| 9:50 am on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hmmmz - missed a bit of fun when I was watching Santa Claus 2 the movie last night (not that good btw - kids playing elfs :( - should be short people playing elves)
Anyway - the most encouraging thing about MC comments is that the infastructure is in place - there does seem to be a way to go - and as McMahon commented on MC blog although some of the canonical issues seem in a better shape the ranking for the problem sites has not improved yet.
Virtually (well everyone so far) everytime on the test dc when I query domain.com it returns www.domain.com, site domain.com -www still returns non-www results - including the non-www homepage (even when querying the non-www homepage returns the www homepage)
As I also commented on MC blog - the site ordering for sites that have the problem remain.
But this is clearly/hopefully an early stage of the fix.
| 10:34 am on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|You may wish to be careful on that one |
Hissingsid knows a thing or two I am sure, about SEO :-) Been long time Hisss since we heard from you.
Google is carefully trying to shape-up belief/knowledge among site owners at large and SEOs to some extent, from the position of power it enjoys and the breadth of media it can cover with just a mere sneeze.
"You should never have to link to an SEO"
There is nothing wrong if one wishes to link to an SEO site. Just that, one doesn't HAVE TO, as some unscrupulous SEOs may try take gullible clients for a jolly ride.
Google spoke of ethical SEOs almost always should report spammy sites to Google, in its new updated SEO guidelines.
Is it true? It sounds almost like the famous statement "Either you are with us or against" Wouldn't site owners be lead to believe, the ones that don't report are unethical? Again, serves Google's purpose of fighting spam by spreading the message, which is not necessarily the real fact.
Matt in his famous backlink session, almost declared Google can almost always ditect paid links and paying for links is a waste of money, if not a reason for penalty.
Again shaping belief which is not necessarily true. Examples aplenty of sites benefiting from aggressive link purchase. But spreading a message will create fear among webmasters/SEOs that they might actually be wasting money, and serves Google's cause. Matt's blog is doing wonderful job in this direction and I appreciate its value as I understand it is finally dedicated to make web a better place - somehow, anyhow.
| 10:41 am on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Is anyone else still experiencing problems with google not having fully resolved the canonical issue? Immediately after jagger, I implemented a 301 from http:mysite.com to [mysite.com,...] yet when I do a search on google for site:mysite.com and site://www.mysite.com, the index page is showing at position 11 and 10 respectively, with some directories showing above it. All my competitors index pages shows at position 1, and I can only surmise that it is still one of the reasons I have not regained my position in the top 5 for primary search terms.
Is there any way of asking google to recognize that the main entry point into my site is the index page? Is there anything else I can or should do to rectify the problem?
Any advise would be most welcome, as it seems that Big Daddy is on its way and I would like to see this problem rectified before the next hurricane.
| 10:51 am on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Dayo (a.k.a Stephen? :-) now I know)
This test DC that was hybernated for a while before it came back with canonical/301 correctons, shows almost the same SERPs as it did before going into hybernation. As it stands now, it is just a better make-up. But a wonderful base for further improvements.
One of the clients that I manage had acquired a company recently. This acquired company's website with all of its 1000+ natural links was 301ed, which is now recognised on the Test DC. Sufficient to prove that this hasn't made any differences to the SERPs, as the ranks haven't changed one bit.
| 11:01 am on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yep - thats me - although there are bound to be others with the same name who enter comments I guess.
Hmmmz - might also explain why my sites are not getting as many pages added as I would expect - eg the PR/Reputation power can not lead to as many pages being added at this stage etc.
Yes, a good base to work from - but at this stage it does just look like a base for the 301/302 and Canonical issue.
| 11:40 am on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Been long time Hisss since we heard from you. |
I know I've been a monomaniac in a different direction for the last year. I seem to only be able to juggle one ball these days ;) Nice to be back though.
The Jagger update has had little effect on me (touch wood) and in those areas where there has been small subtle changes in SERPS I think may perhaps lie some of the clues to what has caused the more dramatic changes in areas that have been more severely affected.
My key question was has anyone else noticed that dynamically created pages have been given a boost in this update. I have .cgi pages in the index now that I never noticed before. I have not tried to optimise these and in fact some break rules that I have set for myself. I have one .cgi page as a supplemental at #3 for a three word term which does not occur on the page. The link to it includes the term and the script name is two of the words conjoined.
I'm just wondering if someone at Googleplex turned up the follow dynamic links knob.
| 11:45 am on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I wrote to google yesterday letting them know about a site-copier website that is getting listed higher than my host site (even when I search for my www.myurl.co.uk) on the test dc.
They, of course, didn't get back to me ... what can you expect, they're busy. I bet they take notice this morning, after I sent them a link to the pages on this site that completely reproduces Google, Adwords & Froogle.
I hope Google end up getting a number 2 spot to this site when they search for "www.google.com". It might wake them up a bit to the plight of webmasters the world over.
I saw that MC had a dream about pressing the delete button on Google's last spammer the other night. In reality he would end up with repetitive strain disorder :-P
[ [mattcutts.com...] ]
All the best
| 12:04 pm on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
colin_h, it looks like your site is still in sandbox
| 10:52 pm on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
When you fill in the help form on Googles site, they usually don't respond for 2 or 3 days.
Even if you respond immediately to their answer, their next one, again, is 2 or 3 days later.
The first response you get is normally a standard "cut and paste" answer (Google has a few dozen of those), and is answered by someone who has little clue as to how Google works, and shows obvious signs of not having actually read what you asked, perhaps maybe skimmed 5 to 10 words and ignored the rest.
My experience this year (using several friends to pose questions too) is that out of 21 questions, 15 of the initial replies had nothing to do with the question that had just been asked. It takes at least the third time around the loop before you feel you might be getting anywhere, but again, out of 21 questions asked, just ONE has been resolved to our satisfaction.
| 6:42 am on Dec 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good morning Folks
To those of you who celebrate X-Mas:
I wish you and yours a Merry Christmas
And here is a reminder of how its great to be alive :-)
"I see trees that are green, red roses too
I watch them bloom for me and you
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world
The colours of the rainbow, so pretty in the sky
Are also on the faces of the people passing by
I see friends shaking hands, saying, "how do you do?"
But they're really saying, "I love you"
I think to myself, ooh what a wonderful world"
| 6:57 am on Dec 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good morning McMohan
>>Google is carefully trying to shape-up belief/knowledge among site owners at large and SEOs to some extent, from the position of power it enjoys and the breadth of media it can cover with just a mere sneeze.<<
Agreed. But until now, I see what Google is preaching makes sense. Its the wilde SEO west out there :-)
| 7:54 am on Dec 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Just out of curiosity. What do see on these 2 DCs?
Thanks a bunch!
| 9:49 am on Dec 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
is it just me or has the been a big update?
| 10:09 am on Dec 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Merry christmas to you too. And thanks for cheering me up almost every morning since Sep 22nd.
Results for me on the DCs you mentioned do not look good for me.
Test-DC however looks interesting. Page count for my site went down to 133.000 from 136.000 yesterday. I hope my dupe content problem will be fixed in test dcs.
| 10:09 am on Dec 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
now, its changed back. oh well
| 6:07 pm on Dec 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I hope this update never ends. For, we will always be treated with your everyday morning wishes, piping hot capuccino and those sweet little poems :)
Correction - Piping hot "Danish Brand" Capuccino ;-)
| 9:20 pm on Dec 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good evening McMohan
Thanks for the kind words. Much appreciated.
Can't imagine a fresh morning without that tasty "Danish Brand" Capuccino :-)
| 8:14 pm on Dec 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hi everyone. Anyone seen their canonical problem fixed? After months in the wilderness since jagger1, we appear to be back on google.com (220.127.116.11) and our home page comes top with site:www.domain.com. If this sticks it will be a complete turn around for our site and the best xmas present I could have hoped for.
| 8:25 pm on Dec 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The canonical problem being fixed would show all pages of your site listed as either www or non-www on a site:domain.com search, not a mixture of both.
Index page appearing first in listings is another concern, but (probably) of lesser importance.
| 8:45 pm on Dec 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hi g1smd. With either "site:www.domain.com" or "site:domain.com" I'm only seeing "www" pages returned. I did implement a 301 when we were struck down by Jagger - don't know if this made a difference. Not counting my chickens just yet, but there's a lot of noise coming from the chicken shed!
| 9:03 pm on Dec 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Also seeing for the first time since Jagger, our site appearing in position 1 if I do a search on our home page title (not a common phrase). Previously we were listed at > 300.
| 9:20 pm on Dec 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It sounds like you have had a canonical problem which has been resolved. lets hope its over.. Congrats!
| 9:48 pm on Dec 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
As mentioned here [webmasterworld.com] my site came back also. It was hit by pre jagger on Sep 22nd.
Seems as if they have fixed something. Or maybe it is something about the time. My site was dumped for a little more than three months. After fixing some issues I had to wait a long time...
| 9:48 pm on Dec 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Cheers, Reseller. I'm living in hope. I'm also waiting to hear how others are faring, particularly Captain Canonical (Dayo)...
| 2:54 pm on Dec 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yesterday our traffic went back up to pre-Jagger days. We lost 70% of our traffic on Sept 22, and it's been a tough 4th quarter for us. But we are now seeing our site in the top 3 of many of the keywords we lost before Jagger, and we're just keeping our fingers crossed that this will continue. Our Adsense income also climbed back to pre-Jagger. If this sticks, our new year is looking mighty good again.
| 4:17 pm on Dec 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Maybe I can contribute something to this interesting discussion:
I wonder if the following information is able to help find an additional answer to what is or was going on with Jagger. Our traffic is also back to normal since yesterday but I don't think because of Google. Google brings in 50% of our Search-Engine traffic. (75% of our traffic is direct requests)
Our site is a large portal for Costa Rica and there are over 100'000 different Search-Strings a month. We have several thousand pages of about 300 different hotels on the site which makes it the most complete Hotel Information Site of Costa Rica.
Before Jagger we were #1 for "Costa Rica Hotel Information" and # 7 For "Costa Rica Hotels". During or since Jagger we kept the #1 position for "Costa Rica Hotel Information", but "Costa Rica Hotels" went to position #33 and is still there.
Since we have no clue what could cause this, we did not make any changes to the site at all, but maybe for some of you more analytical guys this could help to find an answer.
Have a happy day
| 8:41 am on Dec 31, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good morning Folks
I wouldn't let the last day of 2005 to pass by without:
Wishing You and Yours A Happy 2006
And special wishes for the new year to our kind generous host Brett and our kind tolerant helpful mods.
God bless The WebmasterWorld Community!
| 9:05 am on Dec 31, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yea, seems appropriate - this thread was my world for a few months....so HAPPY NEW YEAR everyone!
I just hope we don't have a similar thread in 2006!
| 5:47 pm on Dec 31, 2005 (gmt 0)|
reseller, wish you and all at WebmasterWorld a happy new year as well.
| 9:39 am on Jan 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Good morning Folks!
My first post in 2006 :-)
For the first time I see the serps of the test DC on my default google.com IP: 18.104.22.168
While, the test DC [22.214.171.124...] isn't showing the testing serps, strange enough.
Very interesting start of a new year indeed ;-)
| 1:43 pm on Jan 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Happy New Year!
[126.96.36.199...] shows new results and is at least over here in Germany for some people live on Google.de