| 8:07 am on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
what happens when you take a chunk of text from your site and put it into quotation marks and do a search? Are there other sites with the same content appearing?
| 11:13 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If I cut and paste a few sentences into the search I find nothing. Itís only if I search for all of the text on the main page that I find my site. Even then, both www and non www versions are listed.
By the way, the non www version has page rank, whereas the www version has lost all that it had.
| 12:29 pm on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Don't rely just on Google. It can turn and bite you anytime!
| 12:43 pm on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
question : how do you guys know when googlebots have visited ur site/page?
sorry. i'm rather new here.
| 1:20 pm on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You'll find the Name "Googlebot" as user agent in your Logs. If you cannot access your logs directly, maybe your provider offers some tools like webalizer. There you'll find Googlebot too.
| 1:23 pm on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Search for "googlebot" on your logs. I like to use Word and find/replace using the googlebot term, it will first give you a count and then you can search for each occurrance if you want more detail.
"Slurp" for Yahoo but remember it uses the term twice for each visit unlike gbot.
I also use a software which can isolate the user-agent, I don't think I can mention this but it's around $100, I'll give you the name of it if you send a message.
| 4:30 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>Don't rely just on Google. It can turn and bite you anytime!<<
Thank you for your prophetic words of wisdom and useless contribution.
| 4:36 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thank you for destroying this thread with your banal and off topic questioning. I had to wait over 10 days to get my message approved and posted, and I was hoping to get some intelligent answers or some advice to my problem. Go start you own thread in future.
| 5:20 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
John_1976, your attitute needs adjusting. Some people here may not have posted correctly but having your kind of attitute ain't gonna get you much help or goodwill.
| 11:19 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Rule 16. Please stay within the topic area of the forum you are posting a message in, and within any topic that another poster may have started.
| 12:02 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Rule number 666: Don't be an A$$#013 while seeking help from others.
| 12:11 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I give up. If anyone wishes to help this 'poster' feel free. He'll get nowt from me.
| 12:52 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Check #7 at [webmasterworld.com...] and #19 at [webmasterworld.com...] will provide some background. Some folks consider problems like yours a duplicate content problem and some a split PR problem. I think it's a little of both.
The type of problem you've encountered has been discussed at length and in depth hundreds of times. That fact, coupled with your attitude, makes me reluctant to offer aid. To your credit your original post was a reasonably detailed and comprehensive description of your problem.
Consider letting the moderators handle problem members and ignoring remarks that fail to enhance your understanding. When treated decently, members here are usually very helpful. But few are willing to help someone who sh1ts on others.
| 1:04 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|How can I get my site back and ranked in the Google index? |
Right question: how can webmasters help break the search monopoly, and keep it broken for good, before the next Altavista comes and eats Google (and then the story repeats).
Get wise. Stop mentioning Google, go Yahoo, give the MSN forum a visit right here on WebmasterWorld. Study Gigablast, learn the MSN search.
MSN is well on its way to the nr 1 spot. Anyone who followed the IE/Netscape saga should know that Bill Gates WILL crush Google and then buy it for peanuts.
Microsoft has 50 billion in CASH money. They'll put it to good use.
| 3:47 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Firstly, it has taken 10 days for my topic to get approved and posted. Normally only about one out of five of my new topics ever gets approved. The moderators do not inform you if a new topic has been approved or not, so it can take weeks after successive posting before you see any results.
Secondly, some people feel the need to post simply for the sake of posting. These people add nothing to the thread of the discussion. Rob_Cook for example has made 2 posts in this thread so far, and both are focused on attacking me and not the original question.
Thirdly, you said yourself; my original post was a reasonably detailed and comprehensive. However, as soon as you reach message 5 in this thread, things digresses completely off topic. I think it is rude and disrespectful for this poster to completely change the subject of the original topic. That does not make me a A$$#013, or someone who sh1ts on others.
| 5:03 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
John I understand how frustrating this is, my site was banned by Google from July 28th thru Sept 22. For almost that entire time I did nothing but try to figure out what went wrong and went so far as to split my best 40 pages off onto a new domain.
I'm not sure why my site reappeared in the index when it did, I had a few theories about things I might have done that caused it but in the end it appears to be pure caprice on the part of Google.
