| 5:46 pm on Mar 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
that means that the sites dropped between the last backlink update and now. If a site gets a manual penalty you see the same thing. That makes it more obvious that the good site (at least PR 4 because of the link) was dropped by some kind of penalty.
| 5:54 pm on Mar 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The site in question is a PR5.
Are you suggesting it has been subject to a penalty of some sort?
No methods of creating hidden or false content are used at all. Just sensible titles, content & structuring are used.
| 8:04 pm on Mar 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google - Searching 4,285,199,774 web pages
32-bit integer maximum = 4,294,967,296
Maybe you have to wait in line for a docID. This would not only explain what we're discussing here, but would also explain that strange "Supplemental Index," which has never had a shred of logic behind it.
| 8:12 pm on Mar 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think the supplemental index is there as a last resort on long / odd search phrases.
In the event that someone types in something really bizarre to find a result, Google looks to the index in the hope that it will provide a relevant result - even if the result is dated.
This I what I understand it to be anyway.
| 8:13 pm on Mar 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Sorry Scarecrow I just read what you said again.
Yes, I guess that would explain the reason for the additional index.
| 8:49 pm on Mar 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
For those who weren't around last June, this docID issue was hashed out in this thread [webmasterworld.com]. More information is available if you search for "google docid" in Google (don't use the quotes).
| 9:33 pm on Mar 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>The only difference between the site that has been hit and the others is that a large number of pages can only be found via the index page.
pete, i am seeing that too. The pages I have missing only have one internal Inbound Link.
Could the new crawling system be set so that the page is only crawled on the second internal ibl (or the first external ibl). This would explain the sites that have huge deduction in googlebot hits.
Has anyone seen sites / pages that disproves this theory?
| 12:35 am on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
maybe we could start a quick survey:
Is your site an affiliate/datafeed/AdSense/directory/odp-clone site?
Which percentage of the results of site:yourdomain.com is supplemental result or just URL listing?
| 7:06 am on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Did you mean if site is using adsense code that might be get the bann from G or Only url might be listed in the site search page.
One of my site is having around 30% pages listed as supplemental results in Google. What are the possibilities....?
Second one doesn't have any adsense no affiliate, no datafeed, But still 25% pages of the site are listed as url's only.
What could be the reason.
| 7:38 am on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The question of the possibilities is what we try to understand...
| 8:53 am on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing directory pages being hit, admittedly with probable duplicate content....ie not many entries on these pages.
Also a suite of sites I know well who are espotting affiliates, but with lots of unique content have been hit, loosing 75% of their pages. There seems no pattern as to the pages that have been hit, some have pure espotting feeds and some not.
| 9:09 am on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Is it related to the internal linking structure?
It could be totally random - or are pages with only 1 link to them from 1 place now considered to be less important?....
| 12:27 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have two sites that have have been hit with no title or desctipion and now have no backlinks either and white PR since PR has been updated again. They both had PR 5 before with lots of links.
Is this the same issue being described and/or do I have a penalty?
| 1:19 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I got some stickies with URLs (go ahead if you like ;) ) and couldn't find anything these sites have in common so far except that they're bigger than an average personal homepage...
| 2:08 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
This has been happening to some pages on our site. I noticed a couple of the pages on our site had it happen 3 days ago. Then when I checked again today, the listings were fine for these pages.
However, some new pages had the problem. The strange thing about the new pages today is that they are my directory index files (examplesite.com/widget/). The pages within the category (/widget/red.html) are fine. And even stranger is that when I do a search for something specific that brings up a page in the category (like "red widgets") the category index page is second in the SERPS but it has the full listing - there is nothing wrong with it.
I did notice the other day that when my individual pages were having problems that the cache did not have the entire page saved (it stopped about halfway through the page).
| 2:19 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
We've been seeing this since the 12th March. Google only showing title / description and no page content in the SERPS - around 80,000 pages of content are affected across around 45 sites.
We run a large network of UK sites, and all but 1 or 2 are showing this. Our traffic has crumbled because of it.
p.s. could GG maybe comment on this thread?
[edited by: fasteddie_uk2001 at 2:30 pm (utc) on Mar. 17, 2004]
| 2:30 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am checking the site:mysite.com command for two sites this issue has occured to.
One of my sites has all of its pages listed but about 50% of all pages with no title and description and no cache. The site also has no backlinks and white pagerank.
Both of these sites have good links and good PR before this PR update that occured today.
Has anyone that has been experiencing this issue lost their PR and links today as well?
Any input to help me understand whats going on is appreciated.
| 3:04 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I don't want to speak to soon, but all our missing page info from the last 4-5 days has just reappeared in the serps (about 2:45pm GMT). Is anyone else seeing this?
| 3:34 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am not seeing pages return. :(.
| 3:37 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Sorry to hear that, hopefully they will come back shortly for you also. I know it's not much comfort now, but we were seeing the exact same thing as yourselves since 12th so hopfully only a matter of time for you and everyone else.
| 3:48 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for your words Fasteddie
The only thing I am concerned about is that I was in conversation via Sticky with another member and he could not see the problem performing the exact same search.
With Google having so many datacentres there is a good chance of older data appearing for a while and you could just be hitting this datacentre.
This is happening to small sites too (Less than 500 pages)
| 3:54 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My sites are less than 20 pages.
| 4:01 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It has happened to a couple of my sites, which are also less than 20 pages. It may be a bit off the original topic but I don't think that this is a big site issue.
Perhaps someone from Google will eventually comment. I just saw a pig flying past my window.
| 4:07 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So then it is happening on:-
Sites with lots of content,
Sites with lots of backlinks,
Sites with few backlinks,
Sites with affiliate content,
Sites without affilaite content,
Sites with Adsense,
Sites without Adsense,
Sites with Duplicate content,
Sites with Unique Content,
etc etc etc
I can not see the link between the sites having the problem :(
| 4:09 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Do you have now white PR and no backlinks?
| 4:17 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have seen pages with PR (Even after the update) that are showing the no title/no description.
I will sticky you.
| 4:19 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
One of my sites was showing PR but since this last PR update, it is no longer.
I wonder if what I am experiencing is something different than what is going on.
What do you think?
| 4:24 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I agree, I would be more worried if my PR went from a PR5 to a PR0.
Check who you are linking to etc and just hope the next crawl will bring better results :)
Only thing is the problem may not be your doing!
| 4:32 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I've checked all of my links and they all have PR and look good. Iam very selective w/who I link with.
| 4:42 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> So then it is happening on:- < long list>
Dayo, I think your point helps underline that shallow indexing is not just one thing.
| 6:01 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I agree, I would be more worried if my PR went from a PR5 to a PR0. |
Check who you are linking to etc and just hope the next crawl will bring better results :)
Aaaaargh! I have just noticed that my PR has dropped from 5 to zero today. Since my site started getting the treatment on January 31 I have always maintained my original PR5 - now this happens. Does anyone know what significance this holds?
I just don't know where to turn. In another thread a couple of weeks ago GG said that I may have had a penalty because I had a link to what they considered a "bad neighbourhood" (it used what they considered to be keyword stuffing). I immediately removed this link although I must admit that I did not see a problem with the site in question. The owner sells second user mechanical equipment and he had created a long list of equipment types at the bottom of his home page, each linking to another page on his site. I know about this equipment and if I were using Google to search for an item on his list I would have been delighted to find it this way.
Anyway, I immediately removed the link and ensured that my site was totally clean. GoogleGuy said that he would refer my problem to his engineering department and that it may take a week or so to sort out. Nothing happened until today and this was NOT what I was hoping for. It does not however make things any worse for me because I am getting NO traffic from Google anyway.
Does anyone know if there is any pattern here? Is my site likely to recover?