Skip to content banished from the Google kingdom

Well, it looks like this blog has been dropped from the Google index. Why would that be? Well, like the rest of the world, I will never know because that is how the GreatGoogle does things.

Poof. Gone. No Google traffic for this blog. Paging Matt Cutts…. any wisdom on this one? Seems pretty innoccuous as a WordPress install (except for yesterday’s post which suggested Google should be embarassed…was that it?) I wonder what say TheGreatGoogle?

If you want to search for John Andrews in Seattle, you will find me in Yahoo! but not Google. If you want to find my SEO Secret page, you’ll find it in Yahoo! but not in Google. Looking for John Andrews SEO? Try Yahoo!, because Yahoo! knows how to find stuff.

Update: A Google representative has replied in the comments (Matt Cutts). It’s not clear, but it seems that Google doesn’t like me discussing some of the oberved weaknesses in Google’s algorithm or WordPress’ use of post slugs. I’m trying to get that clarified since this is a total ban and not just a ranking issue; a very serious thing.


  1. graywolf wrote:

    Now what’s curious is you’ve still got some green pixel love. Normally when you were banned you went graybar. You are now the 4th website I’ve seen with this problem

    Tuesday, November 7, 2006 at 6:45 am | Permalink
  2. Wow, that sucks nutz…

    Have you tried Webmaster Tools and / or sitemaps to see if it will tell you of a problem?

    Tuesday, November 7, 2006 at 7:04 am | Permalink
  3. Jeremy Luebke wrote:

    Oops. edit to my last post. None of those DC’s have any of your pages in them. It’s way to early in the morning for me to be looking at a computer screen.

    Tuesday, November 7, 2006 at 8:19 am | Permalink
  4. tony rocks wrote:

    How dare you poke and tease the Great Google. I’ll be waiting for me to be delisted now. I’m willing to bet that ferflucky is the culprit…give it time.

    Tuesday, November 7, 2006 at 8:38 am | Permalink
  5. Brian Turner wrote:

    I’ve ever the optimist in these situations – considering the issues Google’s had with indexing this year, that would be my first port of call.

    Tuesday, November 7, 2006 at 9:36 am | Permalink
  6. Ken Savage wrote:

    Yes you still show PR4 to me. I would have thought they would have cleared all your Green bar love by now if you don’t show in their index.

    Might be obvious but have you tried the reinclusion tool yet?

    Tuesday, November 7, 2006 at 10:18 am | Permalink
  7. Kirby wrote:

    John, you are grey barred from where I sit in San Diego.

    Tuesday, November 7, 2006 at 10:36 am | Permalink
  8. scoreboard wrote:

    While not as bad as this, my site went through a two week “WTF?!” hiatus in Google a few weeks ago after I redid it in WordPress. No Google traffic at all and then one day it was all back. It was almost like it got re-Sandboxed for two weeks while they combed over the spike in links and mass 301’s.

    Tuesday, November 7, 2006 at 12:01 pm | Permalink
  9. Scott wrote:

    Maybe it was a hand edit by Google… what with your recent post: “How to Kill Someone Else’s AdSense Account: 10 Steps”

    Maybe Matt is a good guy, and doesn’t want to comment on any thing that might be construed as nefarious, revenge-like, etc.

    By the way, in Oregon you are grey barred as well.


    John Andrews comments: Hah well if you read that post it doesn’t do anything like the title suggests… but I agree talking about the fact that competitors can sabotage each other’s Google service accounts might be distasteful to the MightyGoogle. As for Mr. Cutts, I don’t like to speak for him as he’s a very effective speaker already. I doubt he could find a reason for this one in his secret Google Link Out Matrix (GLOM) software, though.

    Tuesday, November 7, 2006 at 12:24 pm | Permalink
  10. Aaron Pratt wrote:

    This blog is hard to read with all the gray. ;)

    Tuesday, November 7, 2006 at 1:20 pm | Permalink
  11. graywolf wrote:

    also interesting

    Tuesday, November 7, 2006 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
  12. Scott wrote:

    Could it be sabotage?,john+andrews&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

    Tuesday, November 7, 2006 at 4:04 pm | Permalink
  13. Matt Cutts wrote:

    Hi John, why are you following DaveN into the whole christine-dolce-nude.html thing?

    Thursday, November 9, 2006 at 1:27 am | Permalink
  14. john andrews wrote:

    Hi Matt.

