| 4:14 pm on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
For what it's worth, as I don't quite know what's going on, on standard DC's I have 800 page results, none of which are supplemental, but on BD I have 67,500 results, the first 25 of which are non-supplemental, and the rest are[well those you can see!]
New site April last year, no major changes.
However, no effect on traffic, apart from natural increase due to time, added pages, etc.
| 4:41 pm on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
For what it's worth, still major updating going on.
End of Jagger to BD, my site went from page 1 SERPS for all kw's to pages 2 - 9. Essentially crushed my traffic.
In addition, site:www.domain.com command had my index page nowhere to be found.
For the life of me I could not figure out why.
And then today, low and behold, I'm back to page 1 SERPS top 3 spots for ALL of my keywords and my site:www.domain.com results have my index page as the first result.
Here's what I did in the meantime:
1. Cleared up my source code. Our programmers were big fans of putting reminder messages in the code, which made it pretty sloppy and probably confused the bots.
2. I reorganized the linking between my main site and 3 other sites (virtually same C class ip). Instead of linking through anchor text hoping for recognition in SERPS, changed all the links to my main site to just the site's url.
3. I added exactly ZERO links until yesterday, but the last stated crawl was Monday evening.
If someone could make sense of this, that would be great.
| 6:24 pm on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Thats great news for you and great hope for others.
Do you know what DC you are doing the site: search on?
| 6:44 pm on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
For anyone that uses google sitesearch you might want to double-check results. I was working around on a new google search box and a message from google on one of their setup pages (I forget where) told me I only had 8 searchable pages. Sure enough, even though the "site:example.com" is showing 600 one day and 10,000+ the next, only the pages that aren't supplemental are being used in my sitesearch, making it useless. This may all be a result of this mess that is currently going on with google, but I decided not to wait around for them to figure out when their going to fix it.
I switched to yahoo sitesearch, and it is dead on, perfect results for every search. Maybe yahoo web search isn't the greatest, but I am now a big fan of it's sitesearch.
| 6:55 pm on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
So has the "big daddy" update that everyone expected this month happened yet? I see a lot of variation between the datacenters, and some MIA sites/pages returning on the big daddy datacenter. I would say we are still waiting for the big spread/update, huh?
| 7:00 pm on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think somebody (Matt?) said that it will happen mid-March. Maybe we will see something really big next week?
| 7:01 pm on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Quite simply every DC I checked (BD and others) show the same results with a slight difference of maybe 1 spot in SERPS.
Maybe this is something outside of BD, perhaps a new type of update?
| 7:10 pm on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Maybe this is something outside of BD, perhaps a new type of update?"
I do not know if it is big daddy, but something has changed. I think something is on the horizon. I would be more apt to say it is a data refresh.
| 7:37 pm on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The big daddy everflux.
| 9:35 pm on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm not going to read through the whole thread here but my God there are a lot of supplemental sits coming up. If a page hasn't been live for over a year, just drop the site from the index already.
| 10:14 pm on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
bears5122 - perhaps it would do you well to read this thread - your comment does not seem to fit, somehow.
| 10:56 pm on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think I understand what bears was saying. I had noticed a couple things about BD. We have a large, dynamic ecommerce site and BD had actually crawled and indexed much deeper than what site: was showing me on non-BD datacenters. However, I did notice that a lot of new content, even static pages that would be easily crawlable, were showing up in the non-BD datacenters, but not in BD. This made me think that BD was a deeper, but less fresh crawl.
Then last week we had the supplemental problem that this thread is about and everything but our home page disappeared. We switched platforms last June and also changed most of our URLs in October, so given that others with this problem have also implemented major site changes in the last year, it may be an indication that, for whatever reason, BD suddenly got extra stale and the index is actually missing pages from the last year or some significant amount of time, even though those pages have been crawled and were added to other indexes. Our home page is actually the only page on our site that existed with the same URL a year ago, and it's the only one still in the index.
Also, some forums have been hit by the same bug, which might make sense because if a forum is active most of the pages would have been created relatively recently.
