| 10:03 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
[gfe-eh.google.com...] aka [184.108.40.206...] on those I see established sites gone totaly supplemental, old supplemental site totaly out of the index.
Its incredible that they cant fix there search system, all this HALF fixes which came with time because they dont have space, omitted results, supplemental results and when you make a search with millions of results, you get omitted text after 3 pages, jesus thats no SE, that a kids laptop, buy some servers if you still want business or you will realy get beat buy MSN search next year, they dont have any excusses.
| 10:20 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
By fixing site architecture problems a year ago I got the correct version of the website fully indexed, but had to wait more than a year for duplicate supplemental results to be dropped.
With today's updates I think that I now fully understand what supplemental results really are, and what they are for, and am sure that you have to wait a year for them to be dropped.
The correct measure of whether a site has a problem is not how many supplemental URLs are showing, but how many URLs show as normal results for the canonical URL for each page of the site.
Eliminating multiple URLs for the same content, and fixing things where there are multiple pages with the same title tag and/or meta description are key to getting things back on track. Internal distribution of PR is important too; and that hinges on Internal PR being directed back at the correct URL for the root homepage (link back to http://www.domain.com/ in exactly that format from every page of the site).
Related thread: [webmasterworld.com ]
[edited by: g1smd at 10:25 pm (utc) on Aug. 17, 2006]
| 10:23 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Multiple URLs for the same content, and multiple pages with same title and or meta description are key to getting things fixed. |
Can you expand on that a bit? It sounds like you are saying that having multiple urls for the same content is a good thing, and that seems unlikely to me. Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
EDIT: never mind, looks like you edited the statement already.
| 10:27 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, I end up editing nearly every post I make, usually within just a few seconds of posting it, due to typos or lack of clarity in the original post.
| 11:50 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
My supplementals were updated as well.
I had an old supplemental at the #1 spot in the list:
that was over a year old, and my site has never even used query strings. I did a 301 on those and it seems to have worked, but it took over a month...
Also, my in-the-toilet SERPs suddenly reverted to pre-27 June this morning as well.
| 11:51 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
[220.127.116.11...] aka [gfe-jc.google.com...] look good but [gfe-eh.google.com...] aka [18.104.22.168...] look even better. The latter SERPs have fewer instances of the same blog and its comments clogging up subjects Real pages can be found for a change. I likey a lot.
| 12:59 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
As usual when they do this, some good things happen and some bad. This one seems mostly very good, with lots of things fixed that were hurt by the June 27th shakeup. Some things have been fixed that screwed up last September 22nd, so this seems like one of the few significant steps forward, given the removal of supplementals going back to 2004, but still it appears some stuff got screwed up too (though none of my competitors seem to have had anything bad, and plenty good, happen to them).
Next month, who knows if more things will be fixed or hurt.
| 2:05 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Next month, who knows if more things will be fixed or hurt. |
That's the big issue isn't it?
| 3:11 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I've got 75,000 pages of content that people have always loved to link to... Yahoo says I have 61,000 links to the site, 97% are to interior pages so I have plenty of deep linking. I have exactly 1 supplemental URL. The only time I've ever seen a drop in traffic was the week after the 5 billion page thing, then things returned to normal. Now traffic to my site has dropped by 60% in the past few days.
I guess I've just joined the club.
| 3:14 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Welcome to the club.. pull up a seat and grab a drink you'll be here a while :)
| 3:33 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Last week I had 155,000 pages indexed with all but 10 supplemental. Now I have 245,000 with only 10 showing at all. I have my preferences set to 100 listing per page and G shows 1 to 9 of about 245,000 results.
| 4:54 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think our site has finally started climbing out of supplimental hell caused by https being indexed. We gained almost all of our pages back and supplimentals are down to a trickling few.
New traffic is up about 1/3 now if the economy would go up and gas prices down we'd probably start making money again.
[edited by: Bewenched at 4:55 am (utc) on Aug. 18, 2006]
| 5:02 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|With today's updates I think that I now fully understand what supplemental results really are, and what they are for, and am sure that you have to wait a year for them to be dropped. |
g1smd, I'd really appreciate your sharing your conclusions on the bolded parts in your quote above.
Exactly one year ago, I also did a full site architecture overhaul. Supplementalism did not strike until April 2006 however. Today's changes are positive so far -- but I have seen similar progress disappear several times over the last 4 months
| 5:30 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I haven't seen any improvement for days. The only thing I search for to guage how my listings are doing (My Name - usually number 4 out 3,660,00) has just been replaced with a Yahoo Answers page about me ... LOL - they probably do a better job of describing my photographic work than I ever could.
Although, on a supplemental note, I am holding steady at just 11 now and I notice that my index page lies just beneath those 11, so maybe when they go I'll get back to the top again.
Anyway, all the best for a fruitful day to all (I love Fridays, always drunk by 3pm).
| 5:05 pm on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
g1smd, every where I go I see you insisting that [gfe-eh.google.com...] is the data center to be watching, and that the results there are where Google is headed.
