homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.215.209
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

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 218 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 218 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 > >     
Big Daddy Part 6
jdancing




msg:710327
 5:33 pm on Mar 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

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

It seems nearly all the data centers are showing some form of bigdaddy results now. I am not sure if there is a 100% bigdaddy/not bigdaddy distinction anymore.

The only two DCs I see that are showing different results are 216.239.59.104 and 66.249.87.104 and those results seem to be from late December, early January, at least in the sectors I monitor.

[edited by: tedster at 5:31 am (utc) on Mar. 25, 2006]

 

Seo1




msg:710447
 12:55 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)


"just to ensure those same honest pages aren't relegated to page 999 due to that famous "Google techno wizardry."

My problem these days is that Google can't decide who is the content owner. I had a well paid copywriter who wrote unique content for my site pages, a few days after a scraper site is showing for my content pushing me to omitted results...go figure...rrrr "

Sounds like the scraper was able to get your content indexed first due to having a higher PR link shooting into the site..... File a complaint (DMCA ) with Google Yahoo & MSN

bobmark




msg:710448
 6:12 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

"Sounds like the scraper was able to get your content indexed first due to having a higher PR link shooting into the site..... File a complaint (DMCA ) with Google Yahoo & MSN "

I had a huge problem with this in tbe past.

Google is sailing very close to conflict of interest on this. I have had content ripped off by the fake "index scrapers" ... you know, send out a bot and put the results of url, page name, description meta into your index of alabama.widgets.com or ilovesex.widgets.com (one of your 100 other subdomain sites) that contain ZERO original content but DO contain AdSense links.

But hey! Not only does Google not apply their supposed penalites for no original content or duplicate content for you, they take your advertising and rotate your ads onto the same pages you're ripping off.

Google didn't create scraper sites but they gave them the biggest boost ever with AdSense and they appear to allow them to operate under different rules (Hey! they generate ad clicks for Google so that makes it all right, huh?)

asher02




msg:710449
 6:21 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

"Sounds like the scraper was able to get your content indexed first due to having a higher PR link shooting into the site..... "

Wish it was the case..my site is strong PR6 crawled daily , all second level pages are PR6 too...the scrapper site don't even have PR.... and I showed for the terms before the scrapper got them, but afterwards he got the top....:( Way to go Google!

dethfire




msg:710450
 6:34 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

google results do seem quite wacky as of right now, either some majors are still being worked out or its very broken right now

walkman




msg:710451
 6:42 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

asher02,
I am guessing that your "trustrank" is very low, and your site is penalized--not to be confused with banned. I believe that if Google thinks that you're cheating on links, they will discount all of them, giving even a scrapper site more weight thaan your page. It is a speculation, but this is the only reason I can see a directory page ranking higher than the legitimate site...

Of course, "cheating" is a relative term, but if you meet Google's threshhold, you are cheating.

asher02




msg:710452
 6:57 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

"I am guessing that your "trustrank" is very low, and your site is penalized--not to be confused with banned"

Guess what? I think the same I am being penalized for something..asked Google they said its not....

Site is 100% white hat, no link trading no spam, full with original content, 100% hard coded no tricks nothing. I'm in this business for over 6 years I know almost every black hat tactics out there, never used one and never will use.

Perhaps this is why I am being penalized!

Seo1




msg:710453
 7:00 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hmmm

Well bobmark I think your best bet is to make a robots.txt and ban all the bots that you do not want hitting your site. At least that is the way that will save you the most money & aggrevation in the long run.

Court battle with Google isn't for the meek.

Walkman trustrank? The only problem with that theory is his main site is a 7....while he says 6 h..e is passing the 6 to his child pages... so the site must be at 7 by Googles internal PR score...I doubt a low trusted site would receive PR that high...if there is a trust rank....

TrustRank...SEO double speak... it seems to me.


asher02




msg:710454
 7:08 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

"I doubt a low trusted site would receive PR that high...if there is a trust rank...."

And further (maybe its related maybe not) if my "trust rank" is so low why on earth would Google use my site to define half of the keyword that are related to my industry. When using define:keyword my site is on top for most of the words.

Try "define:shabbat" why am I there if not "trusted"

RobinK




msg:710455
 8:28 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

I am seeing even more pages out of supplemental hell today. I am hopeful that, for this site at least, we are well on our way to being fixed.

Hope everyone else is seeing their sites come back as well.

Seo1




msg:710456
 8:35 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Actually asher the keyword term probably is not as highly competitive that there would be a lot of sites optimized for it.

Also if there is a trustrank to be applied it would be likely given to newly formed websites, not so much older established sites.

drall




msg:710457
 8:47 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

My site is back in fully now and out of supp hell, thank you GG for your swift action on this matter. It is very nice to see such open communication from Google now as compared to 5 years ago.

Some people flip out which is understandable but to have you guys even communicating with us on the issue and fixing it in under 30 days is just fantastic to some of us old schoolers. Thanks again and keep up the great work!

asher02




msg:710458
 8:51 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

"Actually Asher the keyword term probably is not as highly competitive that there would be a lot of sites optimized for it."

Well this word (6,000,000 results) is just an example I have other words with 18,000,000 results and more And below me on the definition pages are site that are definitely authorities in my area...(and they are optimized for these keywords). The only thing I can think of is the web definition does not have anything to do with "trustrank" if there is such thing...

Dawg




msg:710459
 9:06 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

@Drall: Could you provide us a Datacenter?

