital Marketing Experts

Catch Expired Domains

Web Hosting

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
11,098
Messages
92,044
Members
2,394
Latest member
Spacemo
Top