I have no idea why some sites are hit and some aren't.
Also, googlebot's been visting 40,000+ pages a day on our site this week, so I don't think our supplemental problem means they don't like us.
|Need More Hits|
| 11:17 pm on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>BD suddenly got extra stale and the index is actually missing pages from the last year or some significant amount of time,<
I agree with your statement
I think you are on to something here as we have the same bug going on.
| 11:25 pm on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
We have a client with 2 sites (Site A & B)on the same server, selling the same products but branded to appeal to different customers, the sites have lots of duplicate content.
Site A, the main site has ranking no1 for over 6 years for highly competitive phrases, including all sub pages and third level pages. It has just had all its subpages supplemented and traffic (sales) has dropped off completely. Only the domain name is not supplemented
However, Site B the secondary site that has never ranked on Google, because of duplicate content and server filter has suddenly shot up the rankings.
Site B has now taken the place where Site A was in the results.
[184.108.40.206...] - shows Site A as no1, where it was before Big Daddy. Site A has no supplemented results in this data centre.
[220.127.116.11...] - shows Site B as no1, post Big Daddy. Site A has supplemented results.
I'm using Google.co.uk in the South of England and its using [18.104.22.168...] data centre (just pinged it) so its severing up the latest Big Daddy results
I think I should consider myself luckly in away....
I'm going to email Google to ask why the site has been supplemented - as it is clean and should have all its pages served up in the results. Also the client spent over 6 figuires on Google Ad last and got a free USB kit for Xmas, so you would hope they give the client some time to look into it, if they aren't too busy counting their cash.
If they don't give a convincing answer or give the client the time you would think they deserve to look into it, I will know Google have turned from "dont be evil" to "do be evil"
I'll keep you posted
| 11:31 pm on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Its early in the game, but 100% full recovery."
Off topic from this thread, but I see some September 22/December 27 things fixed, while others got hurt more.
Yet another screwup, but it should make some people happy to see some pages recover. I had three pages still effected by September 22 that weren't healed on December 27th. Two (totally trivial ones) healed today, while the other (very important) one was joined in the screwedup box by another (very important) one. Cool, not.
| 11:35 pm on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Understatement of the year! - in our sector our own site has just been absolutely stuffed with 99% going suplemental and i have looked at others in the sector, some are unaffected for what ever reason and a good number of others have gone the same way!
Are all sites going to get hit as this rolls out or is this some sort of new penulty we dont know about yet?
I just dont get it?, we were ranking on this site for 3/4 string search terms with few results in googles index, now we are gone!
I dont know about suplemental hell - this is a f@cking nightmare!
As one poster said here "its like going into a coma and not knowing if you will wake up or not"!
| 12:23 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"this is a f@cking nightmare"
And Freddy Kruger has got you by the...
I swear the Bible said something about Google Supplemental index being one of the gateways to Hell. Or was it the Enquirer. I dunno. I could be mistaken.
| 12:34 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It is a gateway to hell!
Perfectly good quality pages PR6 & PR5 that form the major content of the site have gone supplemental and vanished from the serps.
I understand GG said last week he had an idea how to fix this bug but a few days later sites are still going supplemental in the UK.
Found four more tonight in my sector that have joined me!
The worry factor here is when/will? they return?
This is a nightmare
| 1:17 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think to maintain an architecture of the internet the supplemental listing has to exist. When a page goes orphaned or banned or many other reasons already discussed a page goes supplemental.And it will always remain in there at that "time" on the internet as a supplemental listing. If the page comes live again in google index the live page will be used in algo when calculating results and the supplemental result is ignored. But if the page stays in supplemental without replacement does google continue to use the supplemental data to determine your serp result? I think it does and perhaps throwing this in our faces is a way of telling us that. All above in my Opinion.For me this has caused a clean up of problems I didn't even realise I had so thanks google.
| 1:32 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It's really killing me. When sites that are also in my industry are not affected, my forum which was considered an authority site by many will slowly fall and be taken over by the sites which are not affected by this.
