homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.179.48
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 819 message thread spans 28 pages: < < 819 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 28 > >     
Google Update Bourbon Part 4
GoogleGuy

WebmasterWorld Senior Member googleguy us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 12:02 am on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Continued from part 3 here: [webmasterworld.com...]


I did the rounds to check on the state of various data updates. I'd estimate that the "0.5" (not algorithmic changes, but rather responses to various spam/porn complaints + processing reinclusion requests) should go out this weekend sometime or possibly Monday. There should be a binary push this week to improve a corner-case of CJK-related search, and that new binary should have the hooks to turn on the third set of data. Regarding finishing up the second piece of data, there's still two data centers with older data. Those data centers will probably be switched over by Monday. By Monday, 2.5 of the 3.5 things will probably be on.

 

Atticus



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 8:10 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

sb,

"You could have some other problem, but ignoring a plainly obvious problem makes no sense."

It makes sense to me not to endager the traffic I get from Yahoo and MSN, which are not effected in the least by my "problem."

This makes me skeptical of the assertation that it is "my problem," and not the problem of the search engine that can't find my site while others can and do.

And Google Images sure finds me easily enough. When Google wants to frame my pages, they know where they are, but otherwise, forget about it...

danny

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 8:10 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

A search for yoursitename without the .com reveals the first result is probably causing you major problems too with all those 302s

That's just the result of Google indexing a broken link somewhere. Compare
[google.com...]
[google.com...]
I don't think those are evidence that Google or Apple have problems with 302 hijacking.

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 8:16 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Believe me, if you read the hundreds of threads in the past year, you wouldn't say "believe me".

Google tries to combine stuff like / and /index.html, but they sometimes fail. There is nothing that says the index.html file has to be the default file. People post here of having both index.html and index.php and default.htm and other files.

But again, the 302s would seem a more obvious reason for concern.

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 8:23 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

"I don't think those are evidence that Google or Apple have problems with 302 hijacking"

You mean aside from Google's main page (not the adsense page) being hijacked last month?

It's a good idea to read webmasterworld regularly. This stuff has been dealt with ad nauseum.

danny

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 8:27 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

People post here of having both index.html and index.php and default.htm and other files.

Sure, that could get you into a big mess. Do a bit of messing around with redirects and it could be even uglier...

But I've never seen a site with problems just from having links both with and without index.html. For one thing, there's no way to stop incoming links from omitting (or even adding) an index.html.

And there is no 302 hijacking problem with my site: I've been looking for evidence of one for some time, without finding anything at all.

danny

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 8:29 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

You mean aside from Google's main page (not the adsense page) being hijacked last month?

That was at best an *attempted* hijack. It wasn't indexed ahead of Google's main page by Google (or any other search engine).

reseller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 8:45 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Folks

Please read GoogleGuy recent and previous posts. You might find both answers and solutions to several of problems discussed here, but not all problems of course ;-)

MyWifeSays

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 8:47 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

helleborine,

fix your links first before thinking about your pages being similar.

one of the factors to do with hijacking is pr, if another page redirects to yours and his a higher pr it will pretty likely replace yours in the serps.

by having multiple url's for your home page you are sharing your pr between multiple pages. by having broken links you are wasting pr, by not linking back to your home page you are not passing pr back to it.

if you fix all your linking problems you will stand a good chance of returning, give it 3 weeks or so before thinking about changing anything else.

you need to make sure all your links (and those on sites that link to you [if possible]) link to a single url representing your home page. Fix the broken links I pointed out to you. Link from all your interior pages back to your home page. Don't use relative links, use full paths including http://

oldpro

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 9:10 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm not taking the side of anyone's debate here. This is about the bourbon update and a few of you are arguing this and that about what might have been the cause of somebody's demise as it relates to bourbon.

I might not know as much as you guys about all this technical stuff, but thru all of these so-called updates on google and for years my simple little website has been in the top ten for my serps.

As far as html/css...I keep it simple and without errors...use absolute urls...plan ahead where I don't have to bother with 301's...if you have to do a 301 it is because you have to correct a mistake that could have been avoided in the first place (most of the time anyway, there are only a very few unavoidable situations). Never bothered to go on some link building rampage...it seems that some of the ones that did have been hurt by bourbon because they submitted to scrapper directories.

Now...to adhere to the rules of webmaster world and stay on topic...

The fat lady has sung...bourbon is done.

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 9:10 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

"It wasn't indexed ahead of Google's main page by Google (or any other search engine)."

Google's main page was not ranked first for a search for the word: google

It didn't last long, but plenty of people saw and posted about it.

