| 9:36 pm on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If you can take actions designed to stop the source of of canonical errors or excessive supplemental urls, there's no reason to delay on that kind of thing.
| 9:51 pm on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
We have a 301 set-up...what else can we do to stop the canonical issues?
| 10:47 pm on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Tedster...any ideas? anyone?
| 2:23 am on Apr 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Apart from the 301's, you can change all internal links to absolute (if they aren't already), and try to track down any sites that are linking to you with the wrong version of the URL's and ask them to change them.
Is your site straight static, or dynamic? If it's dynamic, are you sure you aren't pumping out multiple URL versions of the same pages?
This probably doesn't help much, but it will at least bump up the thread.
Also (and I know you really don't want to hear this), for some of us, Google and that ridiculously named BigDaddy didn't cause any harm whatsoever (personally, things improved - that bloody ab*ut.com page that was in front of me for the longest time, on my most logical kw search, putting me at #2, is finally gone). So, depending on where you stand, G isn't currently broken in the slightest.
|must learn more|
| 7:45 am on Apr 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Stefan, could you please explain why you are suggesting to make everything absolute links? Is this related to the recent update of something that GoogleGuy suggest long ago.
Also why are you saying that all the traffic drop etc. is not update related. Is the Google dropping pages of many sites also not update related? If it is not? It would be good to know why so many people and sites are loosing pages!
| 8:08 am on Apr 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Something strange has happened this morning
Big changes in serps, some of my sites have a load of new pages in the index some a lot less
Serp changes in normally very stable areas
| 12:50 am on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Sorry, I didn't check in for a couple of days.
|Stefan, could you please explain why you are suggesting to make everything absolute links? Is this related to the recent update of something that GoogleGuy suggest long ago. |
I don't know if it will make any difference in your case, but if there is any hint of canonical problems, make your links absolute. That way, if someone links to you without a www (bringing a bot in on that URL), and the URL officially has a www subdomain on the front, then at least you won't have the damage propagate through the rest of the site as the bots follow now incorrect relative links (i.e. they come in on example.org, and find relative links that tell them there is another page called example.org/next_page.htm). If the 301 is done right, then that should take care of it (in theory), but you still have a regular supply of dodgy URL's being supplied to SE's because of the dodgy links from other sites. The absolute links help to hammer it home to the bots what the proper form is. If you can get the incorrect incoming links changed as well, so much the better. Remember, SE's, and their bots, are idiots, and you have to take them by the hand at times to guide them through.
Again, I was just trying to address canonical problems, and your problem might be very different.
|Also why are you saying that all the traffic drop etc. is not update related. Is the Google dropping pages of many sites also not update related? If it is not? It would be good to know why so many people and sites are loosing pages! |
Not saying that at all. Your traffic drop is very likely because of BigDaddy (ridiculous name). As to what exactly did it, I have no idea. You could have had problems that had nothing to do with canonical issues. However, once again, some of us had no problem with that update/infrastructure-change/thingamajig, so it's not an inherent fault with Google - it's particular to your site, and/or your linking methods, your neighbourhood, your field, and who know's what...
Anyway - best of luck with it, man.
| 12:58 am on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|As we all know, Google is so unstable and seemingly broken. |
As we all know? Who? Google is working the way it usually works. I haven't seen any significant changes on any sites I do, except on some traffic is up a lot.
Searches are still giving me what I'm looking for more or less.
Google looks fine from where I'm watching.
Obviously, the more broken stuff on your site you've fixed, the lower the odds of problems now or in the future, most are fixed that I am aware of so I haven't seen any significant changes. Some junk sites I'm involved with got slapped around, but I'm not going to pretend that they didn't deserve what they got.
| 4:32 am on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|As we all know? Who? Google is working the way it usually works. I haven't seen any significant changes on any sites I do, except on some traffic is up a lot. |
2by4, where have you been? have you not seen the thread at [webmasterworld.com...]
I've lost my entire site which is in PHP using one template into which is loaded the content. I've detailed it in that thread, so won't do so again here, but suffice to say... something is definately broke at Google!
| 11:53 am on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Google not broken?
Besides the fact they can't get the canonical and supplementals fixed is enough of an issue.
The SERPS we monitor have affiliate links ranking in the top ten. We have seen affiliate links that no longer work ranking.
