homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.93.128
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

Visit PubCon.com
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 1225 message thread spans 41 pages: < < 1225 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 41 > >     
Dealing with the consequences of Bourbon Update
Which changes has Bourbon brought about & How to deal with them?
reseller




msg:799260
 3:41 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Assuming that the greatest part of of the latest Google update (Bourbon) is completed, its rather important to do some damage assessments, study the changes brought about by Bourbon and suggest ways to deal with them.

We need to keep this thread focused on the followings:

- Changes on your own site ranking on the serps (lost & gained positions or disappearance of the site).

- Changes you have noticed on the new serps (both google.com and your local google site) especially in regards to the nature of the top 10 or 20 ranking sites.

- Stability of the serps. I.e do you get the same serps when you run the same query within the same day or 2-3 successive days (both google.com and your local google site).

- Effective ethical measures to deal with the above mentioned changes.

Thanks.

 

sailorjwd




msg:799440
 10:55 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Steveb, ( a few of these points apply to your post)

I read them old posts... No solution there either so what's the point.

Track down and remove 302's - are you out of your mind?

There is nothing that any of us should do other than write decent white-hat sites for our visitors.

Move my site to another host who has a clue how to implement www to non-www consolidation? you must be kidding.

They only thing we, who are affected, can do is to publicize our plight and attempt to get this issue visible in the media and to the market analysts.

There's gotta be somebody here who knows someone or works for a company that knows someone! Isn't there? :(((

steveb




msg:799441
 11:08 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

"No solution there either so what's the point."

Um, the solution is right there, and has been implemented by many people. Ignore it if you will.

"Track down and remove 302's - are you out of your mind?"

Nope. You seem to be on a mission to lose your own site though.

"There is nothing that any of us should do other than write decent white-hat sites for our visitors."

False, and quite obviously the point. Some folks aggressively choose to not help Google understand and properly index their sites. "There is nothing that any of us should do..." is ludicrous. There are plenty of things you should do to help Google. One is have a site map. Another is do what Google Guy suggested. You don't HAVE to, but why on earth not?

"Move my site to another host who has a clue how to implement www to non-www consolidation? you must be kidding."

Nope. You must be kidding in this post...

"They only thing we, who are affected, can do is to publicize our plight and attempt to get this issue visible in the media and to the market analysts."

The issue that you choose to complain about something you can do something about? Please. Google is a business. Sometimes they suck at what they do. Stop the presses. Sometimes they don't accomplish what they want because webmasters choose to not help them. No news in that, people have been self-destructive for centuries.

It is a Google problem that they fail to 100% of the time find canonical pages. It is a webmaster problem if they choose to not do what they can to help Google find its way.

sailorjwd




msg:799442
 11:20 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Mission?

I'm on no mission except to run two businesses.

I did contact those 302'ers. The told me to kiss their butts.

I complained to google about showing links as pages - they ignore me.

I wouldn't give a poo about google if it wasn't that in my field - db consulting - 98% of the searchers search G. Originally 80% of my visitors came via MSN.

I don't have any www/non-www significant issue since I fixed them in Feb.

I guess 90% of you butt-heads (no offense meant) are website developers. I'm not.

chopin2256




msg:799443
 11:32 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

How will I deal with Bourbon:

1. Remove my hijacked pages (emailed Google, and they must have removed them, becuase I don't see them anymore).
2. Purchase a VPS and put my site on a dedicated IP.
3. Try that 301 redirect after getting new server (have to give up frontpage ftp though).

In the mean time, I am going to take a break from designing my current site and start a new one. This way, I have a backup in case one site tanks.

Interesting note:

My domain name is unique. It had about 2 results when I purchased it 10 months ago. In March, about the 8th month, it had about 100 results (all results had my link). April, it had 115 results, May, about 130 results. Now, it shot up to 900 results, and it keeps growing (all results have my link). Hmmmm, why the sudden fast growth.

steveb




msg:799444
 12:28 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

"I did contact those 302'ers. The told me to kiss their butts."

You can remove them yourself. Read the 302 threads to know how to do that.

sailorjwd




msg:799445
 12:31 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Steve,

You think I'm stupid?

I did remove those that I could... it doesn't work for every one of them.

From now on you may talk to the hand.

bumpski




msg:799446
 1:11 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

chopin2256

Front page is fixable with a 301 redirect on the apache server. Here's the info:
Use at your own risk! The redirect code came from webmasterworld. I'm not absolutely confident about it.

The info on "Options +FollowSymLinks" came from the web and is what makes FP go. I'd like to credit the author but of course can't! Make sure you get all those FP subdirs!

# This example redirects #*$!.com to www.#*$!.com and still supports Frontpage

root .htaccess file

RewriteEngine On
Options +FollowSymLinks
RewriteBase /
RewriteCond %{http_host} ^([a-z]+\.com) [NC]
RewriteRule (.*) [%1...] [R=301,L]

Also in the following Front Page support subdirectories
_vti_bin
_vti_bin/_vti_adm
_vti_bin/_vti_aut

For each .htaccess file found in the paths above, change

Options None
to:
Options +FollowSymLinks

SAME for all subwebs, lots of .htaccess files.

OR POSSIBLY ELIMINATE the "Options None" which should eliminate an "Override" allowing the options in your top level .htaccess file dominate.

I have not completely done this myself, still need to do all my subwebs, but I'm FP'ing away on my primary domain. So again, you should revise the _vti directories .htaccess files in the same way as above. I don't specifically know what "FollowSymLinks" (Follow Symbolic Links?) does, but it does make FP work. Check your webs error logs for diagnostic messages, they sort of hint you need this option if you don't have it in.

Hope this helps!

Guru1111




msg:799447
 1:33 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi guys,
Can someone please give me a clue as to what happened with my site? I used to be ranked 11 for my key term. Then one day I wasn't in the top 1000 at all. Then the next I was, then the next I wasn't. Then about 2 weeks ago I wasn't in the top 1000 at all, and I still am not. I was hoping as the Bourbon update comes to an end I would regain my position but still I am not even in the top 1000. Seems like an overly dramatic drop from 11 to not in top 1000. My site is still in Google's index because when I search for www.mysite.com I show up, and for some unuseful keyworkds I show up, but my visitor numbers are around 10% of what they were a month ago. Can anyone give me any help as to how to regain my position?

Thanks,
Guru

max_mm




msg:799448
 2:03 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi guys,
Can someone please give me a clue as to what happened with my site? I used to be ranked 11 for my key term. Then one day I wasn't in the top 1000 at all. Then the next I was, then the next I wasn't. Then about 2 weeks ago I wasn't in the top 1000 at all, and I still am not. I was hoping as the Bourbon update comes to an end I would regain my position but still I am not even in the top 1000. Seems like an overly dramatic drop from 11 to not in top 1000. My site is still in Google's index because when I search for www.mysite.com I show up, and for some unuseful keyworkds I show up, but my visitor numbers are around 10% of what they were a month ago. Can anyone give me any help as to how to regain my position?
Thanks,
Guru

Work on getting your site indexed on yahoo and Pray that it does, fast.

Not much you can do about google really. This search engine is broken and it might take the new PHDs at the plex months before they get a grip back. Their ranking algo is busted and is patched to the point of no return. It no longer behaves like a proper indexing agent but rather a hit and miss (penalizing anything it finds) erratic bug wrecking havoc on many innocent web sites. They've all been replaced by adsense revenue generating scrapers, your site included.

Welcome to the club BTW, a rather very large club if I may had.

God help us all.

[edited by: max_mm at 2:20 am (utc) on June 13, 2005]

walkman




msg:799449
 2:09 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Guru1111,
not much can be said without more details about your site, but Google lately has been acting weird, and many sites innocent have been hurt. We're waiting for this update to be finished, hopefully things will be fixed. Other than on 1 or 2 DCs, my site is back as of 10.13 PM est. Not sure if specific keywords are at the same places as before, but will worry about that later on. Let's hope

[edited by: walkman at 2:14 am (utc) on June 13, 2005]

sailorjwd




msg:799450
 2:14 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Guru,

I suspect they are working on a new build and should be compiling a few binaries soon. Once they get them bench tested they'll push them out before the next stock holders meeting.

(tongue in cheek, bourbon in hand)

steveb




msg:799451
 2:32 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

wow, bumpski I've never seen anyone solve that, despite seeing dozens of threads on it. I just tried:

RewriteEngine On
Options +FollowSymLinks
RewriteBase /
RewriteCond %{http_host} ^(sitename+\.com) [NC]
RewriteRule (.*) [sitename.com...] [R=301,L]

The redirect works and frontpage publishes. Any technogeeko know a reason that this entry would be bad?

outland88




msg:799452
 3:11 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Walkman was your site hit in the early stages of Bourbon?

walkman




msg:799453
 3:18 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> Walkman was your site hit in the early stages of Bourbon?

the site I'm talking about was hit on February.

outland88




msg:799454
 3:44 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

So you're saying basically that you were unaffected by Boubon but your site that dropped in February has just returned. In other words you've been making fixes since then. I remember the threads but I try to forget until another blows through.

walkman




msg:799455
 4:17 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> In other words you've been making fixes since then

well, I moved the old content to a another domain and changed EVERYTHING.

