| 1:27 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Im clueless to why your blog was deleted, maybe Matt is just fed up with this problem :s which isn't the best course of action to take.
And I have no idea whatsoever what to do about those problems, hopefully the aftermath and a huge crawl may sort it out.
Theres more to life than Google ppl :D
Anyway back to subject, I guess theres still no news on when Jagger will go home :s lol
| 1:30 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It is hard to have an update thread without discussing this situation.
99%* of sites that have been hit in this update, Bourbon, Algera and even the un-named update in December and November last year seem to suffer from this problem.
* Ok - cant back up that figure
>>>> maybe Matt is just fed up with this problem
Arent we all.
| 1:39 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
who knows, maybe it's a side effect of Googles overactive spam filters and Google are having a hard time fixing this and make everything do what it does, maybe thats why its still an ongoing issue.
If only Google could set some guidelines about how to help prevent it, maybe the big G doesn't know what causes it?
So many possibilities, but hey, I can only speculate :(
| 1:48 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"maybe it's a side effect of Googles overactive spam filters"- talk about overactive , here are our site listings:
16,700 results for site: domain.com
629 results for site:domain.com
647 results for allinurl:domain.com
14,200 results for link:domain.com
We are so buried in the serps that we may as well be dead. Before 9/22, we were on top. Jagger has us down about 85%. Time may be on Mick's side, but we've got mouths to feed!
Open to any and all form of clues.
If someone has a solution for hire, please send a sticky.
| 1:49 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
No flux since this morning at 11 on my side of things on 188.8.131.52
There are a few in there that shouldn't be either.
Like a blog, that has all the search terms listed on the site but zero content about them.
| 1:51 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
has anyone else noticed google.co.uk keep switching between two sets of results - one is acceptable and one is awful (as referred to in a previous post)
| 1:53 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Jagger has us down about 85%. |
any tips? solutions?
| 1:59 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
As I sit here contemplating my navel on this dark, dreary afternoon, it strikes me that if we're having trouble listing on 'G', what the heck is the innocent web publisher doing, who hasn't got a clue about the legal cheating that we call SEO. I mean they don't stand a chance and the Internet gets more and more commercial and less and less relevant. It's all going a bit like TV, more about filling time and less and less content.
It's been a long time since I've read good members such a Dayo_uk getting this mad, If 'G' don't listen they'll be about as popular as AltaVista ;-)
| 2:01 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My english site, basically the same but in english has less 301 (as not as old as the German site) only took a 33% hit. The main difference is that I didn't change the directory structure and it has therefore nearly no 301's.
I see my main competitor has changed his favicon to one similars to us.. Copying is the sincerest form of flattery ..
Maybe it's a favicon issue.. ... (obviously not ment seriously)
| 2:04 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google UPDATE your supplemental results Database, I still see caches of sites that had 302 link to us, in that cache is a copy of our hompage, those are dated 2004, jesus, with time this is realy getting a little silly, it took you 1-2 days to remove another site from the index that had a 302 link to your adsense and replaced that original in the serps, but a real fix for the 100.000 of sites that are also hurt, it takes years.
What logic was it that you removed the ability to see other domains from a personal site:ourdomain.com search , when its not a fix of the situation, was it to hide something or cant you fix this, why should we help with spam reports and coments, when you dont give anything back, I will advise you to listen to some of the comments here, you have a REALY big competition next year.
| 2:06 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I think Google are a hip and trendy company |
G *were* a hip and trendy company, when they were a small start up with an honest mission. Now they're Google Inc working for shareholders that are demanding returns on their investment, especially over the xmas shopping season. With all due respect Dayo, you may as well bang your head against a brick wall, your problem is seriously way down their priority list! SERP tweaks these days are designed to increase Adwords revenue not please WW members :-(
| 2:07 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|It's all going a bit like TV, more about filling time and less and less content. |
Hey have you not seen the hostile takeover bid from UK TV to takeover G. ;)
| 2:10 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
[ Hey have you not seen the hostile takeover bid from UK TV to takeover G. ;) ]
If we're talking relevance ... There will probably be a take over bid by mindcap ;-)))
| 2:10 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>>>Your problem is seriously way down their priority list! SERP tweaks these days are designed to increase Adwords revenue not please WW members.
I would not believe a company would be that short sighted - more and more sites are going missing - Google need to fix it for there own good. (IMO)
And it is not my problem - it is Googles ;)
| 2:13 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have just noticed another thing strange on google.co.uk. if you ping it, it shows 184.108.40.206. when i put that DC in my address bar and search using a main keyword, I am #4, if i search normally, using google.co.uk, I am not even in the first 10 pages!?!?
| 2:13 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Example site I run:
Same 2 word (very competitive) search term.
#16 out of 74,200,000 on Yahoo!
#22 out of 20,773,402 on MSN
After Jagger = 'No Where to be found' out of 104,000,000 on Google.
Something is wrong with Google. Period.
Either that or I did something I don't know about.
| 2:15 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There's only one company that really puts the fear of God into Google, and it's fast becoming the only way for the common man to sell online ... EBAY ;-))))
If Google take their eye further off the ball, Ebay will steal christmas from under them. All it would take is for Ebay to list a safe service section, where local services can list for pennies. I know that they try this already, but why not make it official?
Go Dayo, Go Dayo, Go Dayo ... I haven't whined like this since 1967 :-0
| 2:15 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good examples - however I don't think anyone is listening over in Google land.
I always find that when companies go quiet it means 1.don't want to admit it or 2. leave it alone and Dayo_UK will go away.
My own feeling is that the non-www/www problem is so deep rooted that it may never be solved - same as the supplementals.
and as it is "a dark and dreary afternoon" colin_h is right "what the heck is the innocent web publisher" to do as I needed my accountant telephone number and gave up searching for it - yes he has a small web site..
| 2:21 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I would not believe a company would be that short sighted |
Shareholders and Accountants ARE that short sighted. As we are when our traffic goes down. The best is now I think to let G be G and look what one can do elsewhere. Bill has set his eyes on G, so having a long hard look at msn and improving ranks there is possibly a better time investment than having shortsighted plans ourself in running after G's oddities.
| 2:24 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If this is the update, it's a joke. Results were good/acceptable somewhere over the weekend, the tweaking afterwards has done no good at all imho. We're being found for completely offtopic keyword combinations, whereas we're down the drain for ontopic phrases. Mostly from places 6-12 to somewhere mid 30. Results on the first page seem almost to be randomly picked, more than 50% of them being completely off topic. Users will get tired of searching with Google in the long term if these results stay.
| 2:26 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I notice that Google uk has two sets too. The morning DC seems to be showing better for me than the afternoon one (the one that is running now)
For the last three days I have been no. 25/26 in the morning at between no. 31 -36 in the afternoons.
Also, someone on the other thread said that 9.99 and 9.104 are the same DC, but they throw up very different results.
The best one for me so far is 220.127.116.11 which is well above the others.
Fed up with all this!
| 2:28 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Johnhh [and as it is "a dark and dreary afternoon" colin_h is right "what the heck is the innocent web publisher" to do as I needed my accountant telephone number and gave up searching for it - yes he has a small web site..]
With the obvious effect that this will have on small to medium businesses, has anyone thought about drafting a press release (BBC). Might be worth using the collective knowledge within this forum to warn the community at large ... just a thought
| 2:29 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>>Shareholders and Accountants ARE that short sighted.
Fund Managers arent though - which is surely why Google P/E is so high.
Anyway, I am trying not to be to critical of Google - they just have a bug or two IMO - that needs fixing.
Personally, I would much rather it get played down and Google could talk to us and get it fixed.
| 2:43 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
How long does it usually take for new pages to get a pr after indexed?
I added some 20k new pages 4 weeks ago, most of them indexed. A handful has a pr, most still going at 0. Yet they appear in 1st or 2nd page in results, way before sites that have like pr 4.
I've linked to 25 of these pages from my home page in hope to get their pr's high as they're very very popular. All of these still have pr 0. :/
| 2:46 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>How long does it usually take for new pages to get a pr after indexed?
when the PR update hits which I think is Jan
| 2:48 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Jan? Omg I thought it was a monthly thing? :/ :\
| 2:51 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> Good examples - however I don't think anyone is listening over in Google land. <<
I know that Google were made aware of these problems over a year ago... but all they responded with was something like "Google crawls the web on an irregular basis and the information will be updated next time we crawl".
They didn't even read the original question because that question showed two searches: one that brought up a normal result and a normal cache, and another search that brought the page up as a supplemental result showing a title that hasn't existed for 2 years, and a snippet with content that hasn't existed for 2 years, and then linked to a cache from only 3 days ago. Blatently, their idea of "update" is not the same as ours.
They were provided with copious examples and the replies got ever more ridiculous. I know of at least 8 different people who sent in examples based on their own sites: all were fobbed off. Some were recommended to use Google Remove, and all that did was hide the page for 90 days.
Google were also supplied multiple lists of sites that have redirected non-www for ages, yet Google continues to still show the non-www pages (and their very old content in the snippet) in their results as supplemental pages.
>> My own feeling is that the non-www/www problem is so deep rooted that it may never be solved - same as the supplementals. <<
You could be right. The supplemental database just accumulates old information. I don't think they have any plans, or ideas of how, to clean it up.
| 2:53 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Fund Managers arent though - which is surely why Google P/E is so high. |
This is not a dig at Google, I just see them what I think they are: a big company. Just analysing
An index update is a MAJOR business operation. At the end more money or at least equal money has to come in.
Google is now all about finding new ways to sell ads. Google Telly, print, scan, desktop, maps, gmail, earth etc etc.
I think the target to sell more ads will not change also for a search engine update. Giving more traffic to smaller websites and getting them to write more content and giving them hope with adsense is a new ad market. Giving the same traffic to the same people does not equal financial growth. Since G delivers the traffic it has full control over who will be top when and how they want it. One employee might be interested in cleaning out some spam as it's his job. But he ain't Google as a whole. He is just an employee.
There is nothing evil about it, it's just business. But in that way the update makes more sense to me as to see it as pure search engine purification procedure. It has to be that + finding new ways or bigger markets to deliver ads, let the competition slowly die in things they want to do in the future etc.
Again this is not a particular dig as Google, it's a big company now as all the others. Trying to make more money not less. As search is their business, business comes first, nice search results later and only not to drive off users with too bad results.
CEO sitting at the next AGM and saying well we lost a shootload of money but look at the nice search pages now, is not gonna be on.. lol
| 3:02 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing this in my traffic logs. What the heck is it?
When I click on that it takes me to a cached page of my website (a fairly unpopular page) with two particular key words highlighted.
I'm not ranked in the top 3 pages in Google for these two keywords, so I don't think this is the result of human surfers.
This didn't start until the Jagger update, so I'm worried that this means G is ready to do something crazy with my rankings.
When will this update finally be solidified?
| 3:03 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Very difficult to explain these things easily in a press release. Writing and distribution of press releases are 2 different things and often don't get picked up.
Tech issues normally lag behind money issues - so unless it affects Adwords....which it doesn't..why would the big G be concerned. OK people may be a bit annoyed about difficulties in finding something but it takes a lot to knock the power of a brand.
I don't think I explained that very well!
| 3:05 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I remember 1-1,5 years ago, all caches where not older then a month, supplemental results was not realy a deal, omitted results fisrst showed after 100.000 of pages, url only was only for a short time, then the description went back and so on.
Now webmaster has the most wierd problems and all on google, never a issue on any other SE, a little 302 problem was on yahoo, but was fixed in a month.