| 3:52 pm on Jul 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
show off I'm only 1st! Well it is the weekend Dayo ;0)
| 4:13 pm on Jul 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Whats the furthest date you can find in supplementals?
Here is mine.
as retrieved on Dec 23, 2004 21:30:55 GMT.
| 4:16 pm on Jul 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
most of mine seem to be between 2-18 May
| 4:42 pm on Jul 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Mine going way back:
19 Aug 2005 17:47:25 GMT
| 5:03 pm on Jul 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
My Google cache is the Internet Archive: 19 Dec 2004.
I'm wondering if 6/27 is, possibly among other things, the result of www to non-www (or vice versa) 301 redirects. Most webmasters do this to increase PR of non-www (or vv), which could be seen as spam.
If you don't have a 301 and still got hit by 6/27 then there might be something other than 301 too, so would it be a good idea to ask MC what his current ideas on www << >> non-www are?
| 6:50 pm on Jul 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Just an update.
My sitemap has been refreshed now and several of my established pages have settled back into their 'regular' positions. I've still got many supp pages listed, dating back to June 2005.
I've checked my records and this is exactly the same progress the last time I got hit. Back in March it took 3 weeks to get back to full strength, so I'm guessing another week or so and I will check back again.
All the Best
| 7:01 pm on Jul 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
For some 2 and 3 word terms I follow all of the DCs on McNameless give good results in terms of relevance and authority and real content in my niche.
Last night the really bad results for one 2 word term that were lurking on a few DCs (I reported earlier in the thread on this) have migrated to the majority of DCs. When I go to each DC directly I'm getting the same bad results.
This makes me wonder what they are playing with that can produce very good results for one 2 word term in a very specific niche and also produce very bad results for a similar closely related 2 word term?
I'm not looking for a list of tweaks that they might be making, rather I'm wondering what we can learn from changes, movements in the algo.
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that this is related to semantic webs.
| 7:03 pm on Jul 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
My earliest cache date is 26 Jun 2005 - most of the dates are in Jul 2005.
| 9:51 pm on Jul 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I can't find any that are earlier than 2005 June - about mid month.
| 1:17 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Whats the furthest date you can find in supplementals?"
December 2004 is the earliest I can find.
The screwed up 18.104.22.168 results seem to require URL to be a foot long the rank a page... Also all those URL-only rss blog feed listings show the weakness of that data, plus the listing of pages not in site:example.com/section/ showing up as if part of /section/ is a bad sign.
| 1:39 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
sweat dribbling .................
| 3:18 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have been reading quietly for a long time crossing my fingers my site does not have these same problems. Well tonight for the first time in 5 years.
- my home page and about half of my other pages have disappeared off google.
- Went from #1 to #3 for keywords for my domain name.
- Completely gone for phrase for my site type. Meanwhile several defunct sites for many years are on page 1.
- went from PR7 to PR3.
What worries me I put my site up for-sale on Ebay and mentioned my Google rank. So not sure if it is a coincidence this happened or I am in the same boat as you guys.
btw - also for the 1st time in 5 years about 2 weeks ago my site description changed to the DMOZ one.
| 4:53 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Now back to normal. I hope that was not a sign of things to come.
| 4:54 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I watch now daily the .info spam monster.
Command site:.info "theme.example.com" Saturday July 8th 2006
Command site:.info "theme.example.com" Sunday July 9th 2006
At one, more .info spam, most lightly reduced.
| 6:41 pm on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Command site:.info "theme.example.com" Sunday July 9th 2006 12 hours later
Seems this spam monster is defeated
| 11:06 am on Jul 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I see steady results over all DCs this morning. All DCs show the same results and rankings for my keyword. Haven't seen this for a long time.
| 12:22 pm on Jul 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If it was a roll back to 2004 like Matt said why is my site that was only created in late 2005 doing very well in the top 5 for most major keyords. Some with 10 millinon pages
Where and when did Matt say "it was a roll back to 2004"?
| 8:42 am on Jul 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
All my sites have since they exist each one contact link
Has one link to
The CGI formmail page uses the same title, same navigation, the rest of the page is different.
Now I searched
And Google listed the first pages only pages from cgi.example.com
They can not have a great PR, because each such page has only one link from the original page.
When a PR=0 page ranks in front of a PR=5 page, it seems to the dropped sites is a high search penalty applied.
When I test this with a keyword from an uninfluenced site, the first cgi.example.com result is way down the result list.
| 9:01 am on Jul 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Matt has made some typically wishy washy statements in his blog regarding the last update, mainly saying the issues we describe are result of a data push that gives overall better results than before. I wouldn't read too much into the things he says, as IMHO he is only trying to keep the webmaster core temperature down while the problems are being sorted. It's always important to remember that he is on Google's side and is therefore obliged to never admit fault ... it's the same in most industries and as long as we know the rules it isn't too hard to read between the lines.
All the Best
| 11:30 pm on Jul 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
System: The following message was spliced on to this thread from: http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3003287.htm [webmasterworld.com] by tedster - 10:15 pm on July 11, 2006 <small>(EDT -4)</small>
Are there any DCs that are considered more up to date?
For the last couple days, all my pages were indexed fine (relatvely new site just launched) now I cant find some.
site: went from 19 to 13. I've tried looking at a bunch of different DC's but none show 19 now. I checked my root cached page and they all show an older cached page than they showed before.
Did something revert today?
[edited by: tedster at 2:16 am (utc) on July 12, 2006]
| 12:59 pm on Jul 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
When I search "widgets in blue white and red" our site comes up No1.
Then with no " - ", repeat no "" , I put the same phrase in and get a supplemental result with the old page [before it was 301 redirected to the page shown above].
Why would Google be serving up our old results differentiated with the changed query parameters?
It looks like Google isn't recognising the 301 redirect on the normal search query.
Is this a Google bug?
| 11:33 pm on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
page rank update on!
| 3:31 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
So is the "related:" feature broken now also?.
| 5:59 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
What do you think about the results at [gfe-ed2.google.com...] and at [gfe-ed3.google.com...] at the moment then?
| 11:23 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think the girlfriend/gfe URLs explain where we have been getting Google.com results from, though not exactly how. The IP numbers seem fully obsolete now, with the gfe ones the ones that matter.
| 1:48 am on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>So is the "related:" feature broken now also?.
I noticed this too... [webmasterworld.com...]
| 9:25 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Looks like Google today decided to add millions more blog pages to the results, as if trying to add enough wordpress (and others) subdomains to keep up with MSN's fetish for blogspot.
| 6:56 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|This is not really Google's fault. The web is just getting littered with all kinds of 'high tech' tricky stuff to make web sites easily and get traffic quickly. |
Not Google's 'fault' but - to some extent, don't the search engine companies share responsibility for the gaming ("'high tech' tricky stuff") that is going on? I mean, there are financial incentives for getting lots of traffic [the ad programs], and obviously some are manipulating Google PageRank and other search engine results to gain that traffic.
Google, Yahoo, and other search engines and the advertising programs have altered the web landscape over the years - webmasters *do* react to the search engines' tastes. Don't they?
For instance, I now use Google Sitemaps - to try to gain better SE results from Google.
I now use "rel=nofollow" on most outbound links in order to combat splogs and comment spam (which exists mostly to game SE results by creating artificial boosts in IBL rankings) and to prevent being dinged for an OBL to a 'bad neighborhood'.
I add 'captcha' safeguards in order to block spam comments or postings.
Note that these have little if anything to do with the suggestion that we "create great content for users".
This, IMO, is the real 'Google Dance' :D Google sneezes, a bunch of webmasters catch cold!
So, not Google's 'fault' but I think it's safe to say that the SE co's share some responsibility for creating the environment (along with getting credit the tremendous benefits they have created!)
| 7:10 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|"but I've never seen the "last accessed" date in sitemaps go backwards." |
I have a few times but I thought I was just going insane.
Google restoring data from a previous backup? (just kidding... maybe)
| 10:59 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Has anyone checked out [22.214.171.124...] in the past couple days? I just checked it and it seems to have improving results. I think the data may be new, too, since it has a page I just added a week ago in the index. It only has some of my pages so far, so perhaps it is rebuilding?
Also, when I do the site: command everything is normal.
Even though results don't look as good as they used to for our site, it's way better than the rest of the data centers!
| 12:10 am on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing fixed site: searches on that datacenter, but no change in rankings, and the absolutely dreadful developments of the past week in terms of garbage blogs being everywhere is horrible there.
| This 179 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 179 ( 1 2 3  5 6 ) > > |