Google is updating very frequently and because of this the results are
changing and every Webmaster is gazing on the activities of Google.
Every one has only one question what will happen with my site after the
completion of SERP's.

In between these changes some got jerk by Google and they broken their
backbone. Because Google marked them as blacklisted. So webmasters
don't loose your hope.

Neuro Nimbus (www.neuronimbus.com) presents one comprehensive solution
for Google Blacklisted sites.

The below are few steps through with you can expect for ray of +ve
hope.

The Following are the methods which u can analyze and get implement to
get the benefit from those.
1. First try to get the causes because of which your site got
blacklisted. Try finding out and sorting out those errors and
restructure the site according to the Webmaster Guide lines by Google.
Please read all the guide lines by Google
(http://www.google.com/webmasters/1.html#A1)
2. Its very hard to get listed back in the Google the percentage of
listed back is only few. but there is also a favorite saying that
"world is "So it would be suggested to lunch the site on the any new
fresh domain with out any previous errors because of which your site
get blacklisted.
3. One more option is request to Google by sending them mail but before
that u have to error out all the short coming of your sites and then
send them mail with the subject "reinclusion request". Tell your site's
name and describe any circumstances that you think might have led to a
Spam penalty.
In last if you don't want to diminish your trade name then the last you
left which is most important option is include more and more incoming
links or we can do link exchange with the sites having good Google page
rank, the page rank of websites should be at least 6+.

The above are the method, which can give you some hope to listed back.

Or

Just contact at info@neuronimbus.com for comprehensive reports on your
website.



Good Luck!!

Brijesh Kumar
info@neuronimbus.com
www.neuronimbus.com
Internet Marketing Analyst
+91-9873489868
India

brijesh123@gmail.com wrote:


> "world is "So it would be suggested to lunch the site on the any new

You mean lynch? :-D

> fresh domain with out any previous errors because of which your site
> get blacklisted.

Yeah, and "welcome" to the sandbox. If you haven't done any black hat
tricks, email them. Otherwise, grow up :-)

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Hi


"Lunch" that is the typo error, there i mean to say launch.

I want to ask are these above facts are okay or not.

I think this post will help...seo and webmasters.

Kindly update to this post if some thing is missing.

Hi


"Lunch" that is the typo error, there i mean to say launch.

I want to ask are these above facts are okay or not.

I think this post will help...seo and webmasters.

Kindly update to this post if some thing is missing.

Warm Regards,
Brijesh Kumar
brijesh@neuronimbus.com
www.neuronimbus.com

brijesh123@gmail.com wrote:

> I think this post will help...seo and webmasters.

good content + logical structured valid HTML is what people help.

> Kindly update to this post if some thing is missing.

Since you removed my reply, all is missing :-)

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

On 11 May 2005 05:18:24 GMT, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:

>> I think this post will help...seo and webmasters.
>
>good content + logical structured valid HTML is what people help.

Could you expand on this with examples, explanations maybe?

A lot of sites do very, very well with crap content and illogically
structured, invalid HTML. In fact if you look at real world examples
most sites that do well do not use logically structured valid HTML.

Do you know of any SERPs where the top 10 is filled with sites that
have-

1. Good content (BTW what is good content?).
2. logical structured HTML (would that mean following W3C
guidelines?).
3. Valid HTML (would that be the same as validating?).

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:16:13 GMT, SEO Dave
<seodave@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:

>On 11 May 2005 05:18:24 GMT, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>> I think this post will help...seo and webmasters.
>>
>>good content + logical structured valid HTML is what people help.
>
>Could you expand on this with examples, explanations maybe?
>
>A lot of sites do very, very well with crap content and illogically
>structured, invalid HTML. In fact if you look at real world examples
>most sites that do well do not use logically structured valid HTML.

This is because most sites fit that description. It's not actually a
prerequisite. It's a bit like saying because most high ranking sites
are crappy, all sites must be crappy to rank.

>Do you know of any SERPs where the top 10 is filled with sites that
>have-
>
>1. Good content (BTW what is good content?).
>2. logical structured HTML (would that mean following W3C
>guidelines?).
>3. Valid HTML (would that be the same as validating?).

No. I've said why before. When the engines are presented with
content-filled alternatives and enough to make a decent index, they'll
use them in preference.

Changing the subject a bit, I started working my way through some
blogs and commenting. I understand now why you became SEO Dave. I've
become SEO BB. On blogs anyway.

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

SEO Dave wrote:

> 1. Good content (BTW what is good content?).

Good content is: a large part of your visitors like to read it.

> 2. logical structured HTML (would that mean following W3C
> guidelines?).

Not using visual mark up, e.g. an element is used for its *meaning* it
gives to the text it contains.

> 3. Valid HTML (would that be the same as validating?).

That must be a rethorical question.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Big Bill wrote:

> Changing the subject a bit, I started working my way through some
> blogs and commenting. I understand now why you became SEO Dave. I've
> become SEO BB. On blogs anyway.

Explain, please, I want to become SEO John :-D.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

On 11 May 2005 21:21:18 GMT, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:

>SEO Dave wrote:
>
>> 1. Good content (BTW what is good content?).
>
>Good content is: a large part of your visitors like to read it.

So optimized content isn't important to SEO?

You do realize good content as you describe doesn't mean it will
include the search phrases you want, right?

I have lots of good content that's not targeting the search phrases
potential visitors use most to look for that type of content. So good
content isn't always enough, might be if by luck it's also targeting
the right phrases, but I don't like to leave things to luck.

So what do you do when your "good content" lacks the right search
phrases?

>> 2. logical structured HTML (would that mean following W3C
>> guidelines?).
>
>Not using visual mark up, e.g. an element is used for its *meaning* it
>gives to the text it contains.

Could you rephrase that, didn't get it.

>> 3. Valid HTML (would that be the same as validating?).
>
>That must be a rethorical question.

No, serious question. You know what I consider valid HTML, maybe
you've come around at last now you can see there is no evidence
validation for the sake of it helps with SERPs.

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/