Dayo_UK

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 9:21 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Janiss

Poor Kitty Cat!

I have had this happen to sites - by the end of the day it has reverted back though.

It is a bit weird - pages seem to go from indexed, url only, non-indexed to indexed again. (previously you may have expected them to stay url only.)

Dayo_UK

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 9:27 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Flip - a good tool that rhymes with Google doesn't look like they are providing a dc check anymore.

Anyone know a similar tool - please sticky me.

Ta.

reseller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 9:48 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

oldpro

>Now...to adhere to the rules of webmaster world and stay on topic...

The fat lady has sung...bourbon is done.<

TOS

30- You are not allowed to post that The Fat Lady has sung, without at least 3 members have heard her doing so :-)

MyWifeSays

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 11:05 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

could somebody explain this new style of hijacking. I never looked before when japanese's post was available - just assumed it was the normal type where header and snippet for a page appears but with the url of a page that redirects to yours.

activeco

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 11:36 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google's main page was not ranked first for a search for the word: google

Actually, I remember the "adsense" issue.
A guy was doing redirection to official Adsense page and was first in results.

The interesting thing is that he is on the second place now with his real page.

japanese

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 11:53 am on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Novice,

Fab question... All a gigantic company like google need do is to do what they preach. The say they like new content and that they will have no mercy on a stale site. Yet their webmaster guidelines are taking root in concrete. Littered across a dismal few pages are cryptic anologies of how they like websites based on algorithms of a few years ago and I bet you that algo change must correspond to changes in guidelines as well.

Lesser companies than google are more articulate in helping the people that brought them stardom.

No mention of any help in there for 302 crippled sites.

There URL-CONSOLE is a deadly weapon of mass destruction that was created some time ago on the behest of a webmaster. It is truley an case of, I could not care less why you use it, if you do without nowing how it works you will pay a heavy price. A sort of russian roulette game if you like.

Brett_Tabke

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 12:06 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Now that we have a few peoples attention - leave the rants and raves for another board and leave the cries of the sky is falling at the server door. Those involved know exactly what I mean. If you can't play nice, don't play at all. Thanks.

Ok, back to the looking at this current update.

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 5:56 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Actually, I remember the "adsense" issue."

No, the adsense page was a different thing.

Clint



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 6:24 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

He quite clearly says changing is a good idea. Having the 301 is a positive step, but its silly to think its some massive coincidence that all these problem sites have canonical issues in common.

Steve can you please explain this "canonical issue"? I'd like to know I have any of these.
Thank you.

reseller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 6:40 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Today I see business as usal on the DCs and the serps. I think that the 0.5 Bourbon update shall be implemented first tomorrow Monday, as per GGs post.

Or... have any of you noticed any change?

BillyS

WebmasterWorld Senior Member billys us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 6:42 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've been away all weekend, sorry if this is a repeat (glad Brett is asking to get back on topic)

Has anyone noticed the that a lot of supplemental results are missing?

I used to rank ~#90 (lately) for my own website name, but that was listed as supplemental. It was also not pointing to my home page.

This afternoon, I am ranking around #190 but that is my home page (Dmoz description). It's also not a supplemental page. My website name used to return about 2,500 results. Today it is returning around 9,000. Is anyone else seeing this? I thought that GG mentioned something about cleaning up supplemental. Is this the 0.5 kicking in over the weekend?

Janiss

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 6:51 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

When you do a search on "name of my site," now my .com is appearing on page 2, about halfway down (after scrapers, spam sites, sites that link to me and sites that link to my newsfeed). When you put my site name in quotation marks, I'm on the top of page two. Before, my .net (which redirected to .com) and an old Tripod site of mine (which links to my .com site) were on page one. Is this progress? I'm not even sure.

And also, the description that appears now is from my "description" meta tag, not the content on my homepage. The date shown is June 3, but the cache date is June 4 GMT.

The DC shown from cache is 66.102.7.104

g1smd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 6:53 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I was away for a few days. Previously I reported that several weeks ago Google had added back in to the results all three versions of the URL for all 118 pages of a site that they had previously cleaned up the listings on. This was a site that originally showed www and non-www as duplicate content, and had added a 301 redirect early in March.

By the beginning of May the site then had all 118 pages now being shown as non-www and all with a trailing / on the URL. All of the listed pages also had a full title and description. All of the other versions of the URLs had been removed from Google SERPs by that time.

