homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.20.63.27
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Visit PubCon.com
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 265 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 265 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 > >     
Big Daddy Part 5
GoogleGuy




msg:705709
 5:43 pm on Mar 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

continued from:
[webmasterworld.com...]


Okay, quite a few people should see their pages coming
back. If you haven't seen any change (that is, if your pages are still supplemental), I'd like to look into that too so that I can see if there's any common factor remaining.

So: if your pages are still supplemental, feel free to write to sesnyc06 [at] gmail.com with the subject line of "stillsupplemental" (all one word), and I'll ask someone to check the emails out.

Hope that helps, and I'm glad that lots of people are seeing a full recovery,
GoogleGuy

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 5:20 pm (utc) on Mar. 22, 2006]

 

Blueshadow




msg:705859
 11:03 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

my site is being deindex by one page per day. any idea what's going on here?.

Porter5Forces




msg:705860
 11:09 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

> my site is being deindex by one page per day. any idea what's going on here?.
mine is being de-index 1k per day. You should feel better. Most datacenters are now left with my homepage only.

HiltonHead




msg:705861
 11:27 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

"The techs are looking at this" ... we think "Google loves me and their gonna make everything allright".
And it snowed a foot deep yesterday, the first day of Spring, in Blowing Rock, NC (I was there).

Just wondering how many web pages owned, managed or otherwise involved in by Google employees or close
associates are in the Supplemental index.
I'm betting zero but would like to hear from Google employees who associate with WebmasterWorld

colin_h




msg:705862
 1:19 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hi HiltonHead,

Reading in between the lines of Matt Cutts Blog, I think that he's a regular here.

On Oct. 19th 2005 Matt said on his Jagger blog "I was up late, so I havenít seen WebmasterWorld today Ė no idea whatís going on."

I don't think he gets many problems getting listed, but then again he's probably not competing for hotel revenue.

All the Best

Col :-)

afterburner




msg:705863
 1:30 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

seems like the American bosses attitude of "keep the workers mad and they will work harder". Google likes to keep the webmasters mad, or at least on their toes.

mycutegoddess




msg:705864
 1:59 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Have anyone try this DC 66.249.87.104 It seem to be new result for my site. Even it still supplemental but the amount of supplemental page is decrease and seem it try to collect the only outdated page(URL) of my site. By comparing with other BD DCs it's mixing with outdated page, canonical URL, Duplicated content and so on which can cause Supplemental Issue.

I don't know exactly what google folks are doing behind the scene...

broker_boy




msg:705865
 2:23 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Very interesting!

On that DC i see cashe for the supps from this month.

Still supp but they have very recent cashe ....

Very odd usually when a page has been recently crawled and cashed it is moved back to the main index.

I wonder what it means

Cheers,

BB

Dayo_UK




msg:705866
 2:29 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Broker_Boy

It appears to have non-big daddy cache - cache dates are the same as the non-big daddy dcs.

colin_h




msg:705867
 2:40 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Does anyone know why Google keep seperate caches for each DC?

I'd have thought it would be easier for each DC to just draw upon one main source of cache data.

smokeybarnable




msg:705868
 2:52 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hey supplemental club!?
Where are you folks?

we are all out of business.

HiltonHead




msg:705869
 2:54 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

I don't know exactly what google folks are doing behind the scene...

Figuring out how to maximize Google's and hence their own profits?

HiltonHead




msg:705870
 2:57 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

we are all out of business.

Meaning?
Supplementals are still on my back big time

broker_boy




msg:705871
 2:58 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Ya i'd agree with the using non bd cashe data.

However the question is why ( these cashe dates all come from Moz bot spider activity NOT 2.l )

a) Are they using that data
b) Why pages are still showing supp even with upto date cashe.

Cheers,

BB

Wally_Books




msg:705872
 3:32 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

> my site is being deindex by one page per day. any idea what's going on here?.

mine is losing a page, gaining five pages, losing 3 pages, at this rate I will be back up in....

I have 240+ regular pages that I haven't lost, 2%

98% gone or supplemental

bonneville




msg:705873
 4:18 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)


Our suppl Cache dates are all from July 2005 or earlier.

