Part 3 Update Jagger

[soapystar]

Continued from
[webmasterworld.com...]

---

if it rains they will need a replay!

[taps]

followgreg:

I have several pages. One of them had been hit by dupe content penalty.

The dupe page does not show the homepage first when doing the site-command.

Yet all the other pages do. (on jagger3-DCs only)

[followgreg]

Check your page for unintentional black hat techniques too: hidden text, keyword stuffing, cloaking and so on.

unintentional --->>> really gives me the most enjoying day start :) (just teasing)

[Interent Yogi]

>>>>>>...there will be some blending of these two data centers. If you think of 66.102.9.104 as the first order effect and 66.102.7.104 as the second order effect, that won't be far off.

Hmm one search I am looking at there a 5 differences in the top 10 results. Some that are top 10 on 66.102.7.104 are not even top 50 on 66.102.9.104

GG, It is like that fable where there are riddles to solve. Give us another Clue this one has me stumped.

[followgreg]

Man your are right, the site command returns the homepage first, funny because I always though it would not matter on google ...not that I am not aware of the dupe problem but...anyways :)

[taps]

I can see more pages coming up on those jagger-DCs. Still far from recovering.

When will jagger 3 spread?

follow: Just wanted to be polite ;-)

[WebPixie]

"Hmm one search I am looking at there a 5 differences in the top 10 results. Some that are top 10 on 66.102.7.104 are not even top 50 on 66.102.9.104"

If you are typing in the right words, one of them sites is mine. :)

Strong on 66.102.7.104, out of the top 50 on 66.102.9.104

If it gives you a clue, I have unnatural link growth. Site is less than a year old with many backlinks gotten in bunches including some site wide linking. I'm pretty sure I know why my site is getting hit. Just not sure how to fix it now other than aging. I'd be very interested to hear what anyone else has done to recover from getting too aggressive early on with a site.

[followgreg]

I still feel that 66.102.7.104 is the most up to date result :)

Taps >> Nice to be polite, I had a great laught, need of good humour on this forum sometimes, thx ;)

[g1smd]

>> 72.14.203.104

This data includes the very ancient supplemental junk that re-appeared in Google several months ago.

[icarus]

Somewhere in the Jagger 2 thread, g1smd mentioned this .htaccess hack for rewriting all http:// urls to [www...] - thanks g1smd!

Options +FollowSymLinks
RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^domain.com [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ [domain.com...] [L,R=301]

I just wanted to make mention to any FrontPage users that after implementing this, I was unable to publish via FP and FP forms stopped working - 403 errors.

Here's the fix for Apache Rewrite Engine and FrontPage [frontpagetalk.com] issues (post date 10/22/2005). Hope it helps someone out!

[edited by: icarus at 9:23 am (utc) on Nov. 6, 2005]

[edited by: vitaplease at 7:26 pm (utc) on Nov. 6, 2005]

[g1smd]

>> The biggest change I notice is better canonicalization under the site: search. Parent domains listed first, followed by www urls, then any non-www urls, then url-only. Anyone else see this? <<

If both www and non-www are listed then the canonicalisation is NOT fixed. QED.

They only shuffled the order, not fixed the actual problem.

Those non-www entries have a nearly two year old cache and rank for content that was on the site at the beginning of 2004 - content that no longer exists on the site.

[allcam]

Anybody knows if google.co.uk is showing the J3 results? I can check the datacenters mentioned, but they are not region specific. My sites ranks for many key pharses dropped around 10 positions, but the results on google.co.uk are still acceptable, so I am eager to know if google.co.uk is showing J3? thanks

[gosman]

Allcam try this

[66.102.7.104...]

[lee_sufc]

gosman - looking at those shows that Google.co.uk isn't using J3 results...i wish they were though, as, although they aren't brilliant for me, the results are better than what current .co.uk show!

[allcam]

>gosman - looking at those shows that Google.co.uk isn't using J3 results...i wish they were though, as, although they aren't brilliant for me, the results are better than what current .co.uk show! >

Yes the same for my site. My site's ranking for most of the key pharses that I am targeting are at top 5 (via Gosman's link)

[lee_sufc]

i hope google.co.uk changes soon then as with the results as they've been the past few days, I have seen an 80% descrease in visitors!

[donelson]

If yes, check next for
site:yoursitename.ext -www
Do you see results?

I see 6-7 items listed when I do this for one of our sites. However, none of the links resolve.

What does that mean?

[allcam]

>>>i hope google.co.uk changes soon then as with the results as they've been the past few days, I have seen an 80% descrease in visitors! >>>
My site lost around 50% traffic in the 2nd half of October, but November traffic seems to recover again, it now has 80% of the previous level. In sept. Google has 82% of the search traffic, then it reduces to 75% in Oct, now only 62% in November. So it looks like the recovery of overal traffic is not related to the Google SERPs.

[edited by: allcam at 11:16 am (utc) on Nov. 6, 2005]

[JudgeJeffries]

I've also done the test site:mysite.ext -www.site:mysite.ext and I've found lots of non www pages.
My question is where did they come from?
When I put up the relevant page they were always in the format of www.mysite.ext.

[taps]

donelson: I don't know if seven or so non www-results can cause a dupe content penalty. However make sure that yoursite.ext is always redirected to www.yoursite.ext.

The point is: every page on your server should be reached under one URL only.

[taps]

Judge:

Maybe someone outside linked to a non-www URL on your site. In case you use relative links (pagexy.html) instead of absolute links (www.yoursite.xy/pagexy.html) a crawler might follow this relative link and start crawling your page without www. This could cause a lot of trouble.

[donelson]

donelson: I don't know if seven or so non www-results can cause a dupe content penalty. However make sure that yoursite.ext is always redirected to www.yoursite.ext.
The point is: every page on your server should be reached under one URL only.

I've never posted non-www pages...

They are probably old links, and will disappear (?) when a new crawl is done. My host in the UK removed the "A-records" (whatever that means) from the host a couple of weeks back, so that the non-www does not resolve anymore.

Do you think that'll fix the problem?

[taps]

Are the non www links labelled (sp?) as "supplemental"?

[anttiv]

Google has indexed 29,000 pages of mydomain.com (without www) and listed them all as supplemental. The correct domain www.mydomain.com has 17,000 pages indexed. Talk about a canonical url problem. And to make thing even worse, Google has also indexed some pages from the server ip address.

Dagger 1 dropped it nowhere. Htaccess fixes were done but apparently too late. Some searches show a supplemental page from the non-www domain on page #1 and the correct url is on page 8 of 9.

It's back on 66.102.7.104 but not on 66.102.9.104.

Google has not responded to any feedback I've sent. All I can hope is that Dagger 3 will fix the problem and show me that WH is worth it.

[RichTC]

This is how i currently see it:-

66.102.7.104 provides the most relevent results to the search term by far. Its gives weight to authority sites on the subject matter and has nice clean results overall imo. It has a mix of older sites with some new fresh sites mixed in. Better for the end user imo. Authority over age.

66.102.9.104 provides reasonable results but gives extra weight to site age over authority. So a poor site thats pre 2000 can outrank say a 2001 site thats rich in current quality content. Top 10 for terms i watch are all old sites and a lot more directory sites to for some reason on this data centre. Age over authority.

So of the two camps here members with sites pre 2000 are going to prefer 9 over 7. Where as webmasters here with sites after 2000 that have built up quality content rich authority sites will prefer 7 over 9.

Thats how i see it. If Google maintains the results of 9 the end user will have almost the same results as pre the update hence it will all have been a waste of time imo.

If Google wants to have the most relevent results it needs to give users 7.

Rich
P.S the 7 camp doesnt need to give prizes - it knows the 66.102.7.104 results are the best

[RichTC]

P.P.S Google UK results as at now are currently dire - no idea what set of results they are using!

[Newman]

I need an expert opinion for those results:

site:domain.com -www

I see just 1 result - just domain.com link without title and without www

site:www.domain.com

I see 141 results - just regular pages with www

site:domain.com

I see 168 results, including several pages without www. There is also domain.com without www and with title, but not as supplemental result.

Sign of a problem?

[petehall]

Have Google indicated how long we can expect the fun to continue?

Quite keen to see these live now!

[tigger]

I'm sure I saw a posting from GG saying a few days and it should be settled down - other than of course the usual flux

[helenp]

Newman:

I just saw the same on my site,
my hompage indexed as site:exampel.com
as well as with the www
Luckily I am doing well still,
donīt seem to do me any harm.
Just in case I put this code in my .htaccess file to make google drop the non www site.
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^site\.com
RewriteRule (.*) [site.com...] [R=301,L]

I think it is the correct way of doing it.
Any comments?

Doing site:mysite.com there is a lot of pages with www and a lot without, the ones without www are suplementals

[McMohan]

tigger, how does your site look now on 66.102.7. and 66.102.9.?