    Following DaveN?? Not me. I’d never follow DaveN. I try and stay out of trouble generally, and I don’t have the physique for streaking.

    As I recall (this post I started getting CDN traffic and then saw DaveN ranking…. and that was in Yahoo.

    Is there some clue in there I should look in to, Matt?

    Thursday, November 9, 2006 at 2:09 am | Permalink
  15. Matt Cutts wrote:

    Well, DaveN does posts like and and then wonders why the algorithms don’t like him for a while. :)

    My advice would be to run a reputable blog on one site, and have posts about “christine dolce naked” (look in your /26/ directory for the christine-dolce-nude.html) on a different site and not to mix those two as much.

    Thursday, November 9, 2006 at 10:46 am | Permalink
  16. Matt Cutts wrote:

    is where DaveN starts talking about “christine dolce naked”.

    Thursday, November 9, 2006 at 10:51 am | Permalink
  17. john andrews wrote:

    Thanks Matt. I remember reading Dave’s post back then, and thought it was rather interesting from an SEO perspective (as was Vanessa’s explanation). Also, I think my own post was very much on topic for a search blog; the topic could have been Blue Widgets but happened to be Christine Dolce Naked only because…. you may want to sit down for this…. Google was sending me Christine Dolce Naked traffic.

    I had mentioned Christine Dolce in the context of MySpace and her 1 million friends, and Google (and Yahoo!) started sending me smutty traffic. Vanessa offered an explanation via DaveN’s “naked bull riding”, but I assure you I have never nor will I ever ride a mechanical bull naked or even close to naked. That would be very very wrong (I am not a Brit).

    I appreciate your suggestions, but now I worry about my WordPress configuration. Is it the use of keywords in the post slug that violates the Google guidelines? We’re not looking at a failure to rank here. We’re looking at a total ban. I don’t have pussy-pussy-pussy post slugs…mine are quite natural for the topics discussed.

    I guess I just don’t see the comparison to DaveN. He’s a Black Hat SEO, isn’t he? Didn’t he once have a private meeting with you and Sergey Page and Larry Brin at the GooglePlex? DaveN’s still in Google…maybe I need one of those meetings, too? Did you set that up for Dave, or is there a number to call? Thanks alot, Matt. I really appreciate the help.

    Thursday, November 9, 2006 at 12:29 pm | Permalink
  18. John,

    It looks like you might actually be getting purged from some of the dc’s:

    I am pretty sure when I looked earlier you still had PageRank on all of them, now it looks like it is at 0 for about 25% of them. Did you have PR and Backlinks before this last update? If not then this is normal, since not all datacenters got updated with the latest PR push.


    Thursday, November 9, 2006 at 10:47 pm | Permalink
  19. graywolf wrote:

    so what’s the standard, it’s a no-no when daveN publishes a page about christina dolce but he doesn’t get banned. John follows suit and he does get banned, and search engine watch doesn’t even get a finger wagging?

    Friday, November 10, 2006 at 12:33 am | Permalink
  20. You’re starting to come back, btw. :)

    No homepage as far as I can see, yet, but definitely looks better than it did. Everything is Supplemental Result though.


    Friday, November 10, 2006 at 9:10 am | Permalink
  21. john andrews wrote:

    Update: there is some debate about whether or not the Matt Cutts comments in this thread are actually from Matt Cutts. I’m not sure, so perhaps Matt can verify with an email? I know of no other way to verify that….

    Friday, November 10, 2006 at 4:54 pm | Permalink
  22. Scott wrote:

    IP address?

    Friday, November 10, 2006 at 5:02 pm | Permalink
  23. IncrediBILL wrote:

    Yes, check the DNS, I think Matt’s is

    Friday, November 10, 2006 at 8:16 pm | Permalink
  24. IncrediBILL wrote:


    You’re back in Google!

    Did you get a handjob from Matt?

    Friday, November 10, 2006 at 8:17 pm | Permalink
  25. john andrews wrote:

    Well, yes my site is appearing once again in Google so I can only thank personal intervention from Matt Cutts for that! Thanks Matt. Without you, I don’t know what I would have done. My kids need to eat, and..well, let me just stop here and say thank you.

    IncrediBill, I can only assume that my personal relationship with Matt Cutts saved the day (we met briefly after a seminar in Orlando in ’03…he was heavier then — pre roller hockey/personal trainer, and I was much svelter — pre Florida). Lucky for me I never lost my on-topic traffic (it’s all from feeds and quality, on-topic back links) but at least now I have my Christine Dolce Nude traffic back.

    My PR is gone, though. Dropping like the rain up here in the Northwest. PR5 down to zero… but I guess that is the price I have to pay for creating post slugs like christine-dolce-nude.html. I suppose Google has to do that, though, to protect the Internet. After all, all those outbond links I have on this blog…they don’t deserve page rank, do they?

    Now about the “supplemental” status of my pages. That makes sense, too, doesn’t it? I mean, each post is really pretty much the same as all the others, right? John bitchin about Google, John wise-cracking about Matt and the Cuttletts, John crackin on IncrediBill, John on challenging the GoogleMonster. Practically dupes.

    Friday, November 10, 2006 at 9:23 pm | Permalink
  26. IncrediBILL wrote:

    I clicked the link and most data centers showed PR 5, not PR 0, only about 8 out of 42 said 0.

    I don’t know who provides your smoking material, but I want in on your supply.

    Friday, November 10, 2006 at 11:47 pm | Permalink
  27. Scott wrote:

    Yeah, 5s and zeros…

    So what are we to learn from this exercise? Don’t link to sites that G may not like but yet they may not penalize the originator of the actual offending content (Dave N’s site is fine in G)? Don’t post strange rankings observations about competitor sites like Y!.. . Google is protecting Uncle Y!’s honor? John has secret black hat items on his site that we don’t know about? Or none of the above? Every day, I think that G and a few other engines should start to be turned into common carrier status so that things are more transparent.

    Tuesday, November 14, 2006 at 1:35 pm | Permalink
  28. Matt Cutts wrote:

    graywolf, you weren’t paying attention. DaveN recently complained about not showing up as well (can’t bother to hunt down his post right now; I’m heading down to pubcon in 10 minutes). John, I leave a valid email in my posts; also, I saw you at the Google event on Wednesday night and we chatted for a bit. So yes, it’s me. :)

    Friday, November 17, 2006 at 2:20 pm | Permalink
  29. John Andrews wrote:

    Hey Matt thanks for clarifying… I didn’t hit your email with an inquiry because it is an obvious “best guess” for a faker, and also I just didn’t feel too cool sending Matt Cutts a “is this really you, Matt?” email. Hah hah.

    So thanks for clearing it up and cool to see you at Pubcon.

    Saturday, November 18, 2006 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

6 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Google Dropping Sites on Tuesday, November 7, 2006 at 7:04 am

    […] Interrupting our regular programming for an update. John Andrews had his blog dropped from Google recently. That makes the fourth site I’ve seen recently that has very similar conditions to the conditions of one my websites being banned. I still don’t have a good answer for what happened. Did we hit the leading edge of some new filter? Are the data centers ferfluky? Why are will still showing the Google toolbar pagerank but not in the index? […]

  2. […] « banished from the Google kingdom […]

  3. Favorite SEO Blog : Missing in Search on Friday, November 17, 2006 at 8:19 am

    […] He was recently dumped from the Google index. The reason is not clear but his discussion with Matt Cutts (provided it was the real Matt Cutts) in the comments is funny and cynical at the same time. […]

  4. Beyond Search » links for 2006-11-17 on Friday, November 17, 2006 at 11:22 am

    […] banished from the Google kingdom (tags: google seo) […]

  5. SEO Dance » Blog Archive » SEO Blog Dropped by Google on Saturday, November 18, 2006 at 2:58 am

    […] John Andrews, an SEO blogger announced that his blog was deindexed by Google. According to him, has not been receiving any search engine traffic from Google. And, he has been calling the attention of Google’s Matt Cutts to get it fixed. […]

  6. […] I did some Googling for the others who may have been affected by this and turned up a few URL’s there is a few word here by Graywolf Google Dropping Sites and another banished from the Google kingdom. Again nothing concrete to pin this down, could it be a glitch in their program, I know this year there seems to be problems with their new algorithm, is something else afoot? I really don’t know, we still appear in the main index which is a good thing as it still holds the pipeline open for new business nationally and internationally, but not being in the pages of the UK has had an effect. I had a look on Matt Cutts blog for anything that might hint at Pages from teh UK de-indexing of sites but couldn nto find it in any of the posts I saw. I’ll keep checking my Sitemaps area for a reply to this… if it comes! These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]