Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
This is sorted out now, with my index page listed first, a main category page indented from that, then Cafe Press at #3.
I honestly don't know what I did (if anything) to fix it, or I'd let you know! It's very frustrating. I hope your site recovers quickly.
>>Thank you Google but I strongly believe there is a God up there and He Panishes some times very hard people that kick poor STREET DOGS.<<
Very wise and true words!
From what I remember though once Googleguy posted something indicating that when sites that link to you rank above you it is not because they have done something to hurt you, it is that your site has some type of penalty, causing it to go down in rankings.
This seems to be consistent with what I saw with a site that just came back - it now ranks #1 for its site name as well as for ["www.domainname.com"], and didn't before. So I suspect this other site has some other spam penalty applied to it also.
The one that came back had some datafeeds, one in particular that was pretty big, so I think it was a duplicate content problem. I took it off and in a few weeks the site came back. The site that is still gone and has the cafepress problem had one datafeed on it too, but it is now also gone, but has not come back. Hopefully it will too soon.
The one page that just came back into the serps has not existed for about a year. It has a cache date of Nov. 2004.
So at the end of WEEK #1, one can guess that this update/no update (UPD/NUPD) is mainly about deduplications. However, it might have affected affiliate marketing pages/sites too.
The opinions of the contributors to this thread about the the "tools" applied during this UPD/NUPD covers; introduction of filters, manual intervensions, and people like yours trully whom also believe in changes in algos ;-)
The interim results of the UPD/NUPD are:
- original contents sites either removed from the index or lost rankings
- duplicated sites are still there, and sometimes ranking very well
- spam sites have great time on the serps
- Googleīs Mr. Eric Schmidt talks about number of sites in Google index instead of the QUALITY of serps!
Anything else to add?
I figured that over time that might happen, but my concern is for the current time.
I think (maybe a bad thing for a Bear to do) that a lot of what is happening is that large numbers of links now come and go because of the various activities of scrapers.
According to the guy from Google, they select canonical pages based upon PR.
And since Google says duplicate content is bad I suspect incorrect pages will get marked as supplemental as a result.
Think about that for a bit, maybe you can see where recursive tail swallowing takes things.
the duplicate content issues have existed for a long time and i'm not seeing a change in the way they are handled, perhaps more sites are getting caught up in it, but thats only a result of the passage of time, not an algo or filter change.
>>reseller i think the changes we are/aren't seeing have more to do with links than anything else.<<
My problem is if I agree with you, and I do think that what you said is highly possible, will lead us to say IT IS AN UPDATE. And that might trigger more frustrations and few negative posts ;-)
Now why Iīm saying that IT IS AN UPDATE?
Its the kind of changes and several phases that make me think that its an update. And this UPD/NUPD trully walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ;-)
lets just call it what it is, some sort of change in the handling of link values. I've seen quite a few people agree with me on this, so I think its quite possible.
now what exactly has changed about link handling?
This is one of Google's most widespread mistakes in years. It's particularly interesting because it has had virtually no effect on any site not hugely effected. The same core issue has been plaguing Google for a long time, and they have handled it badly. Now marks the first time though that sloppy webmastering can't be blamed, and that clearly other sites can seriously hurt you by behaving badly (even if unlike the 302 thing they can't gain much themselves by hurting you).
Instead of asking why Google dropped the glass, ask why Google claims effected sites have ten times or more pages than they do. Ask why Google shows Supplemental results for pages deleted two years ago. Ask why Google will not recognize a 301 from a Supplemental result. Ask why pages that do not exist, that were removed using the URL removal tool, return after six months as Supplemental results. Ask why Google only "hides" these supplementals instead of "removes" them from the index?
This isn't complex. Google handles its supplemental listings and duplicate pages very, very poorly. Previously people could do a lot to help Google not screw up, but now Google's mistakes have gotten much more aggressive. You can't stop them from screwing up, other than build an unpopular site in an unpopular niche that nobody will ever bother copying.
This probably has to do with the "my index is bigger than yours" competition they've been having with yahoo.
Since this has gotten plenty of media attention, perhaps it is time for us to try to drum up some media attention to the fact that many of us know for a fact that google is inflating its index size.
One of my sites affected is actually a cat site that pet lovers visit. Maybe the problem is that the cat has her own domain name - perhaps it would help if I transferred her over to an Angelfire page. Except that I don't think you can do Server Side Includes with Angelfire or Geocities, can you?
As for getting a job "like cleaning floors or plumping," I've worked very hard to have a svelte figure, so I think "plumping" is out of the question. ;-)
FWIW, I also want to mention that whatever is happening, it seems to be affecting the two sites I've brought up in different ways (although the result is the same), and that they're very different sites with, possibly very different issues. The cat site is pretty simple and relatively small - I haven't counted recently, but it's probably only a couple hundred pages big, if that. It only gets maybe 2-3 pages added a month. No datafeeds, no Amazon feed, no asp or php. Affiliate pages are but a very, very small part of the site. This site is having problems getting recognized by Google via its name - it's the one that's appearing at the bottom of page 1 for search results on its name.
My main website, on the other hand, has around 862 pages of content (at last count). Still not huge, considering what others have discussed regarding their websites, but significantly bigger than my other site. It does have an Amazon feed, and another feed for somewhere else that I actually haven't used yet, and that the bots probably can't see since it's not linked anywhere. This site gets (got) updated weekly and has an rss page that gets syndicated - last I looked it rated very high in Yahoo! popularity as a feed for its topic. When I search for the name of this site, it appears on the top of the serps like it should... it just doesn't appear on page one or two anymore for just about anything else.