What about the all the lovely article sites, that all print the same article hogging up spots?
We are now even seeing myspace accounts ranking for terms.
| 11:58 am on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Sitting still is never great advice. Run Xenu and see if you have any broken links.
| 4:14 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
tedster, of that thread, post 53:
|The Big Daddy rollout was the establishment of a new infrastructure. It has been accomplished. Now Google has this new major tool, and they are only beginning to actually apply it. |
Where have I been? Not worrying about stuff like this I guess. I've already fixed a host of issues that cause many of the problems many of you are having over the last few years, so I'm not seeing google issues on the sites that are very clean. I know google rolled out major infrastructure, and I watched them test the parts during the last 'updates', so it's not particularly surprising to see them using it more and more. It's powerful stuff.
Where have I been? Not reading threads like that which contain nothing new or unexpected, creating new content, that kind of thing. The sky is falling, the sky is falling... it's not falling.
So google is reindexing, that's not surprising, tedster has it right.
For those of you who tracked it, look at your current issues versus where your site was at each point of the 3 jagger updates. If it never dipped in jagger I'd be surprised if it's fluctuating now. If it did, you should have taken that as a major warning sign that google didn't like something about some part of your site, link patterns, whatever.
And for those of you who don't pay much attention, last weekend was easter/passover weekend, traffic was down a lot, that happens on big holidays, mine was down 40% but it's back up today.
It became clear to me last summer that there were benefits to adhering to strict standards in terms of server configuration, onpage stuff, links, all that, so we went in and fixed all the errors we could find. It's also clear to me that some people here believe that their sites are error free when they aren't. I used to check that when requested, but it got so boring doing that since the mistakes were so ever present that I no longer do it.
Anyway, so big sites haven't been fully reindexed yet, that's not going to happen overnight.
Google isn't broken, if anything it's fixed, and starting to run at full steam.
JuniorOptimizer is right, his advice was right 1 year ago, last summer, during jagger, and now. If your site has errors fix them. If it's got loose ends, tie them up. If you're using junk link schemes, sorry.
| 4:34 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
why would you worry if you were not affected? If you don't sense a problem then it doesn't exist. My site was fine for seven years and has totally tanked within the last month. Does this mean there were many problems with my site that needed to be fixed and google finally called me on it? I doubt it.
| 4:35 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
As you may know, PubCon Boston is this week, and many members are here. I can assure you all that there is no "Google is broken" chant circulating through the conference. "Google is changing" is what you hear, but not so much talk about "broken".
I asked Matt Cutts about the odd PR results we see right now, and he mentioned (I hope I got this right, because I didn't write it down in the momnet) that Big Daddy scaled PR in a different fashion -- at least for the moment -- so it doesn't integrate well with out previous view of PR. Also, a chunk of the data set is relatively old and being re-crawled as I write.
I got the sense that much that looks odd to us in this moment will looked lined up again very soon -- unless you you have an issue with your site that BigDaddy has exposed to the harsh light of day. Fixing a technical issue (especially with 301/302/404 headers) should not be postponed.
The afternoon marathon networking session at the Pub is coming up and there will be quite a few Googlers there, including folks from the the Sitemaps team.
| 4:38 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
thanks for the feedback Ted - so lets sit tight and hope our vanished pages return - soon
| 4:42 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
To patronise people who are trying their best, is not the way ahead.
There are different website owners with different degrees of knowledge. Many entrust their web design to others, many entrust marketing to others, many entrust SEO to others.
So for you to make such a brash statement is neither clever nor called for.
| 5:10 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
One fact is becoming clear -- when it comes to search in general, and Google in particular, website owners need to take a degree of responsibility that they may not have historically. IT departments often don't know much about being precise with 200/301/302/404/410 and so on. If you outsource your hosting, they often don't know about such issues either.
But it should now be clear that just because the "right" page content show up, this does not mean your site is free of potential troubles. The site owner who cares about search traffic must either get educated or outsource to a trusted service vendor who does know the score.
| 7:58 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
What puzzles me is that despite all the cr*p URLs that google has indexed (most over 14 months out of date) for my site, and that none of my new products are indexed (although my category pages are), the number of referrals from Google has increased.
I say keep the supplementals so long as they drive traffic to my site - even if the product was discontinued over a year ago the customer can still search my site or navigate to current content.
| 8:15 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Eazygoin, I can't really improve on tedster's obvervations. You can accept this or not, it's irrelevant to me if you do or don't, you aren't my client. Pointing out the fact that errors that may have been accepted in the past may not be accepted in the future isn't patronizing, it's just the way it is.
Webmasters can either chose to take care of these issues or they can keep posting about google being 'broken', I don't care either way. Every time google drops someone's site, it's 'broken', and every time it brings lots of traffic, it's 'great'.
This is like clockwork, year in and year out. I decided to fix every single thing I could to try to step off that merry-go-round, and it seems to have worked. The timne to fix was about a year ago though, now the errors will all be entering into the new system, but there was plenty of warning, bourbon was in my opinion correctly called the 'sloppy webmastering update'. And it was the same response then, rather than fix the errors, complain about google being broken.
| 8:28 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
So if what Tedster and 2by4 are saying is true then Google's algorithm has gone backwards, it's not broken but it has been downgraded?.
| 8:38 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Only if by the words 'downgraded' and 'backwards' you mean it's been significantly improved, made more powerful and robust, and able to handle things in more sophisticated ways than the old one.
And keep in mind this too, if Jagger was any indication, Google has a lot more ability to detect and punish bad practices than they did before, but they don't appear to be using all of it currently. My guess is the new infrastructure is far more flexible than the old, along with being more powerful.
On the other hand, if by 'downgraded' you mean, 'some people's sites aren't ranking like they used it', then yes, it's been 'downgraded'.
| 8:40 pm on Apr 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I read it as: "Big Daddy is a new platform, changes are being deployed on that platform, and what you see today isn't what you'll see a month or a year from now."
|must learn more|
| 4:51 am on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
2by4, I am a newbie webmaster and this maybe a stupid and obvious question: You said that you spent the last year correcting everything about your site and that now BD has not affected you in anyway. That seems very impressive. I would love to make sure that my site never gets affected by a Google update.
Could you please tell me what you mean by correcting your site. I want to correct mine. I don't want to make mistakes if that possible and so become immune to Google updates.
So what do you mean by correcting all the mistakes. If this is covered already then maybe you could give me a link or something. Or you could provide a checklist of all the things one should go about correcting. That would be very helpful.
| 5:06 am on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>As we all know, Google is so unstable and seemingly broken.
Google has been broken since 2002! That was the last time it was easily "gamed" by SEO's.
"Google is broken" has been a topic of conversation here on WW ever since, and I suspect for most it will stay that way for many years to come.
Google isn't broken, it is just a lot more slippery than it used to be in 2001/2002 and prior.
I will agree Google is broken the day it lists all of it Adwords sponsors at the top of Serps, thereby giving them zero incentive to pay in the future;)
In the meantime Google is just "tricky" and requires a strategy that is more complex than putting all your eggs in one basket :)
| 5:12 am on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>If you can take actions designed to stop the source of of canonical errors or excessive supplemental urls, there's no reason to delay on that kind of thing.<<<
FYI, Yahoo is also messing up some with canonical issues - still. So take heed to wise advice and fix it right off.
| 8:29 am on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>> (I hope I got this right, because I didn't write it down in the momnet) that Big Daddy scaled PR in a different fashion -- at least for the moment -- so it doesn't integrate well with out previous view of PR. Also, a chunk of the data set is relatively old and being re-crawled as I write.
Intresting Tedster and fits into what I am still thinking that this new application/calculation of PR has not effected the serps yet.
If Google has a new way of calculating PR and this has only been calculated on a percentage of the index would they apply this new way of calculating PR/Ranking etc to the serps now or when the whole index has this new type of calculation?
My thoughts would be use an old & tested calculation for the results until the whole index is ready to be switched over to the new.
So - Sit tight ........still.
| 8:33 am on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
haven't we been saying "Sit tight" for months now Dayo
| 8:35 am on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I know :(
Perhaps I am trying to convince myself that things will improve more than anyone else.
| 8:44 am on Apr 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I know what you mean we were both hit by Jagger, I then started putting more work into another site that was doing very well - until now, now the site is going backwards for page count/traffic rather than upwards
| This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: 32 (  2 ) > > |