However, I changed things about 2 months ago, and only now my site seems to be back (I got excited before too, only to see my site trashed again); I don't think the new content has anything to do with it.

activeco




msg:799456
 5:06 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

If google's algo is so damn stupid that it doesn't understand that www.mysite.com is the same as mysite.com, then that's their freaking problem, not mine.

Unfortunately, it is your problem in the first place, otherwise you wouldn't be here.
Besides, there is absolutely no reason for any subdomain to be considered the same as root domain.
Google is playing according to the rules here.

reseller




msg:799457
 5:56 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

chopin2256

>In the mean time, I am going to take a break from designing my current site and start a new one. This way, I have a backup in case one site tanks.<

IMHO, one of the most effective measures to deal with the consequences of Bourbon and future unpredicted Google updates is to have SEVERAL (not only one) emergency (backup) domains which are already indexed and ready to host your contents should any "update" hit your current site.

And Folks!

Its always a good thing to have a "PLAN B" for whatever we do ;-)

fearlessrick




msg:799458
 6:01 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Sorry to disagree with this:
Besides, there is absolutely no reason for any subdomain to be considered the same as root domain.
Google is playing according to the rules here.

Yahoo, MSN, Exalead, alltheweb, etc., etc., have no problems resolving www and non-www. Google does. Maybe they don't. I really don't care. How many layers of BS are webmasters supposed to layer their sites with in order to please the barons of search?

Registration and conformation to acceptable standards should be enough. When we all have to submit urine samples to prove we're the site registrant maybe then you'll understand where I'm coming from. It cuts many ways.

Note to walkman: good for you.

danny




msg:799459
 6:03 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

I used to think this kind of thing was Google's problem, and that I should just wait for them to "get it right". But I'm increasingly thinking that's not going to happen and that it is my problem, that I have to change what I do in the light of Google's foibles and failings.

As I see it, there are two possible approaches. One is to try to deal with the symptoms - to set up a second site just for Google users, to change my TITLEs and headers so the perverse anti-weighting that applies to penalised sites is minimised, and so forth. The other is to try to change my site's link structure - both internal and incoming/outgoing - so it stops triggering whatever anti-spam filter of Google's it's triggered.

The problem with the latter is trying to work out which way to go. Should I add more outgoing links? Should I remove non-essential internal navigation links? Should I go on a wild link hunting spree? It's going to be jumping in the dark, but after nearly a year under Google penalties of some sort (referrals dropped to 50% of normal in August 2004 and are now down to under 10% of normal) staying "where I am" is starting to seem foolish.

Beachboy




msg:799460
 6:09 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

<<As I see it, there are two possible approaches. One is to try to deal with the symptoms - to set up a second site just for Google users....>>

Most of my sites were unaffected by this update but I am building backup sites anyway, I think it's just a matter of time until I get hit. I've lost all faith that Google can effectively identify the most relevant sites in the SERPs.

steveb




msg:799461
 6:33 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Both MSN and Yahoo sometimes index and rank duplicates like www versus non-www. What they perhaps don't do, to oversimplify it, is as aggressively discard (what they consider) noncanonical pages.

Dayo_UK




msg:799462
 8:44 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

helleborine

That's little solace for webmasters with sites that are hardly seen by humans anymore.

..... and attributing your PR to its phantom page rather than your own legitimate one.

Did not want to make light of Hijacking - Just trying to underline that Hijacking and Canonical URL issues go hand in hand.

I think there PR (the Hijacks page PR) of that Phantom Page becomes your PR (for the Canonical Page).

reseller




msg:799463
 9:22 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Friends

I have been keeping an eye on the following two DCs, and have noticed that my google.com (at moment 66.249.85.104) has been showing the same serps as the said 2 DCs for the last few days. Today I can see top 5 sites exchanging positions:

64.233.183.99

64.233.183.104

Dayo_UK

How does google UK look like this morning ;-)

Johan007




msg:799464
 9:30 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

How does google UK look like this morning ;-)

Nothing in the stats yet but the SERPS OMG yes its much better! Even the .com from the UK. I am not showing up the penalised filter google-hack though that now looks broken to me!

dgdclynx




msg:799465
 10:11 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Sorry to butt in but the collapse in my hits the past few days has been remarkable. I have many different areas on my site and they all have dropped a hundred places or more. The most obvious one to drop is still 1 on Yahoo and 2 on MSN but is 134 on Google. The loss of readership is very discouraging. This is much worse then the last Google update when things eventually returned to normal.

Dayo_UK




msg:799466
 10:11 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Reseller.

>>>How does google UK look like this morning ;-)

Not much change. Canonical URL problem is not fixed yet.

I think from now on in every post of mine I will mention Canonical urls somewhere until they are fixed :)

Dayo_UK




msg:799467
 10:21 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

dgdclynx

Could be a Canonical URL problem.

If its the site in your profile you show a 404 for the non-www (it also has a PR0) - anyone know if this is OK for Google - or better to do a 301?

That one was easy to get Canonical in

Clint




msg:799468
 11:42 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clint
I had a look at your site and one of the others. I notice that your 'feeder' (ccb) links back to your main site without the www.

Checking for links to the feeder there are a lot from your mail archive where you put both the main and feeder sites links in without the www. A spam network algo might pick up that up the majority of links to the feeder are from a 'possible untrustworthy source'. And it might pick up that the PC mail archive's only external links are to your two sites (and the mail archive pages have reasonable Pagerank).

So, I can see a potential www. problem (well, problem for Google but not the other SEs) and one possible similarity with a 'spam network' pattern of links. But it would be a very severe (and plain 'wrong') algo that flagged you up as suspicious (unless the mail-archive site has been used for previous spamming by others in the way that Geocities site directory has and you have been charged with guilt by association).

From my review, Clint, you're innocent and Google has the problem.

I addressed some of this in sticky mail to you. I don't know what you mean by "feeder" and "mail archive", I don't have any mail archive anywhere. Yes, I never used the www to any of my outside sites since it's not needed. It just takes up more space. I indicated in an earlier post that all of my sites now except for one are 301'd to the www version. The one that is not, is 301'd to the non-www version since its non-www version had a higher PR. It was the opposite with the other sites.

I don't know if I can go into any detail yet, but suffice to say that I know for a fact there should not be any "manual" penalties on my site. This means the algo targeted me (and no doubt hundreds of thousands of others as well), when it had no business doing so. This is PROOF that this new "algo" is ******-up really bad. It will be the downfall of Google if they do not fix it. I will not, nor cannot comment any further on this last paragraph.

Clint




msg:799469
 11:51 am on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Check your stickymail now, Clint. Sorry for the delay, but I was asleep. I'm in a way different timezone than the rest of you. :-)

Must've been the other Billy you were talking to... I'm Billy B. There is also a BillyS here.

Got it, thanks again. Yeah, BillyS was a bit confused understandably so that who originally replied to me saying he knew of no such tool! That's why I was also confused.

So, to any of you that have used this tool, what's up with it? It doesn't make any sense or appear to work. I tried some of the phrases where I was 1st on the 1st page WITHOUT the filter and I'm still no where to be found! I don't get it. The *ONLY* difference I see between the regular and without filter search is I'm 1st on the 1st page for my biz name. I'd like to know from where they get this "search without filter" algo or data. Where ever it is, it's not those specific filters that screwed me. I was only affected between the night of May 20th and 3AM CST May 21st. May 20th when I last checked my search phrases (and I do that a lot) all was well. I checked about 3AM May 21st and that's when my nightmare began.

This tool can be found at Yahoo by searching for:
"robert taft" google filter
Exactly like that, and it's the 1st hit at that SEOchat forum. You'll see the URL in that post.

[edited by: Clint at 11:53 am (utc) on June 13, 2005]

Clint




msg:799470
 12:06 pm on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

"I ran all the sites on the first few pages of G SERP's through the header check"

Clint you have mentioned that several times, and I'm afraid I have no idea what you think you are doing. More to the point, (and yes I say this all the time) don't get in the trap of thinking there is ONE BIG THING that is 100% consistent. Google deals sensibly with these canonical problems all the time, and they have for years. But SOMETIMES they don't. In the past year, every single update, a different batch of people end up with canonical problems. Don't take this literally, but lets just say 1% of websites had their canonical issues bungled by Google this time, while Google handled 99% sensibly. Google isn't perfect.

Ok, I don't know exactly to what you're referring since it's not a full quote. I've said something like that a lot referring to different areas. I believe I meant that sites on the first couple or few pages in G results for any search I've done, have this www & non-www issue (or canonical issue if that's what it's also called). The sites can be separately accessed with OR without the www prefix and that version remains in the address bar. There isn't any kind of redirect (301 or otherwise) going on with them. I put their URL's through the header check tool and both URL variants (with and without www) are code 200, none are 301.

I guess I understand what you're saying; what I did was basically meaningless.?

This 1225 message thread spans 41 pages: < < 1225 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 41 > >
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