homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.161.155.142
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 205 message thread spans 7 pages: 205 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 > >     
Supplemental Club: Big Daddy - Part 2
larryhatch




msg:752742
 10:39 am on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

< continued from [webmasterworld.com...] >

One thing to watch for: HOURLY fluctuations.

After years long slow advances, my main page reached #13 in Google for the main single KW.
Suddenly it dropped to #16, then 4 hours later it was right back at #13.

Same thing with a 2-word key-phrase. From #2 or #3 I fell back to #6.
4 hours later, like the above, it was right back.

Some of this is data center switching I'm sure.
Then again maybe they use old data while they polish up the new.
All in all, Big Daddy has not hurt my site yet (knock on wood). -Larry

[edited by: tedster at 6:48 pm (utc) on Mar. 6, 2006]

 

Dayo_UK




msg:752743
 10:59 am on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

I still think people need to ask themselves why a page goes supplimental.

To me it has always been because the page has not got crawled recently - the page has not necessarily got a penalty - it has just not been crawled.

As soon as this page is crawled again then it no longer shows as supplimental (although the supplimental copy still exists as explained earlier - 301s on a supplimental page when newly crawled dont work because the crawl does not replace the supplimental page - it overlays a new version - the supplimental page is still there)

So basically we have a situation that Google is not crawling/indexing pages in a site.

At SES MC said that a depth of crawl/indexing depends on PR.

With a recent PR update, old PR update still hanging around, PR from November still hanging around and Big Daddy bound to have its own PR calculation.

Add to that PR could be split between domain.com and www.domain.com.

IMO I have a feeling that it is a matter of how PR is being allocated and passed through a site with Big Daddy.

powerofeyes




msg:752744
 12:15 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

It isn't a very recent problem. It just very recently
(around FEB 21st )spread out to encompass a lot more websites.
There have been discussions on the threads regards
supplementals for over a year.

I would like to remind you that we are not discussing supplemental results problem which has been discussed in numorous threads here. I can go back atleast 1 and 1/2 years for supplement pages discussion. Almost all sites have supplemental pages in one way or the other. some hurt the site some don't.

This recent feb 21st problem is completely independent of what has been happening. It is a sudden drop in pages for even high quality authority sites where just the homepage remains. The homepage which was ranking before still ranks very well. But all legitimate pages dropped and only supplemental pages remain. Remember supplemental pages are completely independant of legitimate indexed pages.

Supplement pages are what google algorithm considers unwanted on a site which are affected by various reasons. one primary reason is duplicate content.

g1smd




msg:752745
 12:32 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> I still think people need to ask themselves why a page goes supplemental. <<

Lack of inbound links is probably one factor. I'd like to see what other factors there are.

One is that the page no longer exists, or even that the domain no longer exists.

Another is when you exclude the page using "robots.txt", the page re-appears in the supplemental index a few months later with a cache date of just before the date of when the "robots.txt" file first excluded that URL.

Google seems to be saying "we were allowed to index it way back then, so we will still leave that copy in our index now". However, the reason for putting the URL in robots.txt in the first place was "oh #*$!, I didn't want that page indexed".

.

>> To me it has always been because the page has not got crawled recently - the page has not necessarily got a penalty - it has just not been crawled. <<

>> As soon as this page is crawled again then it no longer shows as supplemental <<

I have seen pages that are crawled weekly show as a supplemental result for words that were in the previous version of the page, and as a normal result when you search for current content. Google want to hang on to the previous version of the page for some reason. Even when they are showing the old information in the snippet, the cache that it links to is one from only a few days ago.

It is infuriating that you amend your website to update all the old email addresses and old phone numbers, and three years later Google is still showing them in the snippets, even though that data is no longer on the real page, nor in any cache that they have made public in the last two years or more; except for some pages that are "fully supplemental" where they continue to show a cache from January 2004. Wake up! It is March 2006 now.

angiolo




msg:752746
 12:57 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

> Lack of inbound links is probably one factor.

Not for me.

I monitor several sites. Few of them got supplemental.

What does exactly it means "got supplemental"?

It means that on about half of the Google DBs ( the Big Daddy databases ) only the index page had been indexed... Most of other pages got supplemental despite the fact that the supplemental pages had been cached this february.

Had the sites been penalized?

