| 9:36 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Na, no black hat with the article that I am discussing, it is a major news corp article, but it is not linked to from this news site anywheres.
this is just Google being Google.
| 9:39 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I also find US government publications to do the same thing.
| 9:45 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Are supplementals really that deprimental from a ranking point of view?
I just checked some of my keywords in Google Analytics, and then checked them out in the SERP's. Some of them were at number one position, and showing as supplemental, and below them were much bigger brand name companies, some with, some without supplementals.
Either this is a fluke, or Google is treating supplementals as valid. I believe in the latter.
| 10:03 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yes sounds like Google being Google then.
Though then Matt Cutts claims in his blog post BD is implemented....seems he is wrong.
Let that be a lesson for all who make Matt some godlike uber rep.
| 10:13 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I hope he's right
| 11:58 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think he just means it has spread across all centers but he also indicates it isn't yet stabilized. he talks about things like canonicalization being addressed over the next couple of months.
I get the feeling that nothing will be settled for a while. But then things are always changing with Google.
| 3:32 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Things were bad before today,
TODAY NO TRAFFIC AT ALL
What's up now?
Still in supplemntal h*ll, and getting worse.
Matt, we really can't survive a few more months before something is done.
| 4:50 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I am getting much different results for the keywords I monitor on these two DCs:
A sign of things to come?
| 5:11 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I hope not. I have said this before and I see it on those two DC's:
What I have been noticing is far too much weight being given to .co.uk and .ca URL's in the USA serps.
So a common search would produce:
keyword.com (A valuable site to USA searchers)
keyword.co.uk (Of no value in the USA)
keyword.ca (Of no value in the USA)
I would expect this on google.co.uk and google.ca, but not on Google.com.
It is making a mess of the serps with valuable sites that were in the top five results dropping down or off the page.
This will only lead to blackhats picking up off-shore URL's.
| 5:47 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
For the first time since 2 years ago my home page is ranking roughly where it should on those dcs instead of being filtered/penalized/dampened out.
Hopefully it will propogate but it could just be that those 2 dcs are in an unfinished state.
| 6:26 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing exactly the same thing prieshach on those 2 DC's. I have a whole bunch of KW's ranking very well for the first time in 15 months.
For us at least lets hope they spread ;-)
| 6:44 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
While the results are interesting in terms of some ups and downs, two key things. First, these results have some of the worst, lightweight spam appearing high for mega-competitive terms that almost never have these lightweight sites ranking for.
Probably even worse though is these results show a LOT of "pages" like:
That is a seriously bad thing.
Seeing a lot of pages displayed in an ie? search (like the lists at mcdar) that are not being displayed in a ("normal") search? search. The different results depending on the format display is not new, but this is like mistakeningly penalized pages are reappearing one way but not the other.
| 7:14 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
those DCs still give me supps and old caches for two of my forums
| 9:05 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
In case your not watching the DC watching thread check out
[126.96.36.199...] it the most up to date DC for sites recovering from supplemental hell.
It is listing our site without any supplementals.
| 9:16 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm getting the same results on 188.8.131.52 also.
It lists just five supplementals of my site right at the end of all results.
What I don't understand is that none of my new pages are in the results - since about a year maybe. All distinct titles, content, white hat etc etc.
Very few of my old internal redirects are listed (php -> html) but not many.
Maybe the rest of my site will now be indexed again?
Is Google really trying to be the least up to date engine or what? I thought Ask.com were the kings of that?
| 10:43 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Anyone else with 9/22 and 12/27 problem come back alive? The rankings that were lost are all back.
| 10:45 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I see a reasonable return for a highly competitive keyword I've lost on 184.108.40.206.
| 10:47 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Interesting that you mention this. I came back in early March and have done well all month. However, yesterday some things started to change again. I am trying to figure out if it is filter tweak, or another data refresh, or both?
| 10:58 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
JuniorOptimizer & 300m
All changed today for us on one site.
Site 1 lost positions March 8 now seems back
Another one of our sites was hit 27/12 came back March 8 and has still retained position and hopefully may continue to do so...but knowing Google you can never tell.