Google acts recklessly and without any regard to the suffering they cause, I am very angry with them and I regret I can't give you any answers because it appears that if I had done nothing at all the results would have been the same.
One thing I did learn was that using the same meta description on all your pages can hurt your ranking but I have no idea if that is what caused my site to be banned.
Perhaps you should try posting on one of the many other SEO-oriented forums which don't require any approval for posting a new thread. At the very least that may improve your attitude which I must agree is not helping you get any answers.
| 5:34 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"That does not make me a A$$#013, or someone who sh1ts on others."
No it dosen't but your responses very may well.
"Secondly, some people feel the need to post simply for the sake of posting. These people add nothing to the thread of the discussion. Rob_Cook for example has made 2 posts in this thread so far, and both are focused on attacking me and not the original question."
If I remember right you have done the attacking in the first place. Ummm, yep you attacked first. Very hypocritical for you to get down on Rob_Cook for the very same thing you did. Some other posters were trying to help you to "communicate" better with other webmasters so that you may obtain better feedback. Remember you stated "advice will be most appreciated" and that is what some were doing. "Don't rely just on Google. It can turn and bite you anytime!" <-- is still considered advice but you decided to jump all over the poster because, I guess, that it wasnít the advice you were looking for. I also don't understand why you keep continuing to throw your own thread off track by being upset for reasons that trace back to your own behavior. This is a message forum so suck it up, quit jumping all over everyone, and be patient with people!  My advice on that subject.
Now back to the original question.
I have been in the same boat as you. You know what? I haven't been able to figure it out either. Nothing from Google but the same responses you got. I have touched nothing since our site disappeared nor much before that. Still we have seen no improvement after 6 months. Now it is time to test some theories and bring out the fine tooth comb and hopefully find a cause. So far we have lost well more than 6 digits of income and climbing fast which makes it hard to have patience but what are ya going to do.
Just go through your site and look for any duplicate content (on and off site), bad links, bad code, bad redirects, too heavily optimized pages, hijackers, and all the typical stuff mentioned around here. Test and pray. That is all I have to say.
| 5:52 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I agree completely and it's also against the TOS. But by responding to off topic posts instead of simply ignoring them, you help insure a thread remains off topic.
|I think it is rude and disrespectful for this poster to completely change the subject of the original topic. |
This comment struck me as extremely sarcastic.
|Thank you for your prophetic words of wisdom and useless contribution. |
This one struck me as condescending and belittling.
|Thank you for destroying this thread with your banal and off topic questioning. |
It's not my intention to criticize you, I'm simply trying to provide some feedback as to how you came across in your posts, whether it was intended or not. You may be frustrated and feel your attitude is justified but, like most people, my initial, gut reaction to your responses was, "I got my own problems and I ain't gonna put up with his friggin attitude!" Letting my irritation show in posts has never won me any friends, but you may have better luck. ;)
Back on topic, hopefully. :) Did the threads I suggested provide any answers for you?
| 11:13 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thank you Ė I agree with you 100%
| 11:14 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thank you for your input. I am aware of the threads you recommended as I followed them with much interest during there original posting. In these threads Google Guy explains how webmasters can report canonical problems, 301 redirects/hijacking issues, and what form to use for making a re-inclusion request. I have followed the process for re-inclusion several times without any intelligent response from Google. In fact, I have not read anything here at Webmaster World that indicates requesting a re-inclusion request with Google amounts to a successful conclusion.
Judging by what some webmasters have said in this particular thread, my problem is typical and no one really seems to have a definitive explanation or a solution.
| 11:39 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have two sites similar to yours that have almost disappeared from serps. However I know the reason, and almost expected it to happen. Basically I hadn't done anything to them for some time and they were just parked.
If you have a lowish PR (PR4 or below, say), Google is unlikely to go any deeper than the index page unless it sees something has changed. And if Google doesn't crawl your pages over time they will disapear from the index. The supplemental pages are probably those that are still indexed but the pages that link to them have gone.
Also there will always be some incoming links that disappear, so unless you also get new links Google sees your site as dying and therefore not worth indexing.