If the problem was SEO then I wouldn't be as upset, but it looks like the problem is a google glitch of sorts, a glitch which is costing me hundreds of dollars a day, and allowing sites which never would have come close to being authority sites to slowly creep up on me.
| 3:08 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yup, it does makes you cringe when you see all your pages in BD Sup Hell but wait a minute - do you see a rise in refers from Yahoo & MSN - we are ;-). Is it that searchers are finding an alternative? We are up an incredible 300% from last month on Yahoo. Is history going to repeat itself like when Alta Vista was such a mess and everyone moved to Infoseek cuz it was so much better?
| 3:48 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I agree that supplementals do have a functionality. Given the number of documents on the web, search engines have to focus on spidering, indexing and delivering results from the most relevant pages available versus all pages available. If you read papers that folks from google have published, they typically state this limitation upfront.
The problem we're (the supplemental club) having right now is that live, useful pages aren't in the primary index where they should be (assuming they're good, relevant pages), so supplemental results are suddenly visible because there aren't regular results to show up first when querying for site:. For those affected, traffic has dropped dramatically because this issue doesn't affect all sites. If everyone's pages were all dropped, then there would be a level playing field amongst supplemental results that would probably result in the same general traffic pattern as if everyone's real pages were still included in the index.
I seriously do hope it's fixed soon, though. This is having a big impact on my traffic and sales. I also can honestly say that we have pretty much the best site in our niche for buyer user experience and functionality. Even without my personal bias, I think I could objectivly say that SERPS that essentially exclude our site are going to be less relevant to the search engine users looking for what we offer (which is also why I am pretty confident that this is a glitch and it will be corrected).
| 4:03 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, Well, I'll be out of buisness soon. My entire site also went supplemental except for homepage. Total traffic from G this week 0. The bigger part of this problem is the pages that the supplementals replaced were all removed from the index, so obviously I rank for none of my products at all. I guess Google prefers to list somebodys shopping cart checkout page, instead of content, which is what they are doing. Does anybody else in an e-commerece sector see this? I'm watching huge amounts of dynamic cart pages ( not actual product pages from the cart, but checout, and continue shopping pages ) ranking now.
| 4:29 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You would think that gogole would atleast keep us up to date as to whats going on here. This is really killing a lot of large online business's that have played by the rules for years. Can't they let us know a time frame as to when all this will be fixed if ever?
| 4:50 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Hey, I wanted to stop by and give an update. I think we found what the immediate issue was. Future indexing should start picking up most affected people's pages again, though it may take a few more days for it to be visible. I'll check in again after the weekend is over to see if most people are seeing pages returning.
| 5:03 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Wow, that is a breathe of fresh air. Appreciate the update. Thanks much! These little updates certainly do help the spirits.
Light at the end of the sup tunnel.....we can hope.
[edited by: quarryshark at 5:05 am (utc) on Mar. 9, 2006]
| 5:04 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the update GG. Everyone has their fingers crossed that this will be short lived and we all can get back to normal.
| 5:05 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You bet; happy to help. Sorry I haven't been able to post as much lately. :(
| 5:08 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I really do appreciate the Update, really help me a lot. Thanks for keeping us all on the up and up.
| 5:10 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"You bet; happy to help. Sorry I haven't been able to post as much lately."
Ahh that is ok we keep ourselves busy arguing and sharing Google conspiracy theories.
| 5:16 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Our e-comm site has dropped to page 17 for keyword (brand name)....but , when you search by brand name + part number, we're actually listed abovethe manufacturer themselves for most items...weird....
we have not had a high ranking for keyword BrandName since forum links were not givenmuch PR by G..maybe 3 years?
As for the checkout pages...I'm gonn adouible check, cause I have seen a huge number of first time visitors enter our site from an " empty" checkout page...it must be right up there for some keywords
ah well...ppc ppc it is....
| This 205 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 205 ( 1 2 3 4 5  7 ) > > |