King of Bling
msg:723091 | 7:01 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Crush, Pardon my ignorance -- how does one check to see if a site has been relegated to the Supp's? One of our PR6/1000+p sites has been hit. By what, we do not know :-)
|
Crush
msg:723092 | 7:21 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Bling do a search: site: mydomain.com and if you see "supplemental result" next to the snippet then you have joined the sup club.
|
watercrazed
msg:723093 | 7:28 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
About 2 hours ago my site went supplemental except for the homepage. I have had a significant number of supplementals in the results but all or most of my real pages ranked and showed up at the top of a site:www.mydomain.com listing. Now the first 1000 are all supplemental on all datacenters I have checked. At first 66.249.93.104 was the same now it shows my usual results. Another piece of info the cache date on the the rest of the datacenter 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 cache no supplementals in the first 1000. The rest of the datacenters are still showing supplementals after the homepage
|
King of Bling
msg:723094 | 7:34 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
OK, well yep - bad news. 2,960 pages went supplemental. Nice. Getting crazy cache dates like "as retrieved on Jan 26, 2005 14:24:08 GMT." Yowza The sky is falling :-P
|
MaxMaxMax
msg:723095 | 7:36 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Yep, today my 1000+ page website went all supplemental bar the homepage. Cached pages are from last July. Last May I got hit by Canonical problems. I took all the recommended remedial action and in the past few weeks Google was finally indexing the site normally, though rankings were still shot to s***. So I have nothing to lose, because I lost it all back in May anyway...
|
asher02
msg:723096 | 7:43 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Same here. Today I lost ranking for all pages beside my home page. when doing "site:" command all are supplemental but the home page. What is going on?
|
asher02
msg:723097 | 7:43 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Sorry double post....
|
randle
msg:723098 | 8:00 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Yikes! Here for example; 64.233.161.105 you get minimal page counts, about 25% representation and supplemental hell, what a mess! But here all is well; 64.233.167.104 Talk about a difference in data centers.
|
powerofeyes
msg:723099 | 8:14 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
This is definetely not a penalty, I see 80% of sites affected in my sector. All of them just have their valid homepage any other listed page in site: is supplemental huge sites having few thousand pages have now dropped to 100s of supplemental pages definetely some major update with bigdaddy DCs, NO penalty for sure just a complete reshuffle and reindex.
|
dmje
msg:723100 | 9:10 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I also noticed a large difference in the DC's mentioned above, I did not have any supp's, yet, but I noticed 2 very distinct things, one of which is very disturbing. 1. Many of my indexed pages are now showing as URL only, and I am not sure exactly what this means. 2. On one of the DC's it was showing an indexed page that is forbidden by the robots.txt, namely in the cgi-bin directory. We have had the cgi-bin directory excluded by the robots.txt from day one, so I am perplexed as to why this page is showing when I do a site:mydomain.com search. There is a 300+ page diff between the 2 DC's one appears correct while the other is missing the 300+ pages. Guess all one can do is wait until the dust settles and see what happens then.
|
SlyOldDog
msg:723101 | 9:13 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Looks like a penalty to me. One of our sites got a penalty a year ago and the site: command looks exactly like our latest site to take a hit. Adwords for me. I have 200 mouths to feed.
|
rookiecrd1
msg:723102 | 9:32 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Same for me. I have about 200,000 supplement pages now. All with caches between 6 months and 1 year old. I sure hope this is just a bug or incomplete update. Seems too large scale for it to be a penalty.
|
Wibfision
msg:723103 | 10:48 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I wish that Matt or Googleguy would post telling us not to worry, that Big Daddy needs an additional data push /reindex (or whatever) and that we just need to be patient. I suppose with millions of GB of data it's easy for things to get screwed up when your moving over to a new system - it's just upsetting when it's your site that's affected, for no apparent reason.
|
broker_boy
msg:723104 | 11:08 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Same here lost 800 pages of quality content no dup at all..... However i also suffered a penalty! Any change of a similarity? Cheers, BB
|
texasville
msg:723105 | 11:14 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I know what we perceive the supplemental designation to be but has it ever been truly defined by google, gg or matt cutts?
Has anyone ever defined it's purpose?
