| 5:34 am on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Wait. No choice, unless you are sure that your problem is NOT big-daddy related.
Google problems, usually Google has to fix them. Nothing you do makes a difference usually.
| 6:00 am on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Big Daddy looks pretty settled out to me. There was even a moment where ALL the data centers seemed to be aligned and settled down. If you are seeing problems and they aren't getting fixed, I think I would start in diagnosing them and taking some action.
Some places to start:
Checklist for Sudden Drops in Rank [webmasterworld.com]
Dropped from Google - a checklist to find out why [webmasterworld.com]
Dropped Site Checklist [webmasterworld.com]
The url-only problem [webmasterworld.com]
| 6:40 am on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
What's wrong with Big Daddy? It seems to produce some of the best search results I have seen in years?!
| 6:50 am on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
alot of forums are still in supp hell
| 7:05 am on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
To assume that Google has messed up, because you have dropped down the tables, is a potentially fatal mistake to make. Last year a great deal of us took the advice given by Google Guy to give alegra & jagger time to settle in ... and I have to say it took many months and nothing really changed.
IMHO you should set about redesigning to suit the new Google parameters. At least it will give you something constructive to do, as I know only too well how self destructive watching and waiting can be.
All the best
| 8:12 am on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I dont think Big Daddy is at all settled - mind you I bet it would be nice to finally say goodbye to it in Forum3. :)
Some of the symptons of the Canonical issue include the site ordering of sites. (MC also said that this was part of a fix that had already rolled out to some sites prior to Big Daddy)
Over the last 24 hours I have seen some DCs showing the homepage top on a site:domain.com search for some sites - it seems to be filtering through sites though.
EG. Yesterday a site was number 1 for a site search on 1-2 DCs and now it is on 10-12 - while a new site has gone number 1 for a site:domain.com search on 1-2 dcs.
Of course it might not be correct to call this Big Daddy still. Google must now be getting into the stages of tackling the problems Big Daddy laid down the infastructure for.
| 1:15 pm on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I agree that it is not settled. I was searching yeserday for some things and I got some 404 pages and some really irrelevant old pages. It seems to be getting better every day though. What I think google did was to dump the old index back in when they realized there was a supplemental issue so googlebot would recrawl the pages again and fix things. I think it will still be a little while till everything is fixed but its getting better everyday.
| 1:20 pm on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Goggle is now showing pages we took off line four years ago.
| 2:04 pm on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I lost 100+ content rich pages from one of my site and lost almost 80 percent of total traffic. Now only one page remains in the index and that is my homepage. There were no canonical URL problems or any other sort of duplicate content penalties.
After waiting for quite a long time I finally decided to get my site redesigned. Starting from scratch, I am adhering to all the new guidelines and making small to big changes in design and site structure.
The only thing I am still not able to get is NATURAL back links. I think this is a major reason for my site been downgraded. Working hard on it and maybe I shall see some potential referrers back in my server logs from Google!
| 2:09 pm on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
That might be the issue that you were not within the guidelines. I have new site with very few backlinks that is doing well. Within the guidlines and no spam. Check you meta tags and make sure they are within the guidelines.
| 2:10 pm on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Wait and see if the pages update, google did the same to my site and it fixed itself within 7 days.
| 2:27 pm on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I am used to it. Over the past few months google puts up data that has these pages for a couple days at a time. They go away for a week or two and then come back.
Google just does not have itself settled yet.
But since I don'r depend on the SERPS for my main customer stream I am not going to lose any hair over it.
| 2:41 pm on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Google must now be getting into the stages of tackling the problems Big Daddy laid down the infastructure for. |
That was really my point -- I certainly could have expressed it more clearly, as you did, Dayo. Big Daddy is not an update, it's a new infrastructure, a better tool, if you will, for Google to use on their back end. So we're not watching a "Google Dance" in the historical sense.
I expect to see continued flux, specific data centers being set apart for various experiments and fixes, and so on. But the roll-out is done, and essentially now, Big Daddy == Google. At least that's how it looks to me.
For many weeks, I didn't trust any Google data for doing analysis, but now I do. I see enough stability to move forward again with website changes that help to clarify the signals various domains are sending to Google.
| 2:58 pm on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think people are starting to equate the settling down of BigDaddy with a near-perfect Google index. That in my opinion was never Google's goal. Their goal was to get these infrastructure changes rolled out and then concentrate on fixing the many issues they face.
The index is not settled at all at least in the area I am watching, namely affiliate sites,. There seems to be the preception that thin affiliate sites have been wiped from the index but this is not true at all. I am still seeing plenty of very thin affiliate stores in the top 10.
| 4:00 pm on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
yeah, wild fluctuations here.
the site has been stable at about 170 pages. I added more content maybe 3-4 months ago and the site was showing 250+ pages just a week ago. yesterday it was down to 155, this AM, down to 138. search activity is down as well.
