Update Saga. Part 5

[Brett_Tabke]

What say you?

Over and done with?

All done all through?

[tigger]

GB = guest books

[McMohan]

zeus

because you already have existing links to your site, which will then look unnatural for google

I doubt if that will be the case. Google will see the age of links on linking sites, not when it has attributed those links to Dayo's site. So, hopefully Dayo's site will not go to the sandbox.

[HenryUK]

I know this is a long old thread but I have something possibly instructive to add about 64.233.179.99.

I lost a lot of good positions at the beginning of October and in an attempt to remedy an (imagined?) dupe content penalty I reduced the amount of standard text that appeared on my individual data/item pages, in the process introducing a phrase that was not previously used.

Running a site: search on that phrase on the main Google site shows around 500 results, which disappointed me because I have nearer 40k such pages (all unique user-generated content), all of which have been subject to intense spider activity over the past few weeks.

64.233.179.99 is showing all those pages on a site: search - in other words, it's very definitely including new, recently spidered data which has not been showing up on the old site.

Anyone who was hoping that this was an old dataset refiltered, or something like that, needs to adjust their hypothesis accordingly.

It looks to me, from my limited POV on this that this contains something very similar to an old-fashioned update, bringing in content spidered in the preceding month as new.

Hope this helps. All just MHO of course.

[lee_sufc]

henryuk - i noticed this too - that DC has also removed a lot of old sites which still show up today!

[textex]

Yes, that DC seems to be more consistent of a good' ol update.

Seems like a lot of data being faciliated there.

[Mountdoom]

<<< G seems to be paying a lot of attention to the title tags for me. >>>

Very interesting observation MIOP... Does G penalize sites where there is a lot of dupe in the title? We have several pages with keyword + keyword + strap line. I wonder if the strap line is upsetting G. Most of our pages have sunk without trace, it so happens that the one page that has maintained its position doesn't have the strap... Hmmm, time to make a few investigative changes...

[Miop]

Well we have a heavily templated site which leads to 90% identical content according to page comparison checkers - *perhaps* when faced with such a site, G attaches more weight to the Title tag than it otherwise would, i.e. look at page content - identical? - look at page title.

[kevinpate]

> 64.233.179.99
If you missed or simply ignored messages 290 and 298:
GG tells ya straight out it's an experimental db.
GG tells ya it's off in its own corner.
GG tells ya if (if, not when) anything comes of it,
the time frame would be months (with an s, as in plural) not days or weeks.

love it or hate it, it appears to be very much a non-issue to those fretting over holiday serps, including quite possibly, and perhaps probably, even Valentines or St. Paddy's time frame.

[Mountdoom]

Miop - I would have thought your dupe content would be more of an issue in that case? Then again if changing the title has improved the ranking of pages with dupe content then maybe you're onto something. Most of our pages have unique content, but the same format again and again and like I say very similar titles. Perhaps G are scoring more negatively for dupe titles...

[textex]

Wouldn't that make sense.....

Jagger shows SERPS with all of the knobs turned up, thus effecting many people's positions, including many white hats. Lots of junk in SERPS. Lots of poor results.

64.233.179.99 seems like a clean index with the junk removed, the canonicals fixed and the supplementals gone (for me atleast). Overall, better results.

GG says 64.233.179.99 is not going to be seen for a few months.

Haven't we seen the pattern of the big shaekup right before the height of Q4, with things settling back to more normalcy after Q4 before?