It's interesting to see that others are noticing a running thread between some of my site's problems and theirs. Maybe the mystery of why our sites have been shunned by Google's search will be solved. Will it matter is another question altogether.
>>Instead of asking why Google dropped the glass, ask why Google claims effected sites have ten times or more pages than they do. Ask why Google shows Supplemental results for pages deleted two years ago. Ask why Google will not recognize a 301 from a Supplemental result. Ask why pages that do not exist, that were removed using the URL removal tool, return after six months as Supplemental results. Ask why Google only "hides" these supplementals instead of "removes" them from the index? <<
Its late here where I live, but shall do my best to write few words as clear as possible ;-)
All what you mentioned wouldnīt make any difference, as long as you donīt talk about the decline of search results pages as a result of the thing you mentioned, which is really what matter.
All what you mentioned wouldnīt make any difference, as long as you donīt talk about Google still list too many duplicate pages while at the same time removed some "originals" as part of the deduplication process, which is really what matter.
All what you mentioned wouldnīt make any difference, as long as you donīt talk about the difference of having a large index and the quality of serps generated out of it.
Thats exactly what matter, both to searchers as well as to webmasters!
Good night and God bless.
This isn't complex. Google handles its supplemental listings and duplicate pages very, very poorly.
Bingo. Not clear if this is because they assign them low priority since they are not as lucrative as regular index or if they simply can't handle the mountains of results. I admire the SE's for what they can do with the world of data, but we often forget all that they CANNOT do or do poorly.
Consider this: if you invented the ultimate something today it would only be seen on Google 6 to 12 months from now.
Isn't that enough to prove Google is broken?
This delay Google inserted, sandbox, whatever you want to call it is a shot in the foot.
Yahoo! has my new stuff in sometimes in a matter of hours and their index is not at all inferior to Google.
Google IS broken.
And I happen to like the search experience at Google.
But I do not like their approach with this GoogleGuy socially engineering himself on SEO forums. Clearly, they're no friends of SEO, and pretending to be so shows that there's more to the childish Google brand colors and bubbly attitudes there.
They're in it to conquer space and they will NOT spare YOU.
Personally, I've mentally written off my lost sites and budgeted out the revenue. There's no guarantee we're ever coming back.
I have yet to work out why this has happened. Given we don't get up to any shady stuff and are a news site with more link backs every day and more content each day than ever. The very things the guidelines advise.
Down close to $five figures this last 7 days I guess.
However, we went ahead with another 2 big content buys for next month since cannot let a search engine dictate how we run our site. Got to keep pushing I always think.
I am still hopefull that things will change but given none of the Google team have commented in this thread things do not look too good...communication can do wonders I find.
If this current situation stays then Google will certainly have gone down a bit in my estimation.
I also think what goes around comes around, regards adsense and the forthcoming alternatives. Though I am not going to cut my nose to spite my face.
Maybe something will change over the weekend, but onwards regardless.
[edited by: FattyB at 12:50 am (utc) on Sep. 30, 2005]
Consider this: if you invented the ultimate something today it would only be seen on Google 6 to 12 months from now.Isn't that enough to prove Google is broken?
No, because information about that "ultimate something" would be reported on other sites. (Remember, Google's job is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible," but "the world's information" isn't necessarily a synonym for "every Web site.")
Also, if Google opened the floodgates with something akin to the late InfoSeek's "instant submission" tool (which is what most Webmasters here probably want), that "ultimate something" site probably would get lost in the clutter of search spam.
Maybe Google is "broken," and maybe it isn't (I don't think there can be any such thing as a perfect search engine), but there's a difference between something that's "broken" and a conscious tradeoff that was made to find the optimum balance between an index that's useful and one that isn't.
they have been slow the past few days.
waiting on authority sites new pages to get indexed, argh pain. sorry just impatient. :D
google's not broken, they just like established sites / domains.
so there basically saying go out there and establish yourself before we rank you under your industries leading keywords. Which is fine by me.
i'm also sure they may have went to hard on the duplicate filter now and in the past catching out sites which are "legit", but thems the breaks.. i'm sure everything will work out.
the most arrogant company in U.S. corporate history.
You're undermining your arguments with such reckless hyperbole.
Many of the sites benefitting from this are Black Hat SEO sites, scraper sites and other sites of dubious reputation (e.g. Ebates). If this filter was designed to weed out the spammers, it has failed miserably and in many cases done the exact opposite! Google fix thyself!
-- T
"Complaints" here are probably one of the best sources of information that Google has at its disposal. This is like having an ongoing focus group of "experts" for free.
My guess is that some of you've got a lot at stake here and are scared to say anything that might hurt your relationship with Google. But it is silly to say that everyone is imagining what is happening.
My site just grew past the 1,000 page mark about three days ago. Overnight the site:www.foo.com command went from 999 pages to 9,100. I'm sorry to disappoint, but I can't write that fast (although I wish I could).
Perhaps the Google engineers understand why this is happening, maybe it's even desirable - but at least "complainers" let them know it is happening.
Besides how boring would life be if everyone just watched from the sidelines and stared at each other like nothing's happening in this world? Night all...
