| 11:38 am on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
but those test could be related to a REAL fix on the non www issue and supplemental results, they are not testing for fun, so maybe part of that will come to the real serps.
| 11:42 am on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
zeus - hope that is the case as the results for me are 500% better than what is proposed on the .9 DC that Jagger 3 is on!
GG said earlier that it wasn't going to be used for at least around a month so I can't see it happening in this update which means waiting all through Christmas!
One thing I have noticed though - in the .9 Jagger3 DC, I can still find a site I stopped using months and month ago in the SERPS but on [184.108.40.206...] it has gone (as it should be) and overall the SERPS look much much better (in my opinion of course) :-)
| 11:43 am on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
220.127.116.11 is cleaner on my terms and my problems are solved.
What do you think about this one? 18.104.22.168
| 11:46 am on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
22.214.171.124 is better than what is coming up on .9 but still nowhere near as good as what is showing on 126.96.36.199
| 11:52 am on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
We have been around for 7 years, never use any spam or anything on the page, people have linked to us as we had a high ranking site on google naturally.
its easy to say you can't rely on google when running a business but how easy is that when everyone uses google and the other engines fade into comparison.
We are no1 on yahoo for the same keywords and we are still down 60% on sales.
Can anyone take a look for us please as i can see nothing wrong with the site, perhaps you experts at the forum will be able to help?
| 12:00 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I see over 25.000.000 results on 188.8.131.52 and about 5-6.000.000 on all the other DCs, why is that?
| 12:08 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
184.108.40.206 - Just seems to be full of supplementals IMO.
Yes, they have a few more site:domain.com correctly ordered - but the data is soooooooooooo old.
But as we know this is just a test centre sitting in a corner - then fair enough use old results. Cant really see the improvements on the non-www situation Zeus.
| 12:12 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
has solved my problem of duplicate content [mysite.com...] versus www.mysite.com
probably Dayo-UK your proble is fixed as well there.
And yes if it is a test center that means in the weeks to come as GG said there will be flux to come as they will get data from several DC's.
| 12:14 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"but those test could be related to a REAL fix on the non www issue and supplemental results, they are not testing for fun, "
spot on Zeus
| 12:16 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There is something strange here on the dc on the results, 220.127.116.11 there is our website and a competitor below me, then on all the other dc's we are gone except everyone else is there.
Do you think we have a chance of returning?
| 12:18 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>>has solved my problem of duplicate content [mysite.com...] versus www.mysite.com
Yes - OK - but I have had a site that has had that fixed and still do not come back.
Maybe the sandbox effect - but the site does not come back until G recognizes that it is the main page from the site - eg site:www.domain.com www.domain.com = www.domain.com being top.
This comeback seems very slow or maybe even impossible or a fluke for the ones that do come back.
| 12:35 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Dayo don't loose the hope,who knows maybe it will maybe it won't .I believe that old pages with good linking have big chances to make a come back in future.
| 12:36 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
18.104.22.168 is a real fix on the non www issue and supplemental results, but not finished yet.
I also think there has not been a real update on that DB and the hurt sites are also not ranking, but that will come after the PR has come back, still its just a test DB, but there are REAL hope now.
| 12:39 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have not lost hope.
It is just that if the non-www/www situation appears to be fixed on a site - that site may still struggle.
It is like all of the power on the home page has gone. (Hence my Homepage PR0 - Internal pages with PR)
| 1:02 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Dayo - when the non www is fixed, you have to wait for the PR to be back and if the worst have to happen you will get in the sandbox, because you already have existing links to your site, which will then look unnatural for google.
I think the backlinks will again get a update within 1-2 month and if they use some of the fixes from the test DB, it could be a great day.
| 1:02 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It makes sense, Dayo_Uk. They probably need to do a backlink update to the corrected address before you rank.
| 1:16 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This is probably nothing, but as I thought I was under a dupe content filter penalty, I'll mention it - (non-www/www issue fixed now).
G seems to be paying a lot of attention to the title tags for me. I used to use #*$! widget from xxx company in the title - I started removing the 'from xxx company' in order to reduce the similarity between the pages. Where G has picked up those changes, the pages are ranking much better than the ones which still say xxx widget from xxx company. (it's taking me ages to change them as we have 3000 widgets and 30 sections!)
Just thought I'd mention it in case the title tag is playing a part.
| 1:25 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
if that is the next basis then link farms are gonna be making a comeback along with webrings ..
old irrelevant overbloated page count and easy to game
seen it before
| 1:25 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
just checking some keywords on .co.uk and I'm now finding GB's ranking higher than some sites - this really is just daft, in fact one I've just checked had 3 GB's in the top 20
| 1:31 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Assuming GB = Great Britain, why wouldn't you expect them to index higher in .co.uk listings?
| 1:36 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
GB = guest books
| 1:39 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|because you already have existing links to your site, which will then look unnatural for google |
I doubt if that will be the case. Google will see the age of links on linking sites, not when it has attributed those links to Dayo's site. So, hopefully Dayo's site will not go to the sandbox.
| 1:49 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I know this is a long old thread but I have something possibly instructive to add about 22.214.171.124.
I lost a lot of good positions at the beginning of October and in an attempt to remedy an (imagined?) dupe content penalty I reduced the amount of standard text that appeared on my individual data/item pages, in the process introducing a phrase that was not previously used.
Running a site: search on that phrase on the main Google site shows around 500 results, which disappointed me because I have nearer 40k such pages (all unique user-generated content), all of which have been subject to intense spider activity over the past few weeks.
126.96.36.199 is showing all those pages on a site: search - in other words, it's very definitely including new, recently spidered data which has not been showing up on the old site.
Anyone who was hoping that this was an old dataset refiltered, or something like that, needs to adjust their hypothesis accordingly.
It looks to me, from my limited POV on this that this contains something very similar to an old-fashioned update, bringing in content spidered in the preceding month as new.
Hope this helps. All just MHO of course.
| 2:01 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
henryuk - i noticed this too - that DC has also removed a lot of old sites which still show up today!
| 2:02 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes, that DC seems to be more consistent of a good' ol update.
Seems like a lot of data being faciliated there.
| 2:18 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<<< G seems to be paying a lot of attention to the title tags for me. >>>
Very interesting observation MIOP... Does G penalize sites where there is a lot of dupe in the title? We have several pages with keyword + keyword + strap line. I wonder if the strap line is upsetting G. Most of our pages have sunk without trace, it so happens that the one page that has maintained its position doesn't have the strap... Hmmm, time to make a few investigative changes...
| 2:25 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well we have a heavily templated site which leads to 90% identical content according to page comparison checkers - *perhaps* when faced with such a site, G attaches more weight to the Title tag than it otherwise would, i.e. look at page content - identical? - look at page title.
| 2:33 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If you missed or simply ignored messages 290 and 298:
GG tells ya straight out it's an experimental db.
GG tells ya it's off in its own corner.
GG tells ya if (if, not when) anything comes of it,
the time frame would be months (with an s, as in plural) not days or weeks.
love it or hate it, it appears to be very much a non-issue to those fretting over holiday serps, including quite possibly, and perhaps probably, even Valentines or St. Paddy's time frame.
| 2:41 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Miop - I would have thought your dupe content would be more of an issue in that case? Then again if changing the title has improved the ranking of pages with dupe content then maybe you're onto something. Most of our pages have unique content, but the same format again and again and like I say very similar titles. Perhaps G are scoring more negatively for dupe titles...
| 2:42 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Wouldn't that make sense.....
Jagger shows SERPS with all of the knobs turned up, thus effecting many people's positions, including many white hats. Lots of junk in SERPS. Lots of poor results.
188.8.131.52 seems like a clean index with the junk removed, the canonicals fixed and the supplementals gone (for me atleast). Overall, better results.
GG says 184.108.40.206 is not going to be seen for a few months.
Haven't we seen the pattern of the big shaekup right before the height of Q4, with things settling back to more normalcy after Q4 before?
| 2:50 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> just checking some keywords on .co.uk and I'm now finding GB's ranking higher than some sites - this really is just daft, in fact one I've just checked had 3 GB's in the top 20 <<
Now that's interesting. We have a sample guestbook on our site, which is only really a code sample for those wanting to add the script to their own sites. Over the past few days, there has been a huge increase in the number of spammers posting links.
Although we simply remove their posts (spammers seem unable to read), and excluded this from spiders some time ago, your post made me check. Sure enough -- it's back in index with an old cache date and ranking well. Go figure!
<edit> Forgot to mention that we never received that much traffic in the past via this URL -- that was the point of my post, after all ;)
[edited by: LegalAlien at 2:54 pm (utc) on Nov. 11, 2005]