Forgive my for being naieve, but why or how do you know that THAT is the one to be watching?
| 5:43 pm on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Forgive my for being naieve, but why or how do you know that THAT is the one to be watching?"
Because either Matt Cutts or GoogleGuy has mentioned previously that [22.214.171.124...] has the new infrastructure (BigDaddy) ;-)
| 6:59 pm on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| 7:03 pm on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
We'll I am pleased with this "tweak" of 8/17/06.
My site got pummelled on June 27th, and didn't recover on July 27th.
As of today, virtually all of my #1 and top 3 rankings are back where they were for 3 years prior to June 27th.
Also, the "site search supplemental problem" for me is fixed. I only have one page showing up as supplemental when doing a site:www.mydomain.com search, and it is at the bottom of the list now where it should be (for the past 7 weeks, that supplemental page was showing up at the top, above my home page).
Something got fixed/tweaked/changed/removed yesterday...
| 7:56 pm on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
montefin: check out what I wrote in [webmasterworld.com...] especially the stuff on page 2.
| 12:31 am on Aug 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Reminder: the end of Summer is September 22nd.
35 days and counting.
| 3:30 am on Aug 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
montefin, I am counting down with you. I figure it will be the final nail on my coffin or finally a fix of the unjust penalties that some of us have been slapped with.
Let's hope for a nice surprise!
| 4:57 am on Aug 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I've got to say that [gfe-eh.google.com...] ticks some boxes for me. Site: search has got my index page at the top, only 3 supplementals and a totally new collection of cached pages, spanning all areas of my site.
I have seen some strange thisngs when I try to used advanced search features. If I try to get 100 page listing ... it only gives me 30 and then when I do re-enter the 100 request it halves the number of accessible pages ... but either way, it's nice to see my pages back again, in the right order :-)
| 5:12 am on Aug 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You mentioned these searchs in another thread, could you expound on exactly what each search will show us or what we should expect to see?
I am trying to explain these searchs to a friend and not able to make myself very clear as to what each one should show and thought maybe I could get a clearer explanation from one of the resident experts such as yourself.
| 5:33 am on Aug 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Am I right in thinking that it's the data on this server that will be used in the next update, but as yet it hasn't been 'orthogonally' altered ... so the results we see on this server are just running again the current algorythm?
I don't know, did anyone else think that sounded like gibberish? I'm tired and haven't had enough coffee yet.
The pool beckons ... see you all tomorrow AM.
All the Best
| 7:12 am on Aug 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I see here the site: command for all affected domains from me works like expected, but at my best search queries, still my pages are not to find.
| 10:15 am on Aug 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
my cache here is April 1.
| 6:02 pm on Aug 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
In an ideal world, the various site searches should show all pages as www and no pages as non-www URLs.
In practice, many sites will show a selection of both www and non-www URLs. The aim here is maximise the number of www pages listed, and maximise the number of listed www pages that are not supplemental.
The number of non-www pages listed as supplemental is totally irrelevant. As long as non-www URLs redirect to their equivalent www pages for live pages and return a 404 error for pages that no longer exist, then all is well with the site. Google will hang on to those types of supplemental results (URLs that redirect or are gone) for a year or more. You cannot alter that. Don't bother measuring them.
Every page of a normal site has the current content as a normal URL, and the older version of the same page is stored as a supplemental result. You see the supplemental result when you search for older content that used to be on the page, but no longer is. You cannot change this.
For a site with duplicate content, then none, some, or all URLs for that same content will be normal results and none, some, or all alternative URLs will be shown as supplemental results. Aim to get all non-canonical URLs deindexed. What is left will be a mixture of normal and supplemental results. Let Google reindex the site. It will take a while for the supplemental status to be lifted for the remaining URLs.
The "nonsense" searches like site:www.domain.com -inurl:www (show all www pages that do not have a www in the URL) show non-www URLs whatever their status is, and www URLs that have a supplemental tag for at least one version of the cached content.
Some sites return zero for some of the searches. Those are the ones that have perfect canonicalisation. Most others show many anomolies.
The take away here is to measure how many normal www results there are, not how many supplemental or non-www results there are.
Umm, "the take away here is..."; jeez I'm starting to sound like Matt Cutts. Oi! Google! Stop messing with my mind...
| 11:54 am on Aug 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I just took a look at the mother of the new infrastructure [126.96.36.199...]
It seems that the folks at the plex are aiming now at what they "expect" or "think" or "imagine" to be duplicates. I see articles published on pages and have been there since 1998 which turned to supplementals. After all those looooong years, suddenly somebody among our good friends, at Google's crawl/index Team, thought.. oh here we have some supplementals. C'mon give me a break ;-)
Wish the friends at the plex better luck next time :-)
| 12:23 pm on Aug 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I just took a look at the mother of the new infrastructure [188.8.131.52...] |
Hope to recover!
With one of my most important search queries, I floated before June 27th between place 3 and 6.
Since June 27th not in the first 100.
Now on place 16 at this data center.
| This 200 message thread spans 7 pages: 200 (  2 3 4 5 6 7 ) > > |