| 6:41 pm on May 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I've noticed changing values on several pages and went to double check it. I'm seeing different PageRank numbers coming from the 220.127.116.11 datacentre.
It's the only datacentre, so it might be experimenting or a revert back. Who knows.
| 11:07 am on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am trying to improve my position with some competitive keywords. I have experienced first positions never change their status while sites on the after 10th position vary change daily. My site vary their position from 8 to 18 every day.
I want to ask your opinion about that. It is supposed these sites doesn't vary their inbound links every day neither keyword density, etc. Why google change so much their positions? And why the first ones are fixed?
| 12:22 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Chuck Norris, it hasn't been my observation that first positions are more fixed those below it.
| 12:34 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Getting back to the "shuffling" I continue to see 3 different sets of results across the data centers.
Using my site name as keyword, the Google directory page with my listing continues to hog first place in the SERPs.
| 12:57 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|My index page features a list of links to all my internal pages that contain "free widget plans." And for a long time I ranked poorly because Google thought my page was about "twisted wonky bananas." |
It could be that google is taking the general opinion (from all those site scrappers) that your site is about twisted wonky bananas. Many probably not even listed in searches for their scrapping effort yet, so what you're seeing is age old.
Some pages that I have removed since half a year ago is still getting traffic from google daily, generally poor quality traffic that I had rather not have.
And with geo-targetting, I cannot even opt out of users from my country since I cannot sell anything to them.
| 12:58 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have settled on a single issue as to why my site is 50% url-only now.
In my case it is because of the large amount of boilerplate on each page - mostly links to internal pages. They have turned up the knob very high. I tried to make it so there were no more than 2 clicks to get to nearly any page on the site
Also, there is a large change in serps that I see in my niche. In particular my site's business name (includes niche subject) is now showing at 15th, before it was not to be found. Scaper sites that have my company's name are no longer appearing at the top.
I suspect that the increase dup content filter will change a lot of serp positions.
| 1:06 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Supplemental results stays in their index for a very long time. You can change it any way you want, it will be the same.
New pages are not being added, old non-existent pages are not being removed. If this is an update, well..
| 1:14 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|New pages are not being added, old non-existent pages are not being removed. If this is an update, well.. |
From what I've seen, new pages are being added, but not as quickly as before. (I.e., a week or two for a page linked from the home page instead of a day or two.)
| 1:28 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|From what I've seen, new pages are being added, but not as quickly as before. (I.e., a week or two for a page linked from the home page instead of a day or two.) |
I added 150 new pages that were cached and indexed in less than 24 hours last week.
| 1:29 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Did you have any increase in url-only pages with this update?
| 2:07 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Over half my site went URL - only....
Are these URL - only pages ever brought back into the index in future changes, or do you just write them off?
| 2:15 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Duplicate content just may be the culprit. If they have turned filter up full throttle this may explain why I have lost 3 positions. We manufacture a product and it is featured on some of the "big box" online retailers. In turn it is featured on 1000's of affilate sites. Where we have lost position is on the keyword for the product itself (for instance "widgets"). Our brand, for instance ("ACME widgets"), is mentioned frequently in the content on our website, thus may have an impact on product keyword "widgets".
I am wondering if I take out all references to our brand name ("ACME widgets") will this help any with our positioning for "widgets"? Objectively speaking, we should be within the top 5 positions for "widgets" taking into account SEO and that we are the industry leader with the oldest website.
Anybody have any thoughts or advice?
| 2:15 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<<50% url-only now. Duplicate Content!>>
I agree, although a few non-duplicates got hit as well - and a few very similar pages are still fully listed. Many were targeted to singular/plurals or semantically similar KW phrases.
<<There is a page for free "twisted" widget plan, free "wonky" widget plan, free "banana" widget plan, etc.>>
Could your pages have the same character - a lot of duplication? Sounds like it.
| 2:46 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I agree.. 80% of my url-only pages can be explained by dup content. 20% are a little strange.
However, Back in Feb I redid a lot of my pages to get rid of the first big dup-content pass. I used the NOINDEX meta tag to exclude google from a bunch of summary pages that re-hashed examples shown on other pages. It almost seems as though G is ignoring the noindex tag when evaluating dup content.
Or those noindexed pages are still in the index somewhere and getting evaluated.
| 2:53 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
One sure sign it ain't a major update ... this
thread ain't near long enough for a major shakeup
| 3:25 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Did you have any increase in url-only pages with this update?
No. I see a handful during a random check of site: listings, but there were a few before yesterday, too.
