Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.206.168.65

Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Update Jagger - Part 2

     
1:08 am on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Administrator from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Sept 21, 1999
posts:38200
votes: 96


Continued from
[webmasterworld.com...]

Dayo_UK

5:51 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Inactive Member
Account Expired

 
 


>>>How would you know/verify the the Canonical problem has been fixed?

Sorry I was having tea :)

I would be able to tell - as the homepage would out rank internal pages for some searches - at the moment an interal page outranks the homepage - despite all the links and relevant anchor text going to the homepage.

Eg if I search on Unique Company name - the home page should be the first result from my site (It is the most relevant) - If I search on "www.domain.com" the homepage should be the first result from my site (unless I have really optimized an internal page with www.domain.com as the keyword - or redirected say like Matts blog has.)

If I search on site:domain.com domain.com - the homepage should be the first result.

That is what I would immediately look for - after that then I would hope that G starts crawling the homepages as the first point of a crawl - eg not starting crawls at www.domain.com/anypage/anypage.html

I assume fredde fix means that if he queries domain.com it displays www.domain.com - but that does not fix the ranking problems that occur with canonical url problems. It is a good sign - but only the very start.

But fredde please expand if you can?

Jagger3 still does not look like it has started IMO!

[edited by: Dayo_UK at 5:57 pm (utc) on Nov. 2, 2005]

5:53 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 27, 2001
posts:235
votes: 0


Guys,

These 4 DC's have completely dropped my site. What does everyone else see on these ones?

66.102.11.104
66.102.9.104
66.102.11.99
66.102.9.99

A 5 year old PR6 site that hasn't been touched or updated or changed in any way, shape, or form over the last 2 years which used to rank somewhere on the first page for about 40 separate search terms now ranks anywhere from 3-10 pages BACK for those same terms on those DCs.

It almost feels like a penalty in that every single term that it was in the top 5 results for is now not even in the top 5 pages. But being that it meets all guidelines and hasn't had a problem during the last few years, a penalty all of a sudden makes absolutely no sense.

It's almost more like... a glitch. Like something isn't being taken into account somewhere for this site.

5:58 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 2, 2005
posts:501
votes: 0


Oh crap.

All of my URL only pages just disappeared form the search engine. Not even supplimental results.

I sure hope there is a re-index of them coming because the only reason they went URL only was a sorting option that added "&preview=yes" to the URL. I

I have since resolved the issue, but am still missing all content that was indexed with 2 different URL's. Why would they delete "BOTH" of them...?

6:00 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 16, 2004
posts:375
votes: 4


phil_am - i too have had my site dropped on those 4 DCs - as per one of my previous posts - a site that links to me is displaying my link before my actual site in the SERPS!
6:03 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 19, 2003
posts:804
votes: 0


sfgirl,

A bit of background on the canonical/supplemental "issue/problem".

If you had a site that had both the www and non-www answering with a 200 retrun code and the bots were sent to each then two entries were created in Google's system for that page.

One of those two entries may have gone supplemental thus getting locked for all time into Google's supplemental jail.

So poor Google has tons of trash in its index and from where I sit sites get "filtered/penalized/pushed down" for this. Now I don't have the code up on the screen to be able to say this for certain. I've heard tons of arguement both ways, however it sure acts that way to me.

Google can to a degree repair this if the affected sites have working 301s AND google respiders its supplemental index.

My bet is that a large number of those pages would point elsewhere or be gone.

That is but one part of the canonical mess in a nut shell.

Why would a search engine want to target tons of duplicate content well go out and buy a pile of processing power to handle all of the webs trash.

Don't think so, however it would be nice if there was a means for folks to clean it up when we find it and not just hide it.

6:09 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 20, 2005
posts:339
votes: 0


Hi Everyone.

The plain raw facts are that the SERP's are being moved around all the time, and although it is nice to check from time to time, the SERP's will not settle down for some time to come.
Anticpating Jagger3 and what it will do, is pure speculation, as although we have been told that canonical issues will be dealt with, the SERP's results will continue to jump around for the next two weeks IMO.
This morning one of my keywords was at number 3. When I got home from a hard days boating, it was at number 18. Then I checked 2 minutes later and it was back to number 3 on 66.102.11.99.
This will continue to happen, until such a time as Google has finished the update.