Ellio




msg:710460
 10:20 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

We have more major pages back today with ranking as it was before the disaster.

We are now 20% back and hopefully the rest of the site will follow soon.

We have noticed that pages come back first on DC's including 64.233.179.104 and then spread to the other DC's over a 48 hour period.

g1smd




msg:710461
 10:24 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

What is going on at [64.233.171.104...] and at [64.233.185.104...] now?

Those are very different to everything else...

bobmark




msg:710462
 11:29 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

" Hmmm
Well bobmark I think your best bet is to make a robots.txt and ban all the bots that you do not want hitting your site. At least that is the way that will save you the most money & aggrevation in the long run.
Court battle with Google isn't for the meek. "

I said "in the past" Seo1. My personal problem was solved long ago but the practice keeps on for others and last time I looked Google ain't changed its guidelines to say "duplicate content, zero original content, etc. are just fine as long as you generate some AdSense clicks."

Maybe they should; at least it would be honest.

Whitey




msg:710463
 4:02 am on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

[66.249.93.104...]
[64.233.179.104...]
[72.14.207.104...]

have cached another 60k from 30k yesterday
results are returning, but as yet no traffic as they are in poor positions. I think we're No 90 for a position we previously held No 1 for and unique content phrases are right down the bottom also.

[64.233.171.104...]
[64.233.185.104...]

these still show the old pages and supplementals.

My hope is that these will removed shortly, but who know's what's in play

g1smd




msg:710464
 11:07 am on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

[64.233.171.104...] and [64.233.185.104...]

These show completely different results some of the time.

Always remember to hit refresh a few times when you search. A refresh often brings a completely different results set to the one you see first.

Always explore what you get with a normal search and with &filter=0 on the end of the search URL because that can also give very different results again.

HiltonHead




msg:710465
 12:38 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Still 100% supplemental but delighted some folk are
out of the pit

bufferzone




msg:710466
 1:43 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Can anyone show me a search or explain how to do one that will produce a SERP with supplement results listed. I havn't been able to find any on my own and would like to se an exampel

bufferzone




msg:710467
 1:53 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Thanks a lot. Would you belive it, My own site has Supplemental Result I just didn't know how to look for it. Thanks again

Eazygoin




msg:710468
 2:06 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Seo1

I just tried that too, showing 100 results. First time I got 15 results, with 13 supps. I clicked on 'include omitted results', and all but the last two [ out of 45 ] were non-supp. Uhmmmm :-/

jrs_66




msg:710469
 2:08 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

SEO1,

You might want to give your pages unique titles... basic stuff.

g1smd




msg:710470
 2:17 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> scroll to bottom, see message for supplementals click link <<

The link says "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 10 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included".

Clicking that link will show you pages that were omitted for being too similar. Just having the same title and/or meta description is enough for pages not to be listed.

There is no suggestion that the pages that are then shown are going to be purely supplemental results. They sometimes are, but very often they are not. This is purely a link to omitted results.

Seo1




msg:710471
 2:21 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

I would believe it...seems most sites have supplemental pages.

I don't think supplementals are new..

That Google doesn't display them anylonger is new though.

Google has always had two indexes. The main index (or forward)is the index which contains those sites most likely to be returned during the average search query.

The auxiliary (supplemental) index is made up of the rest of the pages not in the main index and called upon only when requested (click on the link) or when the main index does not contain enough scored documents / resources to fulfill the user search query properly.

The below is from Google

3. Why is my site labeled "Supplemental"?

Supplemental sites are part of Google's auxiliary index. We're able to place fewer restraints on sites that we crawl for this supplemental index than we do on sites that are crawled for our main index. For example, the number of parameters in a URL might exclude a site from being crawled for inclusion in our main index; however, it could still be crawled and added to our supplemental index.

The index in which a site is included is completely automated; there's no way for you to select or change the index in which your site appears. Please be assured that the index in which a site is included does not affect its PageRank.

Also reading this page will help you understand Google a bit better.

[www-db.stanford.edu...]

Hope this helps

Peace

Seo1




msg:710472
 2:23 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

My mistake g1smd .....coffee hasn't hit yet.

That isn't my site Jrs66

Thank you

BillyS




msg:710473
 2:23 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>scroll to bottom see message for supplementals click link.

While this may show some supplementals, it is certainly not meant for that function. You're kidding yourself if you think these are all the supplementals you have to worry about.

You need to work much harder to find your supplementals, but it can be done.

Seo1




msg:710474
 2:37 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

As BillyS said there is much more to do to find supplementals.

First you need to be sure Google has indexed all your pages.

Then count regular results and supplementals and see if that equals all of the pages of your site and Googles count of your site.

Remember too what you see in results today... is at times what was done weeks ago or months ago.

I hope that makes sense.

jrs_66




msg:710475
 3:32 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

SEO1,

Your example site of someone wrongfully gone supplemental contained the following-

1) Same title on all pages (as mentioned)
2) Same meta description text on all pages
3) Text in main nav is done in graphics (with no alt text to boot)

Was this an example of a standard supplemental site or an example of how to create a supplemental site?

I guess the moral of the story here is before crying wolf... read the google webmaster guidelines.

JuniorOptimizer




msg:710476
 4:04 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm seeing phantom traffic for my lost 12/27 terms. This is really strange indeed.

Seo1




msg:710477
 4:10 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Jr

One more time

The site is not mine

I did a search for a crappy site....

that is what I found as an example.

You can chill with trying to teach me SEO 101

Thanks

This 218 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 218 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 > >
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.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved