| 4:37 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|don't pay any attention to those jerks who tell you that you shouldn't rely on google for business |
By the sounds of it you should of listened :)
| 4:39 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Have those pages got the supplimental tag? If so then they wont rank.
| 4:40 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I give up on trying to figure out google. Their information fluxuates way to much and their index does not seem to be up to date. I am glad that I rank good and steady in msn and yahoo. If I depended on google it would be hit or miss depending on the day and time...
| 4:40 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
colin_h - agree with you 100%.
Saying you shouldn't rely on Google is idiotic: they have 60+% of the search market and if you have a web based business - as opposed to bricks and mortar or telephone/late night ads you have no choice but to rely on Google.
I have a lot of top 3 SERP pages in MSN and Yahoo and it didn't help me a whole lot when I went in the Google dumper for the 4 months of the year where I used to make 80% of my money in a seasonal industry.
Tell ya one thing. What I discovered is the nature of the Google algo allows sites to manipulate both rankings AND - with a concerted effort - destroy the PR and hence traffic of competitors. I got PR0'd in Google in large part because of a systematic campaign of content theft by a competitor who set up a ton of waste sites (mostly free hosted) for the purpose of duplicating competitors content. It is an inherent problem in Google and not one that seems to be a problem in MSN or Yahoo.
Took me 4 months of solid work to undo the damage, guard against theft and restore PR (at least I think it is - Google index keeps reverting back to 3 months ago lately).
| 4:41 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
By some querk of fate my listings came flooding back just before the sales process was started ... so I'm 3/4 mil better off today than I was last year.
Still it's interesting to keep my hand in with a few new projects that I started last year ... and they're not getting hit by today's fun and games. Must be doing something right ;-)
| 4:44 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I always wondered what would happen if you copied someones site and then changed the date stamp to before the orinator site. Would that be enough to destroy someones PR?
| 4:46 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
When you say supplemententals won't rank, do you mean they won't be indexed, or they won't get page rank, or they won't get positioned well in the SERP's?
| 4:49 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Generally they will not be positioned well in the serps.
| 5:20 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Sure hope we learn something soon. I have had a 65% drop in the number of pages in the BD index and of the remaining pages, now all but the home page are supplemental. (11 year old site)
| 5:22 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
same for my site
approx 100k pages supp/ MIA - only index left and ranking @#1
| 5:38 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
302 problem in december 2005 has cost me Ģ705,000 in lost income. No blackhat straight clean site.
People do place alot of importance on google results and when you follow the guidelines and build good sites, then google drops them because of the 302 issue then you begin to worry. Hey msn and yahoo have 302 sorted and my sites thankfully rank well there too.
| 5:59 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I ask everybody who has the problem on Bigdaddy: Write to Google! I know that Google never gives individual answers in Mails. But: Mails cannot harm for this topic.....
| 6:00 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Just happened about 30 minutes ago across all data centers including BD all 3000+ pages went supplemental except for homepage
| 6:05 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
We may aswell ignore supplimental results as they dont rank and MC has stated that they are on a different crawl etc to the main index.
Meaning, that there is a lot of sites out there effectively with only 1 page in the index!
Now, is this a penalty/problem/bug - or is this a base from where Google are going to crawl from going forward? (Relatively common for a new site just to have 1 page listed for a while before a proper crawl takes place.)
My head says it is a penatly/problem/bug - would love to be proved wrong - but cant see it.
| 6:22 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I donīt think that Google does without these pages. It must be a problem/bug!
| 6:23 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Just happened about 30 minutes ago across all data centers including BD all 3000+ pages went supplemental except for homepage"
Also on not Bigdaddy datacenters?
| 6:36 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
At the time of the last posting it was across my general google a couple of random datacenters, big daddy and little daddy. The pages are now back as usual in Big Daddy [126.96.36.199...] nowhere else.
Another piece of info the cache date on the the rest of the sites with the supplemental problem the cache shows jun 05 - aug 05, prior to the problem they showed feb 2006. Big Daddy in now showing Feb 2006 no supplementals in the first 1000. The rest are still showing supplementals after the homepage
| 6:50 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
For what its worth I am seeing the usual ancient results on 188.8.131.52.
I would date them at least 60 days old.
| 7:00 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
We've also expirenced big daddy placing all our 5000+ indexed pages (except the home page) into supplemental. It happened this morning for us on 2 sites.
Started last week on big daddy where we started seeing highly ranked pages disappear - they are still missing. At least they aren't supplemental... yet.
Has to be a bug!
| 7:06 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
same happened to us 14yr old 3 hours ago started at the newest pages and worked its way through to just a index page. Lets hope its a bug.
| 7:14 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
All DC's are showing my backlinks as zero. Hope it's an update! =8-o
| 9:28 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Not like it's any surprise, but I'm suffering from the same issues.
170,000+ pages all moved to supplemental. I was hanging on with 6 pages left in the main index yesterday. That dropped to 2 this morning, and now the only page I have that's NOT in the supplemental index is my main page.
| 2:25 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
in your pages which have supplemental listings, is the extension .htm or .html missing?
| 2:43 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>> My head says it is a penatly/problem/bug - would love to be proved wrong - but cant see it.
Very hard to say whether it is a penatly/problem/bug with this big confusion of what's going on. With all the pages being dropped EXCEPT the homepage, it looks like a penalty, BUT I see that the homepages still rank well for their competitive terms so this is quite contradictory to being penalized. Anyway that's not a good sign to depend only from a stand-alone homepage...I hope and just hope that it is a temporary bug and not a penalty. Who know I can be wrong.
| 2:56 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well shiver me timbers, I've just actually received a reply from Google, telling me that my site is not banned or penalised! Blimey..
Anyway that just means my SEO must be c*ap, so I'd better get on with it!
| 2:57 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
On the BD datacentres I checked, most of the pages I have that are now supplemental no longer exist: not on my site, removed from index with Removal tool.
Would seem simply that there are some very old pages in the index BD is using. Perhaps, unanticipated by Google, the BD algo applied whatever formula would normally be used to flag ancient pages as supplemental.
I know a couple of the senior people on here pointed out repeatedly that BD looks like it is very old - 2-6 months depending on the datacentre.
Did Google take a "snapshot" to test BD and is now in the process of merging that old data with the current index? Is this causing pages to be incorrectly identified by the algo as moribund?
| 3:41 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
are you all supplemental?
| 3:45 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It's just mindboggling that a company so inept can be such light years ahead of its competition.
| 4:24 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I just got the same thing. 1 site went down to 36 pages indexed. All supplemental (except the home page).
some of the pages google shows in the site: command have been deleted for over a year.
I also show urls like:
that were only used for PPC campaigns in 2002 and 2003. Where is google pulling these urls from? It makes little or no sense.
| 6:58 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Isn't the fact that google are using an old data-set to run Big Daddy the main reason for all of the Supplemental returns. Most of the people hit by Alegra & Jagger redesigned their sites to some extent and the appearance of supplemental listings is just helping google to reduce the number of dead links that the searcher hits on. I have no idea why they would need to use such an old data-set, but I'm guessing they are wanting to test accuracy against other historic results.
IMHO I think the data-set will eventually be merged with a current update and all will rosy again. We'll all make loads of money and be able to enjoy the spring & summer [unlike last year].
Love and Peace to Everyone ( Gimme Coffee )
| 10:11 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
are you all supplemental? >
No. I have two other all supplemental sites, and they have not even been cached since last August. I can't seem to persuade googlebot in, whatever I do.
| This 192 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 192 ( 1 2 3 4 5  7 ) > > |