Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.159.19.75

Message Too Old, No Replies

Big Daddy Part 5

     
5:43 pm on Mar 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member googleguy is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

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


continued from:
[webmasterworld.com...]


Okay, quite a few people should see their pages coming
back. If you haven't seen any change (that is, if your pages are still supplemental), I'd like to look into that too so that I can see if there's any common factor remaining.

So: if your pages are still supplemental, feel free to write to sesnyc06 [at] gmail.com with the subject line of "stillsupplemental" (all one word), and I'll ask someone to check the emails out.

Hope that helps, and I'm glad that lots of people are seeing a full recovery,
GoogleGuy

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 5:20 pm (utc) on Mar. 22, 2006]

11:35 pm on Mar 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

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

joined:Jan 28, 2005
posts:3053
votes: 16


So I remain quietly confident.

Yeah .... part of me does to, but silence is part of not knowing .... and that's got a lot of us jumping up and down.

More communication from Matt's team would help the webmasters ....but i guess what else can they say!

12:38 am on Mar 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Dec 29, 2003
posts:5428
votes: 0


just checked a few sites that have very little info on their pages, and could trip a 'too similar filter' but they are doing fine. I think the domain is penalized first by the algo, and as a result the pages are sent into supps.
9:09 am on Mar 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 2, 2005
posts:140
votes: 0


If this was some kind of punishment the homepage would surely be effected too.

I stick n the fact its an error, pure and simple. An error that need fixing - FAST!

9:39 am on Mar 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

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


Observations:

1] Doing a site: search on BD shows all but the first 15 or so as supplemental on BD

2] Doing individual keyword searches shows most up as non-supplemental, for results for the same site.

3] Doing a search for site-name only without www and .com shows no supplementals, and 1000's of results.

From this, it appears that the site: search has a glitch which shows up many more supplementals than there are in reality.

Bear in mind, these are observations on one site only, so it would be interesting to see if others notice the same.

3:47 pm on Mar 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

New User

5+ Year Member

joined:Mar 3, 2006
posts:6
votes: 0


Several articles just published in media regarding a lawsuit filed by a company because of its claim that Google's search engine flaws cost it revenue. To locate it, Google the search term "Kinderstart google" under News. San Jose Mercury News posted most of the info.

I only bring this up because this site appears to be suffering from the same problems that most of the posters here have experienced.

My first take on this website is that it has a serious canonical issues (www and non.www pages are duplicated throughout the site).

3:52 pm on Mar 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 31, 2004
posts:786
votes: 0


Well its been over a week now, no change since the black wednesday of March 8th so can only assume this is BD finished and rolled out bar a little bit of tweaking that wont make any differance!

Any thoughts guys on this post as i wish to establish what to do next to assist sites that have been stuffed by this algo change (albiet being possibly not finished or f@cked up or whatever by google) but with a severe traffic fall off on a number of authority sites its either try and fix the sites to fit what google wants PDQ or sack staff :-

Have fellow webmasters noticed a drop in rank for pages with the following:-

1. Dynamic pages ( a preferance for google to list a static thats not so relevent rather than a dynamic page that is highly relevent, regardless of backlinks)

2. Drop pages that have java script that may contain windows with advertisng links?

3. Drop pages that may just have a high number of internal links on them (following perhaps a turn of the link dial to accept only pages with lower number of outbounds than previously acceptable.

4. That in general PR is worth next to nothing now as a PR0 can outrank a PR5 and a PR6 dont count for much now either?

Im trying to get my head round this update. One of our sites and a few of a number of other ones we work on were clearly stuffed by google and i cant understand it.

one example:- A dynamic page rich in content that was relevent to a key word string that was previously ranking ok position 8 in the serps was dropped. The page is a PR5 has backlinks to it from two PR7 authority sites (not paid for, genuine) on topic, amoungst many others back links meanwhile, a static page that has possibly few backlinks to it other than internal ones and no where near the content ranks position 18 from the site instead.

In other situations various dynamic pages that were like say "blue widgets in widgetville" that ranked top 5 for that term now have vanished and instead we see maybe in position 33 "pink widgets in widgetville" - its like google prefers to list pages not so relevent.

Its like google has decided that if you have more than one page that contains the keyword string it will go for the weakest one and drop the prime ones into the supplemental bin.

One final thing - a page about something real specific on a site which is one of about 7 pages on the net full stop - ranks 1 out of the 7 as a supplemental result - whats that about?

Any thoughts fellow webmasters can give me would be appreciated because doing nothing is not an option now

Dayo_UK

6:24 pm on Mar 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Inactive Member
Account Expired

 
 


pgillman

Yep - no doubt in a million years that the site in question has a canonical url problem.

If you look at <rk> values for that site then they are returning again - although they are still split from non-www to www - which is a bit worrying for the fix that is supposed to be forthcoming. But if Google can at least rank/crawl pages even if there is a non-www/www version it would be a start.

I have not seen a site go supplemental yet that is not a canonical url related problem, although others are saying that they are sure they have not got a canonical problem.