Not for the home page! They rank fine as usual for the most important keywords...
They lost about 10 % in traffic.

They lost some traffic from the supplemental pages for subsidary keywords.

Does Googlebot visit the sites? Yes, daily!

Is there any reason for reaching the supplemental Club?

NOT A COMMON REASON!

- All of them have a good page rank ( Minimum 6 )
- No Black hat or tricks or fake link campaign
- Two sites are gaining link popularity in a natural way (excellent content: they do not need any link campaign)
- One site did not do anything in the last two years!
- None of them display Adsense

Three of them changed hosting during the last two years: this is the only "partial" common factor.

I think that, as GoogleGuy said, it's a temporary glitch...

locoblade




msg:752747
 1:31 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

50% down on traffic we have to ask how long is this glitch going to last.

Had a 302 issue for the last 14 months!

sem4u




msg:752748
 1:40 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

One of my sites (PR5) has now gone supplemental. Only the home page is not. Around 700+ pages were reported by the Google site: command before, now this is down to 226. The cached dates for the supplemental pages are for dates at the end of June 2005!

What is going on here?

Halfdeck




msg:752749
 2:57 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

I just found one of my supplemental pages with cache dated 2/28/2006 yet displaying title/description corresponding to a cache dated around August of last year.

The page went supplemental intially probably because it shared title/description with 10 other pages, I had a huge block of navs below <body>, and the copy text on every page was thin.

Now the cache looks new but the title/description displayed doesn't match the cache and the page is still supplemental.

sem4u




msg:752750
 3:15 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have checked the site with the supplemental problem on two DCs now.

On 64.233.179.104 all pages reported are supplemental apart from the homepage.

On 72.14.207.104 I am seeing most pages indexed correctly and cache dates as fresh as 4th March.

Jakpot




msg:752751
 3:32 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

"It isn't a very recent problem. It just very recently (around FEB 21st )spread out to encompass a lot more websites. There have been discussions on the threads regards supplementals for over a year."
"powerofeyes:
I would like to remind you that we are not discussing supplemental results problem which has been discussed in numorous threads here. I can go back atleast 1 and 1/2 years for supplement pages discussion. Almost all sites have supplemental pages in one way or the other. some hurt the site some don't.
This recent feb 21st problem is completely independent of what has been happening. It is a sudden drop in pages for even high quality authority sites where just the homepage remains. The homepage which was ranking before still ranks very well. But all legitimate pages dropped and only supplemental pages remain. Remember supplemental pages are completely independant of legitimate indexed pages.
Supplement pages are what google algorithm considers unwanted on a site which are affected by various reasons. one primary reason is duplicate content."
*************************************************

To powerofeyes:
Thanks and I would like to remind you that unless one
is a member of the Googleplex team or a "close" ally
thereof most of what is proposed by Google outsiders as causal factors is guesswork based on rather small sample analysis.

Grinler




msg:752752
 3:38 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

On 72.14.207.104 I am seeing most pages indexed correctly and cache dates as fresh as 4th March.

Everything looks great for me their as well. I would be very happy to see those results come back to all datacenters.

lammert




msg:752753
 3:43 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

On 72.14.207.104 I am seeing most pages indexed correctly and cache dates as fresh as 4th March.

Yes, but according to the SF Giants test, this is not a Big Daddy data center.

leeds1




msg:752754
 3:44 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

yes, I have seen my supps come back with 1st March cache dates

however, none of the pages are ranking

step 1 of 2 I suppose :)

marketingmagic




msg:752755
 3:44 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

The live results have just changed this morning here (Toronto).

Has anyone else seen significant changes in their category as I have this morning?

Any one have any idea if what we are seeing on 72.14.207.104 is what will be rolling over to the other DC's?

Eazygoin




msg:752756
 3:56 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Even though 72.14.207.104 may not be displaying the sf giants test, it is showing BD results, as the 60,000 pages I had showing on BD before are now showing on this IP.
'Classic' DC's only show me having 820 pages.

Dayo_UK




msg:752757
 4:00 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>>>>Even though 72.14.207.104 may not be displaying the sf giants test, it is showing BD results

None of the tests that I do show this as a Big Daddy DC.

So, I would not pin any hopes on this DC personally.

jdancing




msg:752758
 4:07 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

72.14.207.104 is often my default DC, it never has shown Big Daddy results. It seems Big Daddy datacenters are the ones that supplemental all inside content pages.

On Big Daddy DCs for the moment - Anchor text, not content, is King.

Eazygoin




msg:752759
 4:10 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Dayo

it actually makes little difference to me whether they are BD or not, as my traffic hasn't been affected during this period, apart from the normal increases due to time etc.

But it seems odd that the same results apply to this DC, numbers wise as they do for BD. Also, akeyword that was at position 1 in classic DC's and 2 in BD, is showing at number 1 again on this DC.

By the way, and thanks for the tip of using Xlogan, I thought I'd mention theres a new version out, which is much more comprehensve.

Dayo_UK




msg:752760
 4:12 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

No probs - I will check that out.

That DC I am 110% sure is not Big Daddy.

Wibfision




msg:752761
 4:12 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

72.14.207.104 has been my default google.co.uk for days now. For me, it displays none BD results for about 70% of the time, and BD results for about 30% of the time.

I think it switching from one to the other constantly is what is causing the confusion. Personally speaking, I wish it would stick to non BD results until the supplementals problem is fixed.

sore66




msg:752762
 4:16 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Where is [72.14.207.104...] located geographically and what are the odds on it being the final solution (for the time being)?

marketingmagic




msg:752763
 4:17 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Dayo - What DC in your opinion is BD?

Eazygoin




msg:752764
 4:19 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

sore76 >

I am in Spain since the weekend, and that IP is my default here.

BUT I was in the UK until Saturday, and it was my default there, in London too....so its anyones guess :-)

Dayo_UK




msg:752765
 4:19 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

66.249.93.104
64.233.179.104
216.239.51.104

Are definetly and have been confirmed by Google as Big Daddy - there are others probably about 50-70% of DCs now - but these are the ones G have confirmed as Big Daddy.

Crush




msg:752766
 5:00 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Please stop this data centre chatter.It is a waste of bandwidth

chewy




msg:752767
 5:03 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

72.14.207.104 still shows 80% of my pages (Boston) on one site to be supplimental results - and it looks clearly to be identical to all other mcdar reported data centers.

Results were fluctuating, rotating between 80 and 90% last week, with 80 going in the right direction - but it needs to be better!

Dayo_UK




msg:752768
 5:05 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Lol Crush true.

People really need to check that they are recieving results from Big Daddy when they start to say they are seeing supplimental pages coming back.

For people who have not read MC blog entries and other posts on the subject - on Big Daddy giants.mlb.com should return top on a sfgiants search. On Non Big Daddy DCs sfgiants.com is returned top.

I dont think any changes have happened on the supplimental issue regarding the homepage being the only one indexed (this is a Big Daddy issue at this stage) - and I doubt we will see anything for a week or so.

videobeat




msg:752769
 6:23 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Man! I haven't been sleeping too well! My business is down so badly I'm afraid to spend a dime! I used spend enormous amounts of time tweaking my website and trolling webmasterworld but the past couple of years I felt like king of the search & ecommerce world. I'd read about people losing their positioning and I'd feel smug and superior. Oops! Am I sorry now! [Note to self:] be more humble and compassionate. (And develop alternate traffic streams!)

Anyway, I have also seen most all my Froogle listings disappear. The only way I appear in Froogle is if I type in a string of keywords that most searchers would never type in -- like including my domain!

Has anyone else seen a drop in Froogle results?

Oliver Henniges




msg:752770
 6:39 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Sorry for not having the source at hand, but somewhere I read that one of the major issues of this "new infrastructure" was additional linguistic filters for non-english websites. This supplemental-problem is not specific for non-english sites, is it? (Just to make sure about that point).

I know that this is not the DC-watch-thread but today I noticed massive changes for my sites RK-values on most DCs as compared to Friday, when I last time checked them.

Crush




msg:752771
 6:42 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

"Lol Crush true.
People really need to check that they are recieving results from Big Daddy when they start to say they are seeing supplimental pages coming back"

If you look at all data centres then half will appear normal and half will appear as the sky is falling. So to keep this on topic and stop the data centre nonsense that seems to be most posts on forum 30 these days, please refrain from speculation until you see a significant change on ALL or most dc'ers. OK?

This 205 message thread spans 7 pages: 205 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved