We have no word from Matt Cutts or Adam so far on what's going on?
I've found another thing in common between two penalized sites.
Searching for "www.mysite.com" (with quotes), in the top 10 results there are, at least, 2 entries of those spammy .info domains that have appeared a month ago, which replicate a google serp but changing the link to another spammy .info site.
Can Google penalize our sites for dup content because of this?
|Just seen googlebot crawl one of my sites and had php session ID's on the end of the URL's e.g?PHPSESSID=fa7833f6d101bc51330e7103aae0ca6d |
I don't use php is this a bad sign?
Depending on the program etc you might get help with this issue by posting something in the php programming section:
>We have no word from Matt Cutts or Adam so far on what's going on?
I agree normally someone that is very vocal about changes with algos is being very quiet
Well overnight the 72s which show some sites top in a site:domain.com search have disappeared for me.
While the other dcs now have a different internal page at number 1 (a non-supplemental page) for a site:domain.com search.
>We have no word from Matt Cutts or Adam so far on what's going on?
Probably means they are just testing things and nothing significant as far as they are concerned.
>Well overnight the 72s which show some sites top in a site:domain.com search have disappeared for me
which ones Dayo I'll see if mine has dropped as well
184.108.40.206,220.127.116.11 & 18.104.22.168
And Tigger - it looks like yours have aswell.
What a mess.
wonderful! you know how to make someones day ;0(
Can anyone second guess this....
Im still having dam pages in googles index without the www. prefix showing for search results but lower down.
Google is not listing the correct pages as it was prior to this update ie www.../widgets.html which was ranking well say top 10, but is now showing the page without the www. prefix in the serps in say position 15 with a cashe date going back to Jan this year!, its the same on loads of other pages.
The 301 has been in place for well over 6 mths but following this uodate G has dropped loads of our pages and put non www pages with old cash dates in their place!
Is it time to give up hope?
I think time to build with a different colour hat on! the spammers are winning and the good guys are getting dumped on
just a short note on my experience with the SITE:desaster...
I had the same effect about a month ago on one single site, which lists with more than 1 Mio. pages and which is my main domain. The index page was gone and traffic dropped to 20% of the value before.
Shocked and demotivated I just kept doing other stuff and in the moment the site:desaster started, my site came back (although 5 others were "killed").
I do not want to be too optimistic, but after that one large site came back after 3 weeks very low results, I guess we have to give G a few weeks to clean up stuff. My guess is also that most of the sites, if they are REALLY clean, will come back eventually!
Does that give some hope?
I'm still in the same boat since the 27th. very low traffic from google, better than normal from yahoo/msn.
i'm just waiting this out, nothing more to do.
btw, the main index page now has disappeared from IPs listed in this threat.
today I saw little changes in google image, but tey returned to normal again, but that is often a sign for upcoming update, but these days who knows.
index pages seem to be hiding out at 22.214.171.124, in any case, it's the only one I can see mine doing the site:search.com. Cache is upto date, still lots of supplemental pages, and very old pages in the list. my sitemap is kept current, also.
|126.96.36.199,188.8.131.52 & 184.108.40.206 |
These datacentres also no longer show my homepage top of the site:www.domain.com command. The only DC's which are still friendly are the pre-update 220.127.116.11 and 18.104.22.168.
However, I have noticed a few referrals which must have come from one of these DC's. On a separate note, Frostymug, I am also noticing what appears to be an increase in MSN / Yahoo referrals. Maybe it just appears that way because the Google referrals are down so far :-(
[edited by: Wibfision at 2:24 pm (utc) on July 5, 2006]
|I think time to build with a different colour hat on! the spammers are winning and the good guys are getting dumped on |
Please give it a try and post monthly updates on how your new strategy is working. :-)
|today I saw little changes in google image, but tey returned to normal again, |
Do you mean you went down in Google Images too?
I'm asking because I dropped in the SERPs but not in Images.