At the start of the update, just two weeks ago or so, they added back into Google results all of the www pages (both with and without a trailing / on the URL) and all the non-www pages that were without a trailing / on the URL, all 118 pages for all three URLs. All those pages were without title and description. It looked like Google had broken the way that 301s worked, and that maybe they were going to re-spider the web to pick up the curent server status of all the URLs and re-find the redirects, then perhaps rebuild their database.

While I was away the listings have been cleaned up. There are now 118 (non-www with trailing / on URL) pages listed just as before, and just one www page without title and description still showing up.

reseller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 6:57 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Lets recall GoogleGuy msg #1 on this thread for the benifit of further discussion about the 0.5 part of the update:

>I did the rounds to check on the state of various data updates. I'd estimate that the "0.5" (not algorithmic changes, but rather responses to various spam/porn complaints + processing reinclusion requests) should go out this weekend sometime or possibly Monday. There should be a binary push this week to improve a corner-case of CJK-related search, and that new binary should have the hooks to turn on the third set of data. Regarding finishing up the second piece of data, there's still two data centers with older data. Those data centers will probably be switched over by Monday. By Monday, 2.5 of the 3.5 things will probably be on.<

Clint



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 6:59 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've been away all weekend, sorry if this is a repeat (glad Brett is asking to get back on topic)
Has anyone noticed the that a lot of supplemental results are missing?

I used to rank ~#90 (lately) for my own website name, but that was listed as supplemental. It was also not pointing to my home page.

This afternoon, I am ranking around #190 but that is my home page (Dmoz description). It's also not a supplemental page. My website name used to return about 2,500 results. Today it is returning around 9,000. Is anyone else seeing this? I thought that GG mentioned something about cleaning up supplemental. Is this the 0.5 kicking in over the weekend?

I only recently got back on the 1st page again for my biz name, but that's of little consolation when I still appear NOWHERE for hundreds of phrases where I was once 1st. Interesting that when I search for my biz name in quotes, I'm way down on the bottom of the first page and before that are hits for one of my OTHER pointed/fwd'd domains! There's two listings for the fwd'd domain, the index page and indented below it some other page on the domain. I'm not sure what you mean by "supplemental", sorry.

MyWifeSays

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 7:01 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Somebody, please explain what is meant by supplemental results and supplemental index.

uksports

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 7:12 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Quite remarkable - have just entered a query where the whole first page of results are supplementary pages - not a single primary result until number 11 - surely that's not quite as it should be - in GG parlance, we're at stage minus 10.5!

crobb305

WebmasterWorld Senior Member crobb305 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 7:19 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)


"I don't think those are evidence that Google or Apple have problems with 302 hijacking"

Some of us have been observing/studying it for over a year. So just sit back and take notes. Read through some of the 1,000+ posts spanning dozens of threads created here at WW since May 2004. I believe Google is working to fix the problem, but to say the problem did not or does not exist is short sighted.

Dayo_UK

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 7:46 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Just to echo UKSport - but contradict BillyS

I am still seeing lots of supplementals. As I mentioned previously - they may be listed/ordered correctly based on relevance but the data is very old.

E.G. I am getting hits to pages that are well out of date.

Reseller - mmm - I am seeing movement - slight (and if we were not in update mode I would not normally think anything of it - but there is movement)

Dayo_UK

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 7:47 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>> I believe Google is working to fix the problem.....

I really hope so too - however this update (as of yet) does not support that thought.

theBear

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 8:01 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

crobb305, I think it is more like dozens of threads with a number exceeding 1000 messages and going back to at least 2003. And discussions on slashdot and other forums.

I think if you want to see it in action that a search on Adsense and the magic word might even turn up some screen shots. I know I have a picture of it.

uksports, I've seen that happen in the past. Google is saying that the relavent pages are in supplemental status . The reason, well who really knows. I did a search once where the relavent page was in the omitted due to being similar to the all ready provided results (it was the only relavent result) it was both omitted and marked supplemental. I've also done searches where the first relavent results were close to the end of what Google shows.

This stuff isn't a slam dunk 100% correct, update it in a blink of an eye deal. It takes tons of time just to move the data around.

g1smd, I knew you had said something about those 301'd pages coming back into the index in full glory. I just couldn't find that post to show the boss and I thought (and he probably did as well) I had hit the happyjuice a bit too hard and imagined it. I feel a lot better now.

A cleanup of supplementals would almost be a requirement for a full fix of the 302 situation.

As well as to rejoin now correctly 301'd but otherwise not spidered pages that went supplemental because of being outgunned by their brothers and sisters.

How or when Google would do this I don't know.

This 819 message thread spans 28 pages: < < 819 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 28 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved