| 3:45 pm on Dec 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>>I've just done a search "www.myurl.com" and the non-hypenated site is now showing pages from the hypenated site which obviously don't exist and have never been on the site! so if you click on these results no page is dispalyed and a 404 comes up <<<
It may be due to inbound links. If they are truly similar in name then some webmasters ading your links may have dropped the hyphen.
| 4:07 pm on Dec 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
nope, G has pages listed for the non-hyphenated domain that were never on the site. I could understand if it was was a case of webmaster linking to the wrong domain - until I put a site on the name all it was doing was redirecting to the hyphenated one - dam odd
| 4:17 pm on Dec 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<<<VinceVinceVince>>> "Enter nonexistantsite.superservers.org and you'll see the failed GET request due to DNS failure. Blatently not all cached."
Your right Vince, I have run trace routes on a number of their site copies and they trace to the main superservers.org server.
Surely there's a case for questioning their motives and also their .org (non-profit making) status?
| 6:49 pm on Dec 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Surely there's a case for questioning their motives and also their .org (non-profit making) status? |
Wouldn't it be convenient if the company also owned a site about widgets. And then, all the competition sites bout widgets got their 'cached' copies indexed under superservers.org? How unfortunate that they would be hit with duplicate content penalties.
If they were truely non-malicious, they would have banned robots in their robots.txt file. Wouldn't have taken any time at all.
| 2:36 am on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think their base company have connections to software development, if that's any use.
| 6:42 am on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good morning to the great WebmasterWorld community
Its mild weather here. Maybe the spring is arriving, or a "duplicate" spring on its way. Great to be alive :-)
Tell us what changes you have done to your "affected" site to bringing it back again to where it deserves to be under the sun of mighty Google.
I don't have solid evidence, but I think that if a webmaster makes changes to the titles and description meta tags of several pages at the same time, those pages might get sandboxed.
Wish you all a great day and a nice X-Mas shopping weekend.
| 7:42 am on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>I don't have solid evidence, but I think that if a webmaster makes changes to the titles and description meta tags of several pages at the same time, those pages might get sandboxed.
anyone else have any views on this I'm reworking an old site that still has some (v-poor)rankings on G and part of that is changing all the titles and description
| 7:57 am on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
One site owner reported that by changing titles and metatags his site was taken out of the sandbox. Another reported and improvement after removing tag lines from titles and meta tags. We see no remarkable change. We have been reviewing and making changes to remove duplicate content and titles and metatags have been changed. Our traffic is slowly improving. Nothing drastic. It is just drifting up. What has affected it I have no idea.
I think it is safe to say that the Google algo looks at everything in a site and comes up with a score. Since every site is different, a given change will affect each site differently.
Every site owner has to look at his unique conditions and see what does and does not work.
| 8:04 am on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
One thing that we have noticed is that every few days pages that have been off our server for a couple years start showing up. Then they dissapear for a week or so and other pages show up.
Our traffic flops around as the google users see different pages that we either had on line or now have on line.
We have changed our 404 to tell visitors that due to Google having problems with their search engine .......
| 8:30 am on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good morning folks.
In relation to title and description tags, I change mine on the homepage, from time to time, to tweak the keywords, if I feel there is a better word, or another isn't necessary, and so far no adverse effect.
Off topic, as it may help some of you by offering this, for accessibility users, take a look at speegle.co.uk, a search engine powered by Google, but which has voice assistance plus audio news etc.
| 10:21 am on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
title and description tags
I cannot imagine why Google would penalise for editing tags. If anything, it shows a site is being worked on and hopefully improved.
If the words in the title or description are edited and no longer relate to words on the page and/or links to the page, then a ranking loss may occur. I'm sure google looks at this relationship.
| 10:24 am on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I agree with you MHes I struggle to see how G would hit a site for doing this, but either way I'm only putting up 10 changed pages a day "just in case" don't want to upset G do we!
| 12:06 pm on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"don't want to upset G do we!"
I just don't believe it.Who made them great .All of us morons.And now kissing there £$%^ . Not me .Yahoo is out there MSN is out there.
| 12:54 pm on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Split screen SERP's >>[gahooyoogle.com ]
| 1:42 pm on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I get a 403 in Google after trying above link with the error message
"we can't process your request right now. A computer virus or spyware application is sending us automated requests, and it appears that your computer or network has been infected."
I now get this everytime I access google. Don't know if it's anything to do with above link, but just giving a heads up! Perhaps Google doesn't like the fact that I've started using the MSN toolbar...;-/ Anyone else?
| 1:45 pm on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I had multiple problems on my comp when I had more than one Toolbar. Whether it was a conflict or what, I am not sure.
I just tried the link and it worked fine.
What was happening to me was that parts of the window kept going black, and also at times the comp froze, but I then deleted all other toolbars, and it all worked normally again.
| 4:30 pm on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>title and description tags
I cannot imagine why Google would penalise for editing tags. If anything, it shows a site is being worked on and hopefully improved.<<
If the folks at Google consider modifications in title and tags of pages as part of SEO tweaking efforts, I wouldn't be surprised if they included in the algos factors to devaluate such pages.
I recall a fellow member mentioning (somewhere in Jagger update many threads) that he noticed that after editing the titles and tags of some pages, those pages weren't ranking for sometime.
When I read that post, I sent a sticky to that kind fellow member to repost the same in my thread "Gaming Google..." but unfortunately, he didn't do so.
| 4:38 pm on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
but if that was the case when you put a page up that means you can never tweak it again "just" in case G thinks your trying to push it further up the serps - is it me or does this sound daft - no insult Reseller (the pills are working)
| 4:47 pm on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I don't have solid evidence, but I think that if a webmaster makes changes to the titles and description meta tags of several pages at the same time, those pages might get sandboxed. |
I did a sitewide edit of keyword and description meta tags on a site about 2 weeks ago. This is a very large affiliate site. Hundreds of thousands of pages. That site is still ranking quite well in the SERPs today.