On 66.249.87.104, where you found new cache dates in the suppl.result we didnt found any fresh caches in our suppl. sites.
How did you found these fresh caches in your suppl. sitelist?

Greets,
Bonneville

broker_boy




msg:705874
 4:23 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

I clicked on the cashe link on the supp pages.

Not all but most were from march.

The remainder were all from July 2005

Cheers,

BB

walkman




msg:705875
 6:38 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

is Google still reading the emails for supplemental examples? if so, what is the email to do so?

thanks,

Abhilash




msg:705876
 9:05 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

What's happening Commiseration Club--

The email for that is sesnyc06 [at] gmail dot com. I haven't gotten any responses from there; looks like Matt is just trying to get someone to read them (perhaps)

While i'm glad Matt responded, i'm baffled that our homepage is still out of the index (contrary to what's going on w/most of you guys). 60% of our pages are there--all brand new content pages w/totally unique content.

As a matter of fact, i did find our homepage.com/index.cfm which has NEVER been in the index. That said, we didn't redirect it yet b/c of some complications. I don't know if I should do so now, but our rankings are gone so there's not much to lose...

Supposedly:
It may take some of the sites a little while to be crawled again, but Iím trying to keep it foremost in the minds of the crawl folks.

1. I have no idea what "a little while" is.
2. Why wouldn't this be on the minds of the crawl folks?!? People are losing significant business, & some may even losen their jobs here. I suppose that's not a really a big deal to the "crawl folks" though...

gcc_llc




msg:705877
 9:15 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well to shed a little bit of hope on the subject, I am being crawled again by the M-bot which took a nice 3 week vacation and has been going nuts again for the past 4 days.

The reason I see SOME hope is that up until January most of my results were supplemental due to my own errors and ignorance of SEO in general (had guests locked out of forums..duh!). During this time I had the same results that show now, 99% supplemental and almost identical number of pages. Now once the M-bot started crawling (early Feb.) my indexed pages increased dramatically and traffic did as well. That was up until early March when results reverted back to the old supp results AND M-bot STOPPED crawling.

Now he is back again so we'll see what happens.

[edited by: tedster at 12:53 am (utc) on Mar. 23, 2006]
[edit reason] fix glitch [/edit]

soapystar




msg:705878
 9:48 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

right..thats wot ive been thinking and suggested..this is oct/dec serps lying on a new infrasture..its not new results...

gcc_llc




msg:705879
 9:58 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well with me, some are, most aren't. The homepage and links on the homepage are new (but flucatuate) but everything within the forum is not.

mfishy




msg:705880
 12:41 am on Mar 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

I don't know exactly what google folks are doing behind the scene...

Rollerblading and working on wireless apps.

What was this update/new algo supposed to accomplish. I may be missing something here, but all I see is more and more pages vanishing/going supplemental, and not from my crappy sites, but all over the place.

RichTC




msg:705881
 1:35 am on Mar 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

mfishy - agree - Google serps are hopeless currently

Google serps are now missing millions of pages in both the old index and new BD index, alot from authority sites as well as others. As dayo posted in most cases its as a direct result of canonical issues.

The one site we work on that was hit hard with this update has thousands of pages missing from the results despite many having quality backlinks from government, uni and other authority sites to these pages.

On looking deeper into the google results pages we find listings without the www prefix - It looks like the new googlebot has gone into the site cashed shead loads of pages without the www prefix then removed the pages with the www prefix because it thinks its duplicate content - hence loads of pages supplemental and loads of quality pages that should be ranking not featuring at all in the index.

We have a situation where on a search for say "Blue Widgets" the google results list say "pink widgets in wigetland" in position 30 in the serps where as before our page for "Blue widgets" would have ranked top 5 as an authority. On looking for the blue widget page we find its supplemental.

In other cases google lists a site page less relevent to the search term where once was a quality content page all about the search term.

Question is - even if they fix the canonical problem (thats if they are even bothering to?)will the pages trashed by google ever return back to the index? Thats the point, or do we need to start writing whole new sectors of our sites and start again?