Anywhere in black and white?...or pixels...
|
Eazygoin
msg:723106 | 11:31 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Texasville>> Not sure if this helps: [google.com ] ....reference supplementals.
|
insight
msg:723107 | 11:33 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I still think this is a technial problem with the massive datacenter upgrade in progress (a switch to AMD processors?) that Google is too embarrassed to admit. Does anyone have an example of a totally clean non-commercial site that has been hit? Like the Red Cross, Wikipedia or something?
|
Steph_R
msg:723108 | 12:44 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I tend to agree because if this were a penalty, wouldn't just the penalized pages be supplemental instead of *every* page within a site?
|
Armi
msg:723109 | 12:52 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Why should Google delete the pages and show very old Supplementals? Now, this must be a problem....
|
martinibuster
msg:723110 | 1:11 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
For those whose sites have gone supplemental, it would be helpful if you also mention if this is accompanied by a drop in traffic.
|
plarkin
msg:723111 | 1:27 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I have gone supplmental with 169,000 pages. The only thing left in the main index is my main page of the site. I have dropped to less than 10% of my pre-BigDaddy referral traffic from Google in the past couple weeks. I have a site with ALL original content. I am actively using the Google Sitemaps tool. I have multiple domains that point to my site, but they all get 301'ed to my main URL. Mostly they are URLs of old sites I had that still got some traffic that I wanted to direct to my main site.
|
alex77
msg:723112 | 1:34 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
when i checked our pages today in BD, we only have the index page left listed as not supplemental. just checked our log for today, mozilla bot is crawling big time. hope it's going to pick up the pages and list them properly. mozilla bot has despised us so far, just picking up few pages the last months.
|
RunnerD
msg:723113 | 2:32 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Half my site went supplemental. I really hope its a bug. Is 64.233.167.104 a BD index? I don't have the problem in that specific data center.
|
Steph_R
msg:723114 | 2:37 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
64.233.167.104 is not Big Daddy DC
|
BillyS
msg:723115 | 2:39 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I feel somewhat honored that I still have so many pages in the BD index. I've been reporting for what seems like 2 months now my concern over page counts in BD. Despite very active spidering (Feb stats - site has 1,100 pages and uses Google Sitemap): 2,470 from Googlebot
3,010 from Mozilla Googlebot My site shows roughly 1,080 pages in Non-BD centers and 345 in BD - of which many are supplemental. What I find interesting is the apparent size of BD (22 billion indexed) yet there are many here stating they are losing pages. Of course I am losing traffic (not ranking) because many of my pages are missing. However, for pages that are still in the index, I continue to move up the SERPS. As was mentioned elsewhere, this could be because my competition is also losing pages. On the other hand, I am also climbing the SERPs on non-BD centers. I do have faith that we are on the brink of some kind of purge and reload - nothing more. That's because I have faith in the Google engineers. Also for me, this has been a slow and steady process - nothing like a run away train. Keep the faith.
|
Lorel
msg:723116 | 2:46 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
From the google link above:
there's no way to select or change the index in which a site appears
|
|
I redesigned a website a couple months ago which had over 1/2 the pages in the supplemental result index. The previous web designer had copied text from other sites so I rewrote all the affected pages. Shortly after the redesign the supplementals disappeared. And they are still gone.
|
bobmark
msg:723117 | 2:47 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
" I tend to agree because if this were a penalty, wouldn't just the penalized pages be supplemental instead of *every* page within a site? " In this case I think its an error too because of the scale, but no: I had a site go supplemental long before this and it was every page. I dunno what the process or threshhold is, but Google WILL suddenly wipe out an entire site this way.
|
sit2510
msg:723118 | 2:55 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
>>> For those whose sites have gone supplemental, it would be helpful if you also mention if this is accompanied by a drop in traffic MB, With Big Daddy being propagated to nearly half of the datacenters, I tend to believe that those affected sites with supplementals share the same experience as mine - with drastic drop in traffic.
|
Ledfish
msg:723119 | 3:18 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I like other have had all page except my index page go suppleMENTAL. About 30 out of 850 are gone altogether. We have seen about a 30% drop in traffic a result. Google must have screwed up something big time in the algo recipe.
|
| This 233 message thread spans 8 pages: 233 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ) > > |
|
|