6:09 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 30, 2004
posts:234
votes: 0


when I do a site: command I see Results 1 - 10 of about 173,000 from www.widget.com for . (0.41 seconds) in the blue bar above the results. I this new?
6:12 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 30, 2004
posts:234
votes: 0


another thing:

when searching for

site:www.widget.com blah

I see supplemental results for blah first. On the second page I find the first non supplemental result. (Yes, my site is under a dupe content penalty :-()

fredde

6:13 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Inactive Member
Account Expired

 
 


@dayo
<<But fredde please expand if you can?

sure ;)
on these DCs mentioned i ve checked a domain which suffers currently from that canonical issue. checking on mcdar, these DC displayed some former wrong urls converted back to www.domain.com. all other DC didnt. but: these DC are definetely on jagger stage 1 (jagger on stage ;)).

currently i see some more DCs displaying the results from 66.102.11.104/ 66.102.9.104 (e.g. 64.233.167.104, 216.239.37.104), still switching heavily.

Dayo_UK

6:14 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Inactive Member
Account Expired

 
 


Yes, dead supplemental pages outranking the good pages on a site search has also been a problem for a while.

Which is just stupid.

I can search for a page that has a cache of a few days ago and this will not appear from my site as it is outranked by 2 dead supplemental pages from my site that link to the page (therefore removing the recently cached page from the result - eg 2 results from a site)

Dayo_UK

6:16 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Inactive Member
Account Expired

 
 


Yes fredde

But rankings still in the sewer?

It appears that the 301, or Google actually fixing it by itself can happen - while the rankings dont change.

I would guess that it is the first sign of an improvment - but my 301 from non-www to www was picked up in August I think - however rankings are and crawling is still wrong.

6:18 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:July 26, 2005
posts:173
votes: 0


A 5 year old PR6 site that hasn't been touched or updated or changed in any way, shape, or form over the last 2 years

Maybe that is the problem right there.

istar

6:21 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Inactive Member
Account Expired

 
 


Didyou noticed in your logs increased references from Looksmart Excite Dogpile? (except of course Yahoo and MSN)
Does that means that Joe surfer is turning elsewhere the remote control for zaping?
6:23 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 4, 2005
posts:621
votes: 0


My site is 4 years, was PR7, went to PR5, just went up to PR6 and is affected. Make changes regularly, new articles, additions to old articles, some new sections, etc...

Not that one then.

6:28 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 27, 2001
posts:235
votes: 0


Maybe that is the problem right there.

Why would not updating a site for 2 years be a problem that would cause the site's rankings to drop an average of 5 pages for every single search term all of a sudden?

The content that got the site its original good rankings remains there, untouched. If anything, the lack of new content would just stop the site from improving. I see no reason why it should cause it to drop.

Unless there's something I'm just not seeing? I'm open to opinions.

6:31 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 1, 2005
posts:18
votes: 1


Thanks Day_o & The Bear!

That makes sense. Eek - I think we're in for a ride. Looks like because of recend October downward trends, we're going full speed at fixing URL problems right now during the beginning of Jagger 3 update - hope we survive!

6:31 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 20, 2005
posts:339
votes: 0


Take a look at this folks :[itmanagement.earthweb.com ] and click on the 'open letter' link in it.
Quite frightening if its all true!
6:33 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 30, 2004
posts:234
votes: 0


Perfection: If your site is perfectly ok for Google doing nothing for years would be fine - never touch a running system ;-)

But maybe there are some issues like duplicate content, that have been detected by Google right now. WW is full with postings about old sites that vanished surprisingly from the index. (Mine has been hit too.)

Dayo_UK

6:35 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Inactive Member
Account Expired

 
 


Eazygoin

Lol - and I dont get any credit for spotting that issue first in that article :)

Anyway - that is a different issue to what problem a lot of sites are facing. (IMO)

6:37 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 17, 2004
posts:463
votes: 0


I just found the "Googlewashing" hijack site as well while searching for a phrase I'd used at Matt's blog!

Some (including me) have suggested for months that duplicate content / scraping downranks are the "next 302" and a major issue in killing good sites.

Will Jagger 3 help solve this since it may be considered a form of canonical page identification? I'm hoping.

Dayo - what do you mean? I've been thinking that what appears to be a scraping-then-downranking effect is related to this and to 301 302 handling.

*edited to add last paragraph*

[edited by: joeduck at 6:41 pm (utc) on Nov. 2, 2005]

6:39 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 20, 2005
posts:339
votes: 0


Dayo_UK
Anyway - that is a different issue to what problem a lot of sites are facing. (IMO)

I quite agree with you, but I thought it may make a little light hearted entertainment over a cup of tea, to give you all a break from the current issues under discussion :-))))

Dayo_UK

6:46 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Inactive Member
Account Expired

 
 


joeduck

With MC blog it seems to be a Cloaking and who owns the original content issue - rather than picking the wrong canonical/main url for the site.

Picking the wrong url means crawling and ranking problems - which means you cant outrank sites that may have stolen your content. (Rather than sites stealing your content leading to a downranking.)

EG. The picking of the wrong url leads to the downranking not the stolen content. Picking of the wrong url can happen due to external links going to the wrong place (maybe 302 - well deffo in the past), to many internal links going to the wrong place etc - but not by stolen content (IMO)

6:48 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 4, 2005
posts:1161
votes: 0


My prediction:

The update is finally over, phew. Results from this DC: [216.239.37.104...] will be the final ones, except that, for one, new sites that have been previously "sandboxed" or have had other tech problems(which account for a small minority of the total sites indexed) will be added into the index. This will cause a minor shuffling, but pretty much, the fat lady has sung. At least in my neck of the Internet woods.

<edit - by "over", I mean in the sense that I can stop watching it, since I now already know what will happen>

[edited by: spaceylacie at 6:56 pm (utc) on Nov. 2, 2005]

6:51 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 27, 2001
posts:235
votes: 0


Perfection: If your site is perfectly ok for Google doing nothing for years would be fine - never touch a running system ;-)

But maybe there are some issues like duplicate content, that have been detected by Google right now. WW is full with postings about old sites that vanished surprisingly from the index. (Mine has been hit too.)

Taps, exactly. The site was doing what I wanted it to do for almost 3 years, so I had no reason to add or change anything.

But about duplicate content... the only issue there is countless websites (some quite spammy) steal from my site word for word. I always figured this wouldn't cause me any problems as far as rankings go (and it hasn't for 3 years now) but, is this what you mean by dup. content? Or are you referring to something else?

Also, this site hasn't vanished on the new DCs. All of the pages remain there, just pushed back an insane amount (3-10 pages) on literally every single search term. These are the same terms that I was prevously in the top 10 for, for years.

Dayo_UK

6:53 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Inactive Member
Account Expired

 
 


Perfection

Do a site:domain.com -www - any entries - eg your homepage?

7:03 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:July 26, 2005
posts:486
votes: 0


Problem is a site that is never updated or changed for several years is unlikely to be deserving of a top spot in the index.

So the fact that such pages held high-rankings for so-long indicate things were broken before. Removal of such sites is actually an indicator of improvement.

Unless your site is based on ancient history.

7:05 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 30, 2004
posts:234
votes: 0


Perfection:
Both - internal and external duplicate content - can be an issue.

Internal dupe content is easier to fix. Check your site as Dayo told. Also, if you use php or another language, check if your content can be accessed on different ways, for example:

www.widget.com/show_article.php?id=0

and

www.widget.com/another_filename_for_this_article_id0.html

After that check for print versions of your articles...

There's always some dupe content to be found ;-)

7:06 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 16, 2004
posts:375
votes: 4


spaceylacie - I hope you're right because they look quite good for my industry. overall, the results for my site aren't as good as they were before jagger but I will be happy enough with those results.
7:09 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:July 9, 2003
posts:735
votes: 0


I hope SpaceLacie is right too!
7:10 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 24, 2005
posts:6
votes: 0


spaceylacie,

what makes you so sure.

Looks like Jagger1 to me. Same position for our site, same 3 directory sites in the top ten.

?

This 1222 message thread spans 41 pages: 1222