One thing! The site was down though for about 40 min about 3 days ago, could that make a difference, at least temporarily?
| 4:07 pm on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
To heck with waiting. Fortune favors the bold.
| 4:32 pm on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Check you meta tags and make sure they are within the guidelines. |
Could you please elaborate?
| 5:04 pm on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm tired of waiting too... I used to have 37k unique visitors a day and since March 30 I have 7k unique visitors a day... now I cant figure out what the hell happened.
I lost 30k unique visitors to my site! I really hate bigdaddy :(
| 7:26 pm on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Big Daddy = Irrelevant serps with spam filters turned off.
I remember the time when I used to search for "free green widget" and I would get the actual phrase match now I get sites with only "free" in the page description.
If I were to change my seo efforts to match what Google wants then I would have to become a blackhat seo.
| 1:04 am on Apr 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|If I were to change my seo efforts to match what Google wants then I would have to become a blackhat seo. |
I totally agree with this statement. I really am trying to follow all the rules but at this point I can't afford to wait any longer so it's time to play hardball.
| 9:50 am on Apr 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
From an article published at BBC News today entitled "Search users 'stop at page three'"
|And 41% of consumers changed engines or their search term if they did not find what they were searching for on the first page. |
Article here: [news.bbc.co.uk...]
We need more of this type of exposure.
| 10:55 am on Apr 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
ISTM that whether BD is settled or not depends on what your problem was in the first place!
Big changes are still going on with my site with traffic fluctuating wildly, pages only ranking properly on the two original BD DC's, and now the number of pages for my site has plummeted (for the umpteenth time).
The only 'problem' which has been fixed for my main site so far is that G has picked up the redirect from non-www to www. Other sites are still supplemental.
| 11:24 am on Apr 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>>The only 'problem' which has been fixed for my main site so far is that G has picked up the redirect from non-www to www.
Yes, but the ranking penalty that goes with this problem has not been removed.
The only ones that have had the ranking penalty removed are the ones mentioned on MC blog. So an engineer has been doing it manually - dont know if this is a good thing or not.
They obv. can fix the problem but if they need to do it manually then it would only be fair for MC to make a call for sites IMO.
Whether they can do a sweep to correct the whole problem is another question. At the moment my site is back as a PR5 where it belongs but has had no crawling and no ranking to go with this change.
GG? - in Jagger you were very helpful by saying that changes maybe coming in a week or so - you may have been off by a few days a couple of times but this was very very useful - at least we knew something was coming.
Any chance of a similar hint this time around?
| 12:52 pm on Apr 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Any chance of a similar hint this time around? |
he's too busy with his blog ;)
| 2:29 pm on Apr 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Starting to get a bit peeved again with this attempted Canonical fix.
I am really really happy that some sites that have been mentioned on MC blog have come back into the serps as they clearly should have been there.
But - All along we have been told that Google are working on a fix for Canonical issues and 100s of Webmasters have been frustrated with this problem for so long and are waiting in anticipation.
But it still looks like it can only be fixed by an engineer looking at the site?
If this is the case then surely it is time for Google to set up an email address in a similar manner to the Supplemental problem so that these sites can also be looked at for common factors?
Has the attempt to fix the canonical issues (the penalty that went with the problem as much as anything) failed? Has it even been attempted yet?
Do we now all have to do re-inclusions request as it can only be fixed with an engineers attention? - and then we need to get hold of an engineer who knows what they are doing.
So Google are fixing somes sites manually - if this is the only way they can do it - they should do a call for sites with the problem surely?
| 2:51 pm on Apr 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
<Has the attempt to fix the canonical issues (the penalty that went with the problem as much as anything) failed? Has it even been attempted yet?>
I've been told by G that there is no penalty against my site, but we lost a point PR when the site was split.
We still haven't recovered the PR.
| 3:39 pm on Apr 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It is absolutely rubbish when Google say that no penalty has been put on the site - some engineer has a quick look at the site and sees it is in the index and says no penalty.
The Canonical url problem is much much much worse than a penalty - but as Google still has pages listed in the index then they say no penalty and then shows you a link to a search like www.domain.com - well duh do they even understand the problem the engineers who answer like that.
But we know that Google can fix manually - which previously they did not seem to do for effected sites.
So Google - do we now do a reinclusion request with a keyword to identify so you can fix everyone elses like you have done manually for some - or do we wait it out?
| 4:08 pm on Apr 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I am also starting to get a bit peeved, we have been up and down like a YoYo loosing traffic and income by over 30+ % over the last 21/2 month, do to Google inability to fix itself and punishing websites that have been around for years.
| 4:27 pm on Apr 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
<The Canonical url problem is much much much worse than a penalty - but as Google still has pages listed in the index then they say no penalty and then shows you a link to a search like www.domain.com - well duh do they even understand the problem the engineers who answer like that.>
That's exactly what was said in the email I got. Having said that, in my reinclusion request I explained about the redirect not being picked up (and said that Yahoo and MSN had had no problems with it) and the problem was fixed within a few days!
Painfully slow teeny weeny steps...for me it's been 10 months now.
| This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: 40 (  2 ) > > |