Would love a sticky if anyone thinks there site has been hit but is not due to this issue.

9:06 pm on Mar 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

New User

5+ Year Member

joined:Mar 9, 2006
posts:12
votes: 0


Yep RichTC. No hope left now.

Let Google rank expired domains / 404's / copied sites / not at all related sites on top. Kick honest sites to supplemental club.

Google will go the Internet Explorer way.

Cya all. I'll continue what I have been doing. I don't need to SEO my site to help search engine list it.

10:35 pm on Mar 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 10, 2006
posts:68
votes: 0


The majority of the sites that I have been watching are no longer supplemental. But one site that is over 5 years old, thousands of incoming links and 301 in place for a few months now (non-www to www) still is in supplemental hell (with the exception of index).

And what is odd, is that all the "old" pages are listed as supplemental, but many of the new pages are not even listed in the G index.

Are there others in this situation? Any thoughts on this situation?

11:46 pm on Mar 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 9, 2005
posts:80
votes: 0


And what is odd, is that all the "old" pages are listed as supplemental, but many of the new pages are not even listed in the G index.
Are there others in this situation? Any thoughts on this situation?

Yes this describes my situation exactly.

12:25 am on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

5+ Year Member

joined:Mar 10, 2006
posts:42
votes: 0


And what is odd, is that all the "old" pages are listed as supplemental, but many of the new pages are not even listed in the G index.
Are there others in this situation? Any thoughts on this situation?

Yes this describes my situation exactly, also.

2:33 am on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 20, 2004
posts:68
votes: 0


I have a 18 year old site (yes, domain that has been on-line almost 18 years) that was ranked #1 for the last 10 years is all supplemental except Home page and lost all of its ranking...
4:28 am on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 18, 2003
posts:48
votes: 0


>>And what is odd, is that all the "old" pages are listed as supplemental, but many of the new pages are not even listed in the G index.
>>Are there others in this situation? Any thoughts on this situation?

That's my site but no thoughts why.

11:20 am on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

New User

5+ Year Member

joined:Mar 12, 2006
posts:7
votes: 0


@Steph_R:

That describes my situation:
My old site (online since 2000) have 900k sites in non BD, 4.000k sites in BD listed and is in suppl. hell since early March 2006.

My new site, online since Jan 2006, (1.900k sites in BD) dropped overnight in traffic -90%. No suppl. hell but big changes on BD DCs (~600k sites ... 9.000k (!) on the original BDDC (64.233.179.104)).

HTH, Greetings from Germany

[edited by: tedster at 7:13 pm (utc) on Mar. 19, 2006]
[edit reason] charter [webmasterworld.com] [/edit]

11:43 am on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

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


"No hope left now."

There's nothing I like better than waking up early and reading the words of decimated webmasters :)

11:56 am on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member from GB 

10+ Year Member

joined:July 14, 2002
posts:115
votes: 0


Yep, my site has fallen into the supp club, 3 yr old movie site with 30k pages in google upto March 06, now down to 426 pages all which are supps. Plus the index page has dropped completely for about 5 weeks now.

I stuck to my guns with Google and got past their usual canned response rubbish to find out the site is not penalised in anyway. Apparently I should just sit tight and all will be ok.

Traffic is not too adversely affected yet as it looks like the dcs rotate and lots of times the old (good results) get shown. I just hope the the new (screwed up) results are not the ones that stick when this all concludes.

3:19 pm on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:May 28, 2004
posts:89
votes: 0


"Yep, my site has fallen into the supp club"

When? In the last days?

2:44 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 1, 2004
posts:1258
votes: 0


I'm not jumping for joy yet, but it looks like I've had 10 pages return from SH. Only about 830 pages to go. Looks like a long time before things are right again if only 10 return each day.
3:13 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 4, 2002
posts:1785
votes: 2


I'm not so sure I believ that supplementals don't hurt a site.

I set up a shopping cart on a site that had been doing pretty good for a few years (all products were listed on static pages) and soon as the shopping cart went up all the shopping cart pages turned supplemental and all major keywords tanked, even though I had set up robots.txt for Google to stay out of that directory. I have since put rel=nofollow on every link to the shopping cart, so we'll see if that helps. The pages all validate and there are no other problems with the site, not even hijackers. The only culprit I see is supplementals.

5:13 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Dec 29, 2003
posts:5428
votes: 0


google is getting hundreds of files daily from my supplementals site. I wonder why...been doing this for 2+ weeks
7:59 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 2, 2005
posts:140
votes: 0


Matt Cutts latest update on my request for a fix for the homepage only problem:

Matt Cutts Said,
March 19, 2006 @ 9:10 pm

Gary, Iím still talking about this issue with the crawl/indexing folks. Iím still working on it.

This open line of communication has to be good news. Matt is responding quickly to my requests for updates every few days. I have asked for a further update as soon as he believes they have a fix.

I see this as positive for the time being at least.

9:07 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

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

joined:Jan 28, 2005
posts:3053
votes: 16


That's great that Matt's replied to you. Thanks for sharing it.

It shