kaled
msg:218898 | 1:20 pm on Sep 8, 2004 (gmt 0) |
Assuming that a penalty has been lifted - and that is a big assumption, transient effects of this sort may result from the size and distribution of Google's database(s). In other words, serps may be calculated from one database and snippets, etc. may be drawn from another and synchronisation between databases is imperfect. Such transients probably will not last more than a few days so cross all your fingers and toes, etc. Kaled.
|
rfgdxm1
msg:218899 | 9:03 pm on Sep 8, 2004 (gmt 0) |
Logic 101. Correlation doesn't prove causation. You may not have been penalized. You could have hit an algo quirk.
|
claimsweb
msg:218900 | 7:27 am on Sep 9, 2004 (gmt 0) |
An algo quirk may well be the cause. Im now seeing all my pages on this site gradualy find their way back with full descriptions being shown and cache dates etc. Curiously the home page is one of few that hasnt made a full recovery but there is hope for some optimism.
|
Marcia
msg:218901 | 8:05 am on Sep 9, 2004 (gmt 0) |
>>You may not have been penalized. You could have hit an algo quirk. True, there are too many sites out there with loads of paid links that don't seem to have been touched. It could be something else entirely. URL only seems to be a normal thing when pages are in the process of slipping out or coming back in to the index. Did MIA pages show as being in the supplemental index at any time?
|
claimsweb
msg:218902 | 8:31 am on Sep 9, 2004 (gmt 0) |
Marcia Not sure what you mean by "supplemental index" but all pages were wiped of title/descriptions/PR in June but now bit by bit are now being reinstated. Im at the stage where 98% are back to normal in terms of their appearance on G but sadly the ranking is still nowhere near what it was across the site. The home page though is making a serps comeback all on its own yet as explained, its one of the 2% of pages that doesnt seem to have been fully populated with title / descrpt. etc
|
steveb
msg:218903 | 9:05 am on Sep 9, 2004 (gmt 0) |
Change your internal links from www.domain.com/index.htm to www.domain.com/ and maybe redirect domain.com to www.domain.com/ (since domain.com is a 404 page) <assuming I'm looking at the right site there are a lot of supplemental results and url only>
|
claimsweb
msg:218904 | 9:21 am on Sep 9, 2004 (gmt 0) |
Steveb Can you elaborate on that a wee bit? Are you saying that by removing the index.htm syntax that will assist the "recovery" as far as the home page is concerned? And to do this across the site for all pages linking back to base? I dont get the domain.com/ >>> domain.com bit either <whimper>
|
steveb
msg:218905 | 9:33 am on Sep 9, 2004 (gmt 0) |
Your site, guessing from your name, shows your main page when you go to:
www.yoursite.com
when you go to
yoursite.com
without the www, the page does not display (for me anyway). I can imagine this could easily have gotten your domain lost. Ask in one of the webmastering forums how to do a 301 redirect of yoursite.com to www.yoursite.com As for the linking to yoursite.com/index.htm... what you described is very common these days, and from what I've seen, all the sites effected have some sort of confusing/inconsistent linking. You have links to both www.yoursite.com/index.htm and www.yoursite.com Make all your linking consistently go to simple root url: www.yoursite.com/ If nothing else it can't hurt. You have two peculiar issues, the inconsistent linking and domain.com being 404. Like everybody else, fix your webmastering issues and then see what happens.
|
claimsweb
msg:218906 | 9:51 am on Sep 9, 2004 (gmt 0) |
OK
Thats clear enough even for me
Thanks for the advice
|
Marcia
msg:218907 | 10:04 am on Sep 9, 2004 (gmt 0) |
Ditto steveb on consistent navigation. There was just a recent thread on that. It's been going on further back for a long time, there was a problem with a site I looked at narrowed down to that as far back as last year. There have been problems with sites not using the consistency in navigation, and it's not uncommon. I watched one site fall out months back doing that - with most pages going supplemental results. According to what I've seen on one of the data centers it's been figured out, but they're not back yet. It's an extreme case, with them linking back to the homepage with and without the www both from every page on the site - so if anything ever looked like dodgy stuff that's it, even if it's not deliberate.
|
steveb
msg:218908 | 10:08 am on Sep 9, 2004 (gmt 0) |
"on one of the data centers" 216.239.57.98?
|
Marcia
msg:218909 | 10:16 am on Sep 9, 2004 (gmt 0) |
I'll check that data center to see Steve, the site in question is one I keep an eye out for to see what they do next; it's a classic case of consistent common foul-ups. OK, here is the recent discussion on the www and non-www problem [webmasterworld.com...] Added:
That one and 216.109.117.147 Steve, back on both but the ranking differs by 3 places. Another one I looked at gave it higher. BTW, 216.109.117.135 is now giving a 404.
|
nuevojefe
msg:218910 | 4:03 am on Sep 10, 2004 (gmt 0) |
Any idea if off site inconsistent linking would have a similar effect?
|
|