This may not be the problem that is affecting your site, but it may be worth considering. Try changing the index page, adding a couple of new pages, and linking to them from the index page. If you have a template system it's easy to change every page on the site.
| 12:54 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>no one really seems to have a definitive explanation or a solution
Agreed. Let me clarify a few things and offer an informed opinion.
It's not clear from your posts if you are using a 301 from non-www to www or vice-versa. It's also not clear if you are using absolute addressing or a <base> tag on your pages.
Both GoogleGuy and Matt Cutts (in his blog) have been adamant that 301s are the way to avoid "canonical page problems" and I suspect this is largely behind the problems you've experienced.
Observations and opinions: I have several sites experiencing unexpected results using 301s that were implemented this year and there are several threads running presently discussing similar problems. IMHO, Google fixed the 302/pagejack problem and induced a glitch in 301s, or perhaps they simply unmasked an underlying glitch. In any event, I brought both the problems with my sites and a thread discussing the 301 problem to GoogleGuy's attention circa 8/23. He agreed to revisit/review 301 handling and, in my experience, he is a man of his word. I'm confident 301 handing will be resolved in the next update, and I don't believe there is much webmasters can do about 301 handling until then.
If you don't already, you should have your redirects in place before that update, in preparation. Your site may have "sandbox" issues as well, but having both non-www and www versions listed (canonical page problem) splits PR between them and may trigger duplicate content penalties, so my advice is to fix what you can, wait for the update, and then deal with any lingering "sandbox" issues.
In nine years of building sites, I've never experienced a pagejack or a canonical page problem if I used absolute addressing and a 301 to consolidate domain variations. The sites giving me problems currently are recently built client sites and I just have to wait it out like everyone else...
| 1:18 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>>>When I contact Google I get the standard response that a site is listed even if it is in the Supplemental results. If I ask if my site has a penalty, I am told that certain actions such as buying or selling links to increase a site's Page Rank value or cloaking can result in penalization. But as I have said, this is not applicable to me. <<<<<
From your first post. I have a feeling you THINK it doesn't apply to you but imho- google gave you an answer. This is the penalty that you are under. You need to study your links both incoming and outgoing. Especially any reciprocal. 2000 links is a lotta links! I know there are others out there with more but let's face it. Either your site is very old or very authoritative or reaaaalllly commercial to have that many organic links.
This might not be your fault. You might have inadvertently linked into a farm. If so, you need to get out of it immediately. Repair the damage and write google with an apology and promise it won't happen again. You will be back in the serps within a reasonable time.
You need to analyze any correspondence from google carefully as they will tell you what is wrong, you just need to believe it when they tell you.
THEY may have it wrong. If after VERY careful evaluation of your links you find NO problems-write google with the original #number from their reply and ask them politely to review your case and refer it to their engineers as you cannot find the problem in your site so perhaps their filters are misreading your site.
| 1:47 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Both GoogleGuy and Matt Cutts (in his blog) have been adamant that 301s are the way to avoid "canonical page problems" and I suspect this is largely behind the problems you've experienced. |
I set up 301s from old urls to new ones about 9 months ago. still showing the old urls in the G index with a Dec 2004 cache. All urls supplemental and Google showing 135 total urls/pages for my site; there are only 37 in reality.
I have some old 301 urls in the Google index that have a Dec 2004 cache. I guess we are in the same boat, having read your last post, and I am hopeful you are correct...that 301 handling will improved, and Gbot will revisit all those 301 urls.
| 2:21 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"I set up 301s from old urls to new ones about 9 months ago. still showing the old urls in the G index with a Dec 2004 cache. All urls supplemental and Google showing 135 total urls/pages for my site; there are only 37 in reality."
Yes Google shows 3-4x pages that actually are for our website.
"Observations and opinions: I have several sites experiencing unexpected results using 301s that were implemented this year and there are several threads running presently discussing similar problems. IMHO, Google fixed the 302/pagejack problem and induced a glitch in 301s, or perhaps they simply unmasked an underlying glitch. In any event, I brought both the problems with my sites and a thread discussing the 301 problem to GoogleGuy's attention circa 8/23."
Months ago (well back in feb/march) when Google was playing with the 302 redirects I was one of the first to question the handling of 301s. I even had sent Google engineers (at the request of GG) plenty of examples of the problems we were seeing with internal 301s and external 301s (you can search around to find the threads that explains what I was seeing). Since then I never really had a reply from Google. I eventually just got rid of all 301 redirects with the exceptions of www/non-www redirects. I kinda gave up and still to this day do not know for sure if they got things fixed or not.
I do believe the reason for the 3-4x of pages Google shows are a combination of old URLs/Pages that don't exist anymore on our site(only in google's database), PHANTOM pages created by google from those redirects, and from the www/non-www syndrome (since my site was fully indexed both ways before I applied the www/non-www fix 2 years ago).
| 3:47 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
We have been gone from Google serps for about a year and a half, previously top 5 for dozens of specific keywords. G is showing we have over 1,000 pages indexed, when we only have about 550. Cache dates showing from December 2004, www, non-www, tracking urls, etc. We implemented 301 & mod rewrite in March. We've even hired consultants from two very reputable SEO agencies to help us figure out what is wrong.
Even searching for our company name, which is completely unique, brings up hundreds of sites that link to us, but we are nowhere to be found. I've noticed lately that several of the sites that link to us are even ranking for our terms, often it is a page of their site where they write about our company and link to us as a resource. We have thousands of links, some to our home page and many to specific sections or deep pages of our website.
We have no duplicate content, we're the only website of it's kind on the internet. Our competitors, if you call them that, have 20 page websites that barely touch on our subject, while we delve deeply into the subject and have content about supporting information, clinical studies, research articles, test results, etc.. Every page is handmade, hand written, content rich and the only external links point to government, edu and non profit orgs pointing to sections of those sites that we refer to as reference material for our subject.
We add about 10-12 pages a month for the past few years, nothing is duplicate, we have no broken links, we get thousands of gbot visits per month and at the last two conferences we have even discussed the problems with G staff (including Matt). We've filed re-inclusion requests, sent emails and done everything we (and our consultants) can think of, nothing has helped at all.
Meanwhile, we have increased our traffic over the past year because all of the work we have done has benefited us in MSN and Yahoo! Our consultants tell us it's a Google problem, everyone that reviews our site says there is no reason we should rank, and rank well. We are widely regarded in our field as having the most complete website on our subject, and receive compliments from industry professionals on a daily basis!
We have been through the frustration some of you are feeling now, and we don't like the fact that after spending tens of thousands of dollars and thousands of man hours, the best answer we can get is - something is wrong with Google.
Strangely enough, one of the top serps is a site with one paragraph explaining that they removed the content on this page (content was removed over a year ago) because they violated the trademark of one of our products.
I used to think Google was the best place to start every browsing session, now I wonder how they can be (or stay) #1 when they have such obvious problems. Good luck to anyone dealing with these issues, we've tried over and over and the best we have gotten thus far, is a canned response with a link to Google's guidelines.
| 4:39 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
correction (edit post buttons are gone?)
everyone that reviews our site says there is no reason we should rank, and rank well.
everyone that reviews our site says there is no reason we shouldn't rank, and rank well.
| 5:37 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Intresting that you are still having the problems like me.
I have tried to make as much noise as possible without sounding like a nagging old woman (or man) - and have failed as I get more and more frustrated.
Your fix was 2 years ago.
My fix was in March too.
I dont even rank well for a domain name search - eg www.example.com as a phrase.
Hmmmmz - come on Google, is this the bug that is undermining so many sites - or is it something else - please please please?
| 1:29 pm on Sep 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>>> I brought both the problems with my sites and a thread discussing the 301 problem to GoogleGuy's attention circa 8/23. He agreed to revisit/review 301 handling and, in my experience, he is a man of his word. I'm confident 301 handing will be resolved in the next update, and I don't believe there is much webmasters can do about 301 handling until then.
Lets hope so Dave. Surprised if Google were not already working on this though.
I wonder, the Canonical Url used to be picked by the highest Page Ranked page on the site - GG admitted to that - however this method has now changed (I assume early this year) - so I wonder how the new Canonical url is picked? They appear to get it wrong for my site (IMO).
Well - I am glad at least that you are confident Dave :) - I am waiting and hoping for a little while longer.
| This 38 message thread spans 2 pages: 38 (  2 ) > > |