Supplemental nightmare!

g1smd




msg:705882
 1:46 am on Mar 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> Why pages are still showing supp even with up to date cache <<

You'll find that the snippet represents an old version of the page - content up to 2 years old (maybe more?). Your page will still rank for words that are no longer on the page. The snippet comes from a separate store.

I have been mentioning this effect for nearly two years now.

Swanson




msg:705883
 2:08 am on Mar 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

Can they fix this problem? Well they haven't been able to for more than a year now - and this fix is to create a whole bunch of bigger problems, and to make matters worse it is live.

This is the biggest fault a search engine has ever introduced live on the web - especially a market leader.

This fault is getting worse as the canonical problems and crawling issues ripple though a site making the home page in effect detached from the inner pages. How can this be fixed?

Basically thousands (and the rest) are losing their sites, income - all due to a fault. That is extremely serious. Google made it's name through Webmasters, it will lose it when this hits the mainstream media - and it will - search results aren't a story, but huge amounts of websites losing their income through a bug (and therefore throwing uncertainty into the validity of Google for webmasters who want to promote a website) certainly is. Anyway, lucky I know one or two guys in the media!

At this rate the best search engine will be the one that can work out the home page and index more than one sub page - is this progress since Alta Vista?

cgchris99




msg:705884
 3:56 am on Mar 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

I've noticed that one of my sites is started to get less supplemental results. At least it appears that way. I've yet to figure out how to get google to report back only the supplemental or non-supplemental results.

But just from looking through the list it appears that there are less and less supplementals each day or so.

Could be my wishfull thinking though.

mycutegoddess




msg:705885
 5:26 am on Mar 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

cgchris99. could you put more specific Datacenter for us to make an observations? On BD Datacenters there're no improverment for my site...

Thanks,

colin_h




msg:705886
 6:30 am on Mar 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

It seems strange that I've launched 3 new build sites for clients in the last 2 months and each have had no problems with getting listed and now have PR3's. I also have sites which I monitor from over 3 years ago (That have quite a bit of crammed text - to my shame) that have grown stronger in the serps and have no supplemental problems. The only sites that seem to be struggling are the ones that made big changes during last year - they have supplemental issues, listings have dropped and backlinks keep coming and going.

This doesn't seem to be just a BD issue either. Both old and new DC's seem to be acting in the same manner towards these sites.

I have a feeling that we are focussing our attention on Big Daddy Infrastructure, when the problems are more of a classic algo update nature. With this in mind I'm going to drastically change one of my old sites (non profit making) to see if it is treated any different, for better or worse.

I'll let you know what happens

All the Best

Col :-)

Block19Row13




msg:705887
 9:18 am on Mar 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

hi all, if i explain my current scenario can you tell me if its this supplemental thing or not.

19 months ago we changed e-commerce provider, its a new hosted solution.

2 weeks ago we lost our home page from the G serps, unfortunatly our two main keywords are connected to that page.

if you search for our home page title our home page does come up, but, with our old e-commerce providers directory structure. this has been out of use since october 2004 yet G has dragged it up from somewhere.

the way it works is, if you visit a page that isnt there you are taken to the homepage.

but why would G start trying to obtain pages from 2004.

many thanks

iam david lee




msg:705888
 9:53 am on Mar 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

hi

i had 40,000 pages indexed in gooogle.... all lost in the new update and now only around 1000 is showing... how can i get my pages back online... the site is about 5 years old... it allways had more than 40,000 pages indexed... will it get indexed again quickly?

thanks

david

Munster




msg:705889
 11:49 am on Mar 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

Has there been any official word from the Google camp on the Big Daddy roll out? It seems to me that they are going live with a system that is not working properly (sorry for stating the obviuose).

Matt Cutts has said that Big daddy is not an update as such but a whole new infra structure paving the way for future improvements and that the effects should be bearly noticeable. As this thread shows, this is far from the case but they are still rolling out?

They must have something to say about it all. Before March Matt seemed to be giving quite good updates on the situation but now seems to be avoiding the subject.....or have I missed something.

Nial

This 265 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 265 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 > >
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