| 4:37 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Happy 2006 and may it be a great year for everyone, with all the SERPs and traffic you could wish for.
I'm seeing a slight change in SERPs and we went up a position from 4 to 3, so thats a good start to the year as far as I'm concerned. I won't get out the champaign yet, but there's been enough of that lately anyway.
Have a great year. Scott
| 5:59 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
A Happy New Year to all. This seems an appropriate time to make my first post and thank all those who have helped me understand what was happening to my 6 year old site. Especially to Reseller who has kept my spirits up, and Dayo_UK who has the same canonical site problems as I do and has explained it so that a clueless hobbyist webmaster like me can understand what has happened.
I have canonical problems and thousands of supplementals from 3 causes:
1. www vs. non-www
2. 2 domain names pointing to same site
3. thousands of pages moved
In July, I placed 301’s on non-www and 2nd domain name, and I did 301’s the day I moved 3000 pages into folders. The 301s worked on about half of the moved pages, the other half went supplemental..
I see an improvement on the new serps, but things are not completely fixed for me.
1.If I do a site:mysite.com –www, I still have 1700 supplemental results. No change.
2.If I do a site: on my 2nd domain name, I have gone from over 3000 supplemental to 75. The 75 that are remaining have cache dates from Feb 2004 to October 2004, and some of these 75 are URL only. Those that no longer appear as supplemental had a cache date of Feb 2005.
3.For the thousand of pages that I moved, they still appear as supplemental; however, the number of these supplementals has been reduced from 1800 to 1000.
So, things are improving, but still a ways to go for me to fix canonicals and supplementals. I’ve toyed with using the URL removal tool for the moved pages, but don’t want to cause more harm than good.
I've read every posting on the Jagger, pre-Jagger, and post-Jagger update threads, and I think I can say I don't remember anybody who said their Google results improved on Sept 22, but mine did. Tripled, in fact, as I started to get ranked for internal pages. My guess is that perhaps Google loosened a dup filter on Sept 22. My rankings sank again on Nov. 7, when I think they re-instated the dup filter as Jagger came to an end. I’d sure love to know what Sept 22 was all about.
My thanks to all. You are helping more people than you know.
| 6:02 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Can anyone tell me why, when doing the site: search on the test DC that my index page appears second and not first? The page that is listed first changes now and then, but why is it not the index page?
Anyway, the changes look a heck of a lot better than they did before, but unfortunately the pages still don't rank.
| 6:06 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>> The page that is listed first changes now and then, but why is it not the index page?
Me too (well index page not always second, sometimes third or fourth.)
>>>but unfortunately the pages still don't rank.
Mine neither :(
| 6:26 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>Surprising that this thread is not moving at a faster rate
Not much to say about these results so far for me. I've got half the number of pages that Google.com shows for my website and over 100 Supplemental pages - mostly PDF files that I no longer allow via robots.txt. This was an attempt to eliminate duplicate content. Those that were not, I've now gone through all the trouble of returning a 410 for all the supplemental results that are no longer on the website (for years…). Others have been fixed with 301s.
It’s complete mess for me with absolutely no progress since the last update. For a search engine that is supposed to be so sophisticated, they are the worst at handling these things. Even Yahoo (with all their troubles) finally figures these things out.
On the bright side, allowing me to finally see all this crap gives me a chance to try and fix it. Maybe by February I’ll be back.
| 6:45 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The test dc just gets me more depressed. Almost all the articles I wrote for this small site have gone supplemental. I have tried to keep each page unique but it has done no good. I can't figure out why g thinks they should be supplemental.
G has never like this site. I give up. I feel like the red headed stepchild.
Thank good ness for y and msn because that is where all the traffic comes from.
And for all those that think y and msn are easier to game- this site does not game in any way. Very straight forward.
| 7:11 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Rainie, that is what our site does too. Index page is always second and a variety of articles take turns being number one.
We took our huge hit in February and have never recovered. On this dc, 188.8.131.52, we have no supplementals or url onlys, and over 1/2 of our site is indexed including our main pages. This is the only dc that I see this at. All other dc's show lots of url onlys and have a totally inflated page count.
Somebody give me some hope that this is a good thing.
| 7:28 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well I can't speak for the index as a whole but this is the single best update I have ever seen. All of my pages are indexed, no more url-only results. Rankings are proper (low for big terms, which I expect, but high for lesser terms, which is appropriate).
