Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
1. Site went into the supplemental index 9 months ago.
2. Site can only be found now when searching for domain name. However even this is unreliable. Sometimes it can only be found using the non www version.
3. Over the months, many of the internal pages listed in the supplemental results have disappeared altogether. Gone from about 80 pages down to only 5.
4. Page rank has recently disappeared from the Index page; however PR is still showing on the internal pages.
About my site:
Site is nearly 3 years old and has over 2000 incoming links. The site ranked very high for several major keywords before falling into the supplemental index. Site has never sold or bought links, cloaked, or done anything the break any rules.
I started using Sitemap for this site in the hope that this would correct whatever the problem is, but this does not seem to have done anything. The site gets a hit from GoogleBot2.1 about once a week, it requests the root directory, gets a 200 OK result but never goes any deeper.
When I contact Google I get the standard response that a site is listed even if it is in the Supplemental results. If I ask if my site has a penalty, I am told that certain actions such as buying or selling links to increase a site's Page Rank value or cloaking can result in penalization. But as I have said, this is not applicable to me.
Any help or advice will be most appreciated.
I have a personal site that appears to have a "canonical page problem," it ranked briefly but has not ranked for nearly 18 months. I got tired of reporting it and trying to get it fixed, burned out long ago. And I'm unwilling to report it yet again as that page I linked to suggests.
I'm trying a new approach. Instead of redirecting www to non-www, I set my server up to not serve anything at the www version, it returns a 500 error. As Google follows links to the www version, perhaps it will get dropped and the non-www version will start to rank again... Who knows? I'll post about it if I make any progress.
Arent they talking about the 302 issue rather than 301.
Matt has been in favour of the Yahoo solution for 302s for a long while (I mean a few months)
But if he indicated looking at 301 agains only a month or so ago - then perhaps they will.
A quote from Matts Blog
Stephen, a www vs. non-www version isn’t something that would trigger a duplicate content penalty, in my experience–it’s just too common. I can believe that our algorithms might not always handle this as well as they could, but it’s not the sort of thing that would be penalized. As we work down the list of canonicalization issues that people run into and cross them off the list,I wouldn’t be surprised if this issue + 301s taking longer than before is the next thing on the list.
and that was only a week or so ago.
Dayo
I have finally learned that there really is no rhyme or reason as to why, and I have quit wasting time trying to figure out why Google does what it does. Instead, I have learned to accept, and even expect, sites disappearing as part of the business, which has reduced my stress greatly. The key is not to rely on one site. Build more sites, on different topics. When one disappears, it isn't the end of the world. My advice won't help you at this moment when you need your site, but it will if you start to think long-term.
Arent they talking about the 302 issue rather than 301.
but the engineer overseeing how redirections are handledThat statement suggests to me that 301 and 302 issues are related.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this issue + 301s taking longer than before is the next thing on the list.Thanks for pointing that out. I read the comment a few weeks ago but it didn't "stick," I had forgotten about it. It's encouraging.
But I'm gonna continue my test with my buried personal site, just in case, I got nothin' to lose! :)
Thank you for your prophetic words of wisdom and useless contribution. "
Actually, this is the most important part of this entire thread, and in a way, does answer your quaestion, and with resolve your problems long term.
relying only on google is liem investing only in ONE compan or ONE sector. . . It' s Stupid.
I am sure I saw your domain name with title and description on one dc once.
Hmmmz - I will sticky you a tool.
Dayo