[edited by: Martin40 at 2:30 pm (utc) on July 5, 2006]
The only DC showing nice results for us was 22.214.171.124 and now also the site:command doesnt show the index there :(
Would anyone like to explain the significance of the index page showing up first in the site:www.mysite.com listings? Thanks.
no word from Matt Cutts :-(
|Would anyone like to explain the significance of the index page showing up first in the site:www.mysite.com listings? |
Basically the site: search lists your site pages as Google sees them in terms of importance, so if your home page doesn't rank first, or in some cases, doesn't show up at all, then that's bad - very bad in fact.
Some sites have internal pages which are more important than their home page - this is not what I mean. It is fine for them to list first then.
The symptom people here are seeing is that the top pages listed are not their important ones, which are hard or impossible to find.
This has gone hand in hand with these important pages dropping out of SERPs for search phrases they used to rank well under.
From here it's strictly opinion...
I maintain that it's a tweak to the algo to attack some kind of issue (quite possibly succesfully and maybe even justified), with colateral damage to a number of innocent sites. I personally think it's to do with site uniqueness, stickyness, and use of adsense or affiliate schemes - but who really knows? Matt?
|Would anyone like to explain the significance of the index page showing up first in the site:www.mysite.com listings? Thanks. |
For those sites adversely affected by the algo changes on 27th June, one thing that they have in common is that when you do the site:www.domain.com command, the homepage is not at the top of the listing, and it is preceded by outdated supplementals.
You beat me to it, Scott ;-)
|no word from Matt Cutts :-( |
Has anyone here actually asked Matt anything? From what I can see his latest blog comments are just rammed full of the usual sycophantic drivel.
He's unlikely to comment on something that isn't yet remotely on his radar.
As an aside. For those of you tracking the June 27th ranking problems by way of the weird "site:" search symptoms, it's worth noting that not all of us are seeing those symptoms. We we're hit by the same ranking penalty on the 27th, but we do not see any "site:" search weirdness. Suffice to say, the "site:" search bugs may be a bit of a red herring.
In my opinion the affiliate filter theory cannot be true. Most search results showing up first in my category are 100% affiliated sites (some with hundreds of links on the index), cobranded pages, affiliate cached links, and I even found a redirect that was cached at the first position.
I still believe in a bad data push, since it concerns so many of us. Many having decent sites with correct html and no affiliated sites at all.
This is not what I call colateral damage. In my dictionary its called "Bad data"
All this guessing and theories is driving everyone up the wall, making things worse then they really are.
|Is it time to give up hope? |
No! Never give up :)
I've seen some (small) positive changes since 27 June, with pages cached on or since that date showing up "correctly" in the index, across a range of DCs.
Pages cached prior to 27 June are still screwed up, with site meta description taking precedence over page meta descriptions, menu items displayed instead, date of last cache showing up in the indexed page title.
I also wonder if Google is giving priority to sites according to age? If anyone else has seen this please corroborate, otherwise I'll think I'm paranoid. Reason for my theory is sites seem to be slowly recovering in age order - my oldest site is (today at least!) recovering well; 2nd oldest starting to show positive results; the two youngest sites are still stuffed.
IMO since the BD roll out google has not been updating very well at all and is on a continual decline
I see pages that have been cashed going back over the last six months in its index that have been updated and changed by webmasters yet google hasnt updated its cash version.
Its serps can not be correct as it then provides results based on the keyword search requests based on the cashed held data which is as i say out of date.
I can see that the idea was to take the data to a central area so that the bot doesnt have to make three journeys for each of the google bot applications and then feed the data from the central area directly into the data centre serps but it doesnt work.
For what ever reason the data is not getting updated enough imo. Whilst google dont want to admit it i genuinely believe that they have a lot of bugs to sort out and that this infastructure isnt as effective as they think it is.
Time will tell
>> I also wonder if Google is giving priority to sites according to age?
Yes my oldest and best sites have dropped dramatically, on some old sites im seeing cache from 2005!
I have noticed google crawling these sites again, but I dont see any new cached pages yet.
| This 100 message thread spans 4 pages: 100 (  2 3 4 ) > > |