[edited by: ssjxxx at 4:48 pm (utc) on Dec. 16, 2005]
| 4:47 pm on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Please. Others have said that changing the tags benefits them.
No one knows. Let's not throw people off course by making wild guesses.
| 5:16 pm on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Wild guesses is all we ever have. Nobody knows anything for cert.
| 5:47 pm on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Re Tags -
Pages where I removed the strapline which have been reindexed are now showing up properly instead of url only. The only url only pages I have now are the ones which I have not got around to changing, genuinely duplicate content pages (glitch in my shopping software) and pages which G hasn't re-indexed yet.
Some of those pages are now at number 1 on G for the first time ever. Pages which are not ranking well appear to be over-optimised compared to pages which are ranking highly.
The biggest change which I am seeing is where the root/index.php issue is still being fixed.
On McDar, these pages show the site with the / at the end, and they are back in the index. It's not finished yet (bearing in mind that all pages pointed to index.php and G hasn't picked up all those changes yet. The more G links my pages back together, the higher the pages are ranking.
I can't tell if the pages I've changed radically are 'sandboxed' or not because they were dropped altogether and have just reappeared in the serps.
Still looks like a combination of Dupe/OOP/Canonical factors to me.
I would guess that perhaps those whose root page is indentical to their index.html/php page may be still having problems if they haven't done a redirect?
| 6:02 pm on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Here's something really odd. I made some title changes to a site on December 1 and a couple of days the cached date changed to December 12 but the title showing in the SERPs is still the pre-December title. I've been expecting it to change for a couple days but today it's still showing the old title.
Edited to add...
Right after posting this I went back and noticed that some pages JUST changed. Weird.
| 8:50 pm on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Depending on which DC you look at, there are at least THREE different cache dates available for each page of any site.
| 10:15 pm on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
| 11:28 pm on Dec 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good evening Folks
Just returned back from an evening visit to my friend Frank. He is a good programmer working at an online bank. Among friends he is known for his own making X-Mas Danish cookies. I guess I need to do some cycling tomorrow to burn the excessive calories out :-)
Talking about tweaking tags...
According to some of your feedback, one can conclude that Google doesn't devaluate the pages because of tweaking the title and meta tags, mostly to achieve better rankings on the serps. Lets call it a kind of whitehat SEO ;-)
I hope you are right.
| 12:05 am on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thanks everyone for your replies to my December 15th posts. I apologize for not responding sooner, but I was away for my birthday yesterday -- building bridges in a rocky marriage. Weird thing is that it was matrimonial bliss until September 22nd ;((
Thanks for the sticky. I’m still trying to figure out what to do about this.
>>> ...how come you're so confident that your sites will recover? <<<
The optimism comes and goes. Today is a bad day, but on a good day I would say the following:
Our main site has been progressively fine-tuned over 7 years to analytically match the most stable top-ranking gorilla sites in all on-page, site-wide and off-site areas. As a result, this site has enjoyed more than three years of stable serps along side these gorilla sites, and was totally unaffected by previous updates. None of these gorilla sites shifted during this update and the only thing that changed for us was about a 40% drop in inbound PR share following the pre-Jagger PR update, and a subsequent drop in traffic as a direct result of our tanking serps. Logically, once PR share has been recovered and traffic levels are back to their pre-Jagger levels, there will again be nothing to distinguish our site from these stable gorilla sites, so hopefully full recovery will follow. I see evidence of this every few days as we progressively (albeit carefully and slowly) build towards our previous levels in these areas.
On a bad day, such as today, I would say... well, actually I think that's better left unsaid.
>>> I've filed a C&D for all my domains. <<<
Did you get a result? I think we’ve established that they’re really not caching anything, so perhaps they’re just using the term ‘cache’ to cover themselves legally – i.e. you could argue that a cache is not actual copy, so there would be no behavior or action to cease or desist from. Actually, forget that, as it’s a dumb argument ;)
I think I’m going to go this way, but I'd be interested if anyone thinks I'm barking up the wrong tree here:
Access our site through SuperServers and go through enough of the site (perhaps not frequently accessed areas) to generate easily identifiable entries in our access logs. Do this several times through a 24-hour period to see if there is a range of IPs, or other varying identifiers. Armed with this information, simply block it in our .htaccess.
| 12:12 am on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
With regard to whether or not to make changes to your site or your tags ... I would say "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".
Google let loose this banshee without knowing what damage it would do ... and to think that they could advise on technical changes and their effect on serps is just wishful thinking.
....... They're as much in the dark as we are ;-)
| 12:13 am on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>...I was away for my birthday yesterday -- building bridges in a rocky marriage.<<
Happy birthday my friend. And Godspeed in building bridges...
| 12:36 am on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thank you my friend. I appreciate your kind words ;)
| 8:43 am on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good morning Folks
Freezing again here. And I thought yesterday that the spring has already arrived :-)
Well..welll..well.. Do you recall my post about changing title and tags (msg #:277 on this thread). Sure you do ;-)
I see a new thread starting with a very interesting post:
view member profile
send local msg
joined-Mar 5, 2004
msg #:1 1:58 pm on Dec 15, 2005 (utc 0)
I have seen some instances where it appears that Google's SERPs like stale pages. Specifically pages that I optimized over a year ago and havent touched.
Conversely, pages where I need to tweak the title, description, and H1 tag seem to have a ranking decline before the new tags help.
I was wondering if anyone else is seeing something similar to this in Google