Looks to me like a data refresh mixed in with a tweak.
| 11:03 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
My site was finally indexed properly on Monday and started getting traffic. Today: all gone.
| 11:06 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The datacentre at 220.127.116.11 (and for 18.104.22.168 that matter) isn't doing what it was doing 2 days ago when I first reported differences. It looks more like the others now.
For 2 days the results were very very different on both.
| 11:08 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well I lost about 30% on one site today, but I have back up plans. lol i know it sounds weird, but I consider them to be my Google Emergency Preparedness plans. :P
| 11:17 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Could be a "filter tweak" as you call it. Whatever filter it is, it affects all keywords (what a sucky filter to my way of thinking). Or is it all related to the internal PageRank we can't see?
| 11:28 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I dont know, but I just realized something else.
I have 2 sites i watch like a hawk.
historical data shows they do well, but on September 22 and December 27, they both tanked at the same time. They came back on Jagger 3 and Early March. I did a 301 with both sites during that time.
This morning, one site has lost 30% of the rankings that i watch, but the other one is holding on. So i think to myself, what is the difference and the most prominent difference that i can think of is that the one holding on is 301 for www. and the one that lost 30% of the traffic is a tad different.
What makes it different is that 2 other domain names are 301'd to the primary domain and the primary domain has the www 301. (i hope I am explaining this right)
When i did a site operator over several weeks this month for the 2 domains that are mapped to that primary domain, they would always show results for the www primary domain, but this morning I am seeing that the site operator is showing those 2 other domains as individual websites. So would i be correct to assume that Google is now not seeing the 301 right?
Also interestingly enough, the 2 domains that I did the site operator on show the pages that I am still ranking well on.
I am starting to think that Google is having a harder time with multiple 301 domains pointing to one primary domain because the other site that has a simple www 301 is still in good shape. (I hope I have explained this correctly)
| 11:35 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
My side was hit hard today, too. Yesterday all was fine, today its down.
But what is this filter that we trap in? Are we so close to the edge, that we allways get into these wicked network of filters.
In the end, is white head seo EOF?
| 11:37 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Interesting points. The only changes I made in the last few weeks is I noticed that the 301 didn't work in 3 sub-directories I had. I added specific mod-rewrite rules to make sure the non-www was rewritten to the www in the sub-directories. That is fixed. I also handles the forward slash wrong in a few instances.
I also tossed related RSS feeds onto the pages two nights ago. (The traffic came back within 12 hours, but I'm not sure it's related :) )
| 11:56 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
JuniorOptimizer & 300m -
No sign of a comeback here. 3 months and counting. Sigh.
| 11:58 am on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Seems to me that it takes more than a day or two to see the results of changes on Google.
Google may update the cache of your site but they do not score the onpage and offpage changes you make that quickly.
As you know with Google it is 90 days on average to update the link counts and PR value... and I think it takes that long for page changes to be seen, evaluated, and scored.
That is what I think hurts many webmasters...they make changes...then don't wait long enough to see how those changes fall out.
junior pulling in the RSS feed more than likely is responsible for the upswing of traffic to your site. The site that owns the RSS feed may have plastered your site as the newest member or similiar....which would spike traffic for a bit.
| 12:03 pm on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I know i did the 301's in 2005. I think the 301's were necessary, but I still beleive that Google has problems with them.
| 12:04 pm on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yes if your sites are seen as [domain.com,...] www.domain.com, [domain.com...] then all of your incoming PR is split between the three URLs and leaves your site weak in rankings.
By doing a htaccess rewrite or isaapi for windoze... pointing all symlinks to the absolute... will force all incoming PR to the absolute URL and thereby increase positions on the organic Google results.
| 12:09 pm on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, I had the normal 301 setup from the very beginning. Where I went wrong was the assumption that it worked automatically in sub-directories. It does not.
rewriterule (.*) http://www.yourdomain/yoursubdir/$1 [R=permanent,L]
Turns out you have to do one of those in every sub-directory as well, or the non-www traffic won't forward correctly.
I'm still not convinced that this fixed it. But, my page count finally went from 288 to the correct 281. The 7 pages of "duplicate content" are now gone. And the traffic is definitely referers from Google. They are back up to 56.8% of traffic from 1.2%.
| This 218 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 218 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6  8 ) > > |