| 11:46 pm on Mar 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
my site is back and supplemental shows all my pages from my site map.
| 12:45 am on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
im sure im seeing some sort of rollback on some of the BD datacenters, im seeing similar results to end of jan beginning of febuary
| 12:49 am on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
So one thing i still don't understand , assuming we had some duplicate content ...
What's the best way to get out of the "Club"
If a page URL shows supplemental can i change the content and get it back?
or must i create a new URL with unique content and wait for it to be indexed via the home page [ assuming the home page hasn't gone supplemental ]
| 1:02 am on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
So is everyone who is in the Supp club doing a reinclusion request or just hoping it gets fixed all by itself?
| 1:06 am on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
They are indexing my site..so I am assuming it will make it back in on its own. I have alrady done a reinclusion request. Went nowhere. All I got out of it was that I am under no penalty.
| 2:01 am on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing some weird stuff on the various datacenters regarding one of my site. Traffic has been fine, no strange fluctuations. However when I look at pages indexed, they vary from one datacenter to the next. Some show 916 pages indexed, the others show 38,000.
Is this something others have noticed?
| 2:18 am on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| 3:29 am on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I too am almost completely gone.
From 20k uniques a day to what looks like 1k today.
Thank god for MSN and Y.
I haven't had to lay anyone off yet but unless there's a change next week it's going to happen.
| 4:27 am on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
gone again we did 301's about 3 months ago from site A to site B, and all the site A pages are in supplemental, and only the main page with 2 very old pages that don't exist anymore are showing on a site:siteb. So here's how messed up it is:
site:sitea 4,000 supplementals
site:siteb 3 pages, main page and 2 supplementals that are pages that haven't existed for over a year!
| 4:49 am on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
i am wondering that does the page rank update is still going on because my site some times shows pr 4 on the next day when i checked it shows pr 0 is it relatd with the BIG daddy or a page rank update ....
| 5:12 am on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
<<<From 20k uniques a day to what looks like 1k today.>>>
I gues everything is relative ... i would love to have 1K reverals from G per day.
| 10:57 am on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
We have not done reinclusion requests yet on the basis that Google is still spidering pages and we understand the problem is being fixed.
I find it odd in my sector the sites affected by this - it makes me wonder if a group of competitors have grouped together to try and nobble a number of competing sites?
What did google do with say sites sent to say spam at big daddy google? (ref Matt Cutts blogg) did they review the sites or just assign them to the list of go supplemental for example, it would be a handy way to get rid of competing sites if they didnt review them? Or was this supplemental move deliberate on Googles behalf to nobble a number of authority sites to test if adwords income goes up as a result?
Perhaps im making 2 and 2 = 22 but i find it odd that certain large sites have not had an issue with this and others have. I also struggle to believe that a company the size of google can make this kind of blunder and damage so many websites?
I will see what next week brings but on the basis that i see no change wonder if thats it - thats the big dadddy update - after all what do google care if they crush a number of sites?
If google take no action over this or we see no change then we should look to support Yahoo and msn - We have been very loyal to google over the years spending vast amounts on adwords and this is how we are treated, they have the major share of the market as a result of webmaster support and this is how they repay that!.
Lets see what next week brings but it doesnt look good for those in this supplemental hell
| 11:15 am on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Lets see what next week brings but it doesnt look good for those in this supplemental hell"
Iīm not so pessimistic. The Mozilla-Bot is still very active und crawls 500 pages in 8-9 minutes and over 50k pages per day. Why should these pages donīt get back into the index?
I believe still that the supplemental hell is a bug und Google will fix this soon.... I donīt think that all pages will come back with old rankings in 2-3 days, but on a medium-term and long-term basis Iīm optimistic.
| 11:34 am on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
How long should we wait though. Googleguy suggested he would check back with this forum after the weekend. So I was presuming we should start to see thing return to normal today or tomorrow.
Since no one is saying this, I am extremely worried.
| 12:06 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
the last days of Pompei...?
| 12:16 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Could anybody hazard a guess at what percentage of sites have been affected by this bug?
| 12:19 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| 12:34 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Perhaps I should have said an "educated guess", from somebody responsible for a large number of client sites who would have a reasonably large sample of data.
It's my birthday today (21 again) so be nice.
| 12:42 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
About 10% of the sites in the verticals that I track are suffering from SH. Not sure if it applies to other industries though.
| 1:04 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
In my sector taking the top 10 sites that could be or i would class as authority level or close to it about 4 of them - 40%
Outside the top 10 im not checking all sites so cant know but a good number have gone supplemental by the looks of it.
| 2:42 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
In several BD databases now it seems everything recovered for me.
The only strange thing is that clicking on the cached page, I get nothing.....
but the pages are now in the databes AND they are ranking as supposed.....
| 3:54 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Is there a specific reason why pages in non Big Daddy DC's are all clean, with no supplementals [in my case] and in BD most of the results are in fact supplemental [ other than a possible bug that GG spoke of]?
In BD, just the first 25 results are non-supp.
Edit: I forgot to mention that there are 800 results for non BD, and 67,500 for BD, for the same website.
| 4:06 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I don't know if it means anything, but on some non BD data centers, some of my pages are cached for March 8th and 9th. Thats an improvement over earlier in the week when they all showed Feb 28 or 24th.
At least the spiders are indexing the info somewhere and I am getting crawled quite a bit. Now it just depends on what G plans to do with the data.
| 4:41 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
No improvement in my sector..... We should be seeing some sort of change by now. I am losing faith...
| 6:52 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I haven't seen any improvement yet either - quite the opposite as there is an evil BD datacentre 22.214.171.124 which is being served up here in the UK more often than the nicer none BD 126.96.36.199 data centre.
However, given the scale of the problem, possibly affecting something over 10% of websites (from the guesstimates received earlier, thanks guys!) I have every faith that the situation will be resolved next week.
I do have to say though, why do Google keep serving up BD data centres when they know there is a problem affecting so many sites? Why could they not just serve up the none BD data centres until the reindexing is complete? That would take the pressure off many worried businesses right now.
| 7:14 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|In several BD databases now it seems everything recovered for me. |
In which BD datacenters are you showing recovery in?
If you see your site recover, please let us know what google datacenter your querying.
| 7:30 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
188.8.131.52 is back with new results. no chaced but lots of new pages without supplemental
| 7:40 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
still a lot of pages are missing but much better results... so far i am still checking
| 8:09 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Still seeing the same number of supplementals as on BD DC's. Maybe they are doing changes in waves, and it hasn't hit my sector yet....then again.....!
| 8:19 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Better late than never. I lost faith some time ago in Google's ability to allow legitimate sites to recover after algorithmic downrankings.
I now believe it's the (small) exception not the rule and relates mainly to the fact that approximately 97% of new websites are junk sites trying to spam them. For this reason they allow very high collateral damage, thinking it's better to kill off a few good sites rather than let in another 100 spam sites.
They get tons of spam complaints and reports and this affects the bottom line potential for the company, but I doubt they get many complaints (except from owners of omitted sites), that say "hey, I got 3 good sites but I bet there is another, better site you failed to list!"
| 8:49 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm out of sup jail! (for now).
Confirmed on live g.com
Hope is sticks.
Check you sites, this may be good news for all.
Now I just need to get back in the serps.
[edited by: quarryshark at 9:00 pm (utc) on Mar. 11, 2006]
| This 210 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 210 ( 1 2 3 4  6 7 ) > > |