Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 3.214.184.124

Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Supplemental club: Big Daddy coming - Part 1

W'sup with google?

     
6:43 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 24, 2002
posts:1094
votes: 0


Carrying on from here:

[webmasterworld.com...]

and here

[webmasterworld.com...]

A lot of members are seeing huge sites going supplemental. One of our main sites lots all rankings and 200,000 + pages disappeared and now we are left with 19k useless results. This could be a goof or it could be a new round of penalties. If you have had your site reduced to the 'sup index lets here about it and compare notes.

2:27 am on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 19, 2004
posts:1939
votes: 0


No effects for me on any datacenters. All of my sites (about 10) are between 100-1000 pages.

Some older than 5 years, some newer than one year.

All had 301 redirect applied in September 2005.

No new supplemental listings for any of them that I can see, and about 10-15% increase in google traffic over the last 7 days.

Just my observations to help us get to the bottom of this.

3:17 am on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Full Member

joined:Dec 1, 2003
posts:281
votes: 0


It is a shame 301's aren't effected more in this DC update. In my experience most 301's are carried out because the page in question has gained a result through black hat seo. As soon as they get the result they do a 301 to a "clean page".Its bull#*$!.
I think unless its a run of site 301 all 301's should be ignored.
3:48 am on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 16, 2004
posts:854
votes: 0


One of our sites which is effected has around 1500 pages of handmade custom content online for about 5 years with a pr7 and stable traffic for years, nothing fancy seo wise and basically the entire site is supp besides the homepage so no this isnt only effecting 100k plus page sites.
4:00 am on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 8, 2004
posts:142
votes: 0


I am trying to find a link between the sites which have been placed in supplemental listings. If your page is supplemental, please email me the URL as well as the age of the site.

Thanks you. Once the list is compiled I will email you back the entire list of sites that have this problem and any common occurances I found.

email to edbri871 (at) gmail.com

4:06 am on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 8, 2001
posts:2882
votes: 0


Wow, Scarecrow is around too. It's like old times. :)

I'm not eager to get flamed for the zillionth time on the 4-byte ID problem, but if GoogleGuy wants to deny it once again, for the record, that would be fine with me.

I'm fine to deny this, because docids and their size has nothing at all to do with what people have been describing on this thread. I've been reading through the feedback, and it backs up the theory that I had before I asked for feedback.

Based on the specifics everyone has sent (thank you, by the way), I'm pretty sure what the issue is. I'll check with the crawl/indexing team to be sure though. Folks don't need to send any more emails unless they really want to. It may take a week or so to sort this out and be sure, but I do expect these pages to come back to the main index.

4:12 am on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 9, 2005
posts:51
votes: 0


One of my sites was smacked into the supplementals as well, but we do NOT have thousands of pages. We have only about 150 pages.

We do have a few 301s, primarily the non-www to the www version of the homepage.

So glad that GG showed up, and it made me regret not jumping on that SES gmail address earlier. So be it. I love hearing that the "panic" switch has been flipped back to "chill" for many of us already. Definitely encouraging news...

However, I wonder how the distribution panned out, and what this magical theory works that relegated some of us to the supplementals while others (all except one it seems) are making out atop the rankings. What a pain.

Let's hope it doesnt' take that long--I'm tired of optimizing for Yahoo in the same way I'm tired of completing the elementary Sudoku puzzles... ;)

4:13 am on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Full Member

joined:Dec 1, 2003
posts:281
votes: 0


OK google is basically good. I Just wish it was better than good.

What you guys are seeing is what google has cached in its memory of your site. Stuff you did now with stuff you did way back when that conflicts with the present. How does it conflict - well in google's opinion some past pages it is showing as supplemental are conflicting with newer content. Now you need to make a decision which page is more relevent to your current content and 404 the one that aint.

4:20 am on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 5, 2006
posts:2
votes: 0


Just relax, sit back and think before you 404 anything
4:25 am on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Full Member

joined:Dec 1, 2003
posts:281
votes: 0


I stand by what I have said.
4:34 am on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Full Member

joined:Dec 1, 2003
posts:281
votes: 0


No infact I won't just stand by what I said. There are people that will hijack your orphaned pages that you have long forgotten about to sell porn and drugs and loads of other stuff so manage your content people.
This 233 message thread spans 24 pages: 233
 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members