If Google would just please go live with it..
| 8:26 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
RobinK, Exactly. We took the devastating hit in 2/04 also. Wow, we've suffered almost a year now, although I saw that some other sites took the hit earlier than that. Yikes!
On the test DC (doing site: search,) we have a few supplementals on the last page and when I click "repeat the search..." it shows all of the non-www. pages that were 301'd to the www. pages back in 5/04. I wonder if these non-www, supplemental listings are influencing the rankings?
Anyway, to get a little more back on topic, when people were reporting that the test DC results were sometimes showing live, I did notice a few hits from Google search for longer, obscure phrases. When I checked them out, I could see that it was from something like page fortysomething in the SERPS for the long term. It's a start, but there's a long way to go.
| 8:27 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing a fluctuation between old and new serps
What I have seen is gain for legit phrases for my sites and
decrease in ranking for non targetted combinations
Overall I am not sure about traffic.
but from google perspective a few legit pages of my sites were dropped out of index (10000 pages) about 10 % decrease in english results.
But overall for my site it is ok, I would wait for the day when spam blogs strange .info sites with scrapped content are dropped completely from the index
| 9:28 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Surprised this thread is here at all. Maybe .01% of the supplemental issues are changed (not to say improved even, just changed). I suppose some sites might just accidentally be better, but there certainly has been no fix applied Internet-wide.
The test datacenters just have different (spammier) results, that's all. Still no obeying of 301s for supplementals, still no deletion of supplementals that are 404 and well linked. In short, no significant change at all.
| 9:34 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Surprising that this thread is not moving at a faster rate - could be that people are still on the Hols - or perhaps lots of people are not seeing much. |
Is this just another attempt to continue the Jagger update? :)
| 9:38 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I need to clarify and couldn't find the button to edit my post. My hit took place in 2/05 and all related dates are in 2005. I've been organizing tax files for the last couple of years and I got mixed up. Sorry!
Well, I guess there are no significant changes for rankings on sites that experienced the 302 hijack/canonical URL problems. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I am just clinging to the small hope that's left, that is to be returned to the index properly, rankings and all.
| 9:58 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Some changes for me have just gone live on google.co.uk.
Biggest change is that a couple of spam sites have disspeared. All good!
| 10:32 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Whew - I thought it was just me... Looking at the last pages of these listings, seeing supplementals that were fixed ages ago. Cache dates on these supplementals back to May 2004 (for a site started in April 2004).
I'm happy for those seeing improvements, but I've got fewer pages and a lot more supplementals in this new index. Despite the fact Googlebot has been more aggressive this month. As I said earlier, at least this gave me an opportunity to manually try and fix any stragglers.
Prior to his Happy New Year post, GG had not been here since October. I guess Matt - I mean GoogleGuy - is going to provide guidance from his blog. Err, you know what I mean...
| 10:33 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
As I have said before, our canonical problems have been fixed and our site has thankfully returned to it's pre-jagger rankings. But ours was a short term canonical problem, not a long term one and perhaps this has made a difference. Our PR has remained consistent throughout.
| 11:00 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
i am happy listening to StriderUK and all of you who report canonical fixes; my main site has more than 18.000 urls from a subdomain duplicating my domain urls by accident... i wonder if there is a way to help google fix these supplementals beyond 301... i am not sure if using a sitemap to this suplementals can help. Any indication from google would be great to help Googlebot fix the index faster with less effort and to help my site rank at least for its own name :(
but i keep watching Mozilla Googlebot crawling my supplementals again and again, what a waste of time for G and me
| 11:06 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, there are definite changes but nothing staggering. I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what has happened. I am seeing a lot of spammy pages (doorways etc.) reappear after having been gone for quite some time. Its disheartening to see tham back again. Sigh.
I think we'll just have to wait and see. I don't think this is permanent. At least I would hope not!
| 11:26 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
i see the same problems. i monitor lot of travel related serps in spanish and i can say lot of sites using crappy keyword stuffing in title and hidden text here and there are ranking #1. Also scrapers in #1, #2 and #3. G, you'd better test this more because there is too much nonsense to report if this sticks
| 11:26 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Sadly, I have seen no difference in the "Test" DC for my area so whether it is live or not really doesn't matter. I don't just mean that my site doesn't rank, it is the worst set of results I have ever seen on Google - total domination by certain players (Amazon etc).
My only hope is that the results are so bad (I rank with pages that don't mention or relate to the search term!) that it's all just a glitch and normality will be restored soon.
| 11:27 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
A few of the real pathetic efforts to spam (text cramming & multi paging) in my sector have fell down the serps over the past few hours. I'm surprised that they have only incured a penalty, as their amateur attempts to beat the system have been reaping rewards for a very long time ... I've said it before, but one of these sites actually has a section in their code called Hidden Text ... I mean why hasn't this site just been banned outright?
| 11:33 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
In the sector I'm watching, about 80-90% of the results returned by default google and 184.108.40.206 are identical, just in a different order. But there are those few sites that keep showing/not showing at all between the two DCs.
A realy spammy site (keywords only urls using 302s to their index page) has dropped in rankings, but is not banned at all.Than another site, that has been url only eversince the beginning of Jagger, is back with good positions. The weird thing is the site is not available anymore.
Also, there is still a huge difference in number of results returned, although they seem to have increased considerably in default google.
Maybe that's just my impression.. :-)
| 3:33 am on Jan 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
What really worries me once again: niche market relevant / legitimate sites loosing their homepage for selected keywords - I though the fix would be easy for this, I can't imagine what could cause any penalty to these sites.
Ont he other hand I still don't understand why these sites have their homepage that disapear 'only' for some queries.
Weird Google - Weird...especially my default Google...not that it is that bad overall though.
| 3:43 am on Jan 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I still don't understand why these sites have their homepage that disapear 'only' for some queries. |
That has a strongly familiar ring to it -- something like the Florida update? Ancient history, I know, but ...
| 4:23 am on Jan 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
followgreg - I have a client site that is exhibiting these same symptoms. Brick-n-mortar business, cleanly spidered, I mean perfect indexing - no supplementals, no url-only, no canonical problem (everything shows as www.example.com), all unique pages, no duplicate content, about 45 pages total on the site.
They used to have good positions for many different keyword phrases related to their business, but after Jagger, they are only positioned well for a scattered few phrases.
What is really weird is they have good serps for short phrases in higher competition, but longer more specific searches with less competition they are no-where to be found.
Unfortunately, those longer searches used to be a large portion of their traffic, and better targeted customers.
I have been scratching my head as to what sort of weird penalty can there be?
| 5:09 am on Jan 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I have been scratching my head as to what sort of weird penalty can there be? |
Just because a site does not show up for a specific keyword search does not mean there is a penalty. Unfortunately, it's just sometimes the way things are. Perhaps you can call it the “luck of the draw” penalty.
| 6:43 am on Jan 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Good morning Folks
Regardless of the impact of the new serps on your site(s), one thing for sure; Life is still great and wonderful and the older you are the more you will agree with me on that :-)
I see a mixed feelings through out the thread, and that seems to be always the case when new serps emerge. Some register changes and others just wonder what we are talking about.
We would have expected some feedback from Matt "Inigo" Cutts, but he wrote on his blog yesterday that he is without broadband and electricity (maybe he hadn't paid the bills :-)). So we might wait some time to hear from Matt.
Wish you all a great day.
| 7:23 am on Jan 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I see a move to more sematically specific targeting. It used to be not so long ago that you could *own* the series on widgets by being number one for the term 'widgets' (blue widgets, red widgets and you would rank high for all of those.
This was even pre jagger in the summer.
Those days are gone as the longer keyphrases are no longer as 'guaranteed' as they were pre jagger. I believe this is due to the overwhleming number of sites and the specialties of newer niche sites arriving daily.
| 8:15 am on Jan 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I am starting to get unhealthily obsessed about this test DC and when (or even, if) they'll propogate to the main Google for good.
Sunday morning I held out real hope that this was finally happening having seen the new results on google.com - after a while, alternating between the new SERPS and current ones.
I wish we could hear from someone as to when or if these new SERPS will go live as for me, my site has returned to where it was...and for some words, better than it was pre-Jagger.
There is one thing I noticed when the results showed on Google Sunday morning: that is, when I did a site:mydomain.com -www, there were still a couple of results shown but not as many as are now (and have always been) showing on the test DC. There are only about 5 pages showing (including the home page) but when the new SERPS were showing, there were about 3 pages (without the non-www home page) - not sure if this means anything.
| 8:22 am on Jan 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
i am enjoying the #3 result for: paris hotels
check it yourself :))
| 8:41 am on Jan 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Did the Florida update screw up websites to the point where internal pages do better than the homepage while the homepage is obviously the most relevant.
(when i say 'do better', it means still listed while the homepage is nowhere to be found...)
| This 162 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 162 ( 1  3 4 5 6 ) > > |