This update/shuffling/incremental indexing doesn't seem to have affected me much at all, except that site:sitename.com shows 14,000 pages, which is up from 12,900 on May 15 and is about 3.25 times the actual number of pages on my site.
| 3:36 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<<It almost seems as though G is ignoring the noindex tag when evaluating dup content.>>
I just added a whack of pages yesterday (first additions in a year) for a new product using NOINDEX NOFOLLOW.
Guess I'm about to find out....
Have you ever had an URL-only page come back into the index?
| 3:39 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
IMHO url only list is a transitional phase to supplemental result, if changes were made during the url only stage, it would still be reflected but once it goes into supplemental results, it would be quite a long time before the changes are seen in the index.
I got several supplemental pages that never get updated. This was because I scrapped a portion of my own page and add in a product image with it and google add those pages into the supplemental result.
My new pages are not being added but it probably because I do not have enough PR to go around. In fact the number of pages I have in google's index is reducing continuously.
| 3:52 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"IMHO url only list is a transitional phase "
Mine aren't going supplemental. They are going url-only and then being removed totally.
Re: supplemental coming back to normal.. in feb when this happened (to a much lesser degree). I didn't wait for google to re-evaluate the pages. I rewrote them and renamed them and used url-removal tool to get rid of old supplemental page. New page was in index within 2 days and got PR with the last PR update.
| 4:10 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for your comment.
I presume you rewrote the Feb. pages w/o the dup. content (as far as possible) and they have held on in the index. Sounds OK.
| 4:24 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Not ok... I have some (now) truely unique pages with two screens of text which went url-only. These pages were renamed in feb and had been doing fine. I think that the old page (which was a semi-duplicate page) is hidden somewhere in Google index. I have always been concerned that the site:mysite.com commmand has more pages than actually exist. And, the 'more page' number approximates the number of pages I removed with removal tool.
Maybe it is time for me to get a new domain and start over. The site did well for 4 years :(
| 4:40 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<<Not ok... I have some (now) truely unique pages with two screens of text which went url-only....the old page (which was a semi-duplicate page) is hidden somewhere in Google index.>>
Bummer. So the Google "remove URL" is window dressing as far as duplication goes.
Next month they'll find the same sentence on your new site! At this rate Google will be back to crawling a Web of 1.3 million pages in 2006....
| 5:38 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
so my site that yesterday ranked #199 for its domain name without www and .com is now #207 with no title nor desctiption but looking like this:
who can explain?
| 6:06 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There is a lot of repetition in my internal pages. The unique content of each page is largely graphical.
I don't see how this might affect my front page.
Should I spend weeks adding varying textual content? What a waste of time...
| 6:16 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Anybody have any thoughts or advice?"
Your non-www root URL is 404. That's not good, and you've got duplicate and inconsistent linking. Fix your site's problems and you should be fine, or at least better off.
| 6:17 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Maybe it is time for me to get a new domain and start over. The site did well for 4 years :( |
I wouldn't if I were you. Your site should still be bringing in some customers from yahoo and msn.
I recently bought an expired domain and even though it is not getting any google or yahoo traffic, it is getting repeat visitors from links all over the web and I just need to theme the site previous products or services and it converts well enough without very much effort.
For my main site, my traffic from google has dropped to only 20% of what it was actually getting but somehow yahoo is ranking me better at the time when google drop my position. What I got from google used to be 4-5 times yahoo but now yahoo is bringing in more. msn much lesser than both but surprising converts better.
Everyday my log shows pages with same hits and visitors (eg. 10 hits / 10 visitors) which obviously is a bot that is downloading the html but not the images.
There are so many scrapper sites copying my pages to the extent I don't know what each is copying and I don't really care anymore. If adsense decides to ban them, they will die a natural death.
| 6:19 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|If adsense decides to ban them, they will die a natural death. |
I suspect that, instead of banning scraper sites, AdSense will trust Google Search to make them irrelevant at some point in the future.
| 6:31 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
To those who are URL only or 'going supplemental'... I hate to say the usual, but wait...
About a month ago, I sent a reinclusion request to G, because most of my site was supplemental. Within a few days, every thing went supplemental (like someone pushed a button). Then dropped to URL only. After that, they started re-indexing all URL's with full titles and descriptions. Today, after changing nothing, I have more full pages indexed than ever before, so I think it might be worth giving it a little time before 'jumping'.
| 6:47 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I was hoping the same thing... I thought that maybe this is G's strange way of clearing everything out and starting over. But it sure is a back-asswards way to do it. I didn't make too many changes.. just reduced the navigation boilerplate overhead on 30% of the pages - should improve keyword focus anyway.
| 7:51 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
just noticed some huge crosslinking network spamers have disappear.
| 7:56 pm on May 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Odd, my site is showing the pagerank from pre-last update on two datacenters. Anyone else noticing some PR fluctuation?
| This 174 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 174 ( 1 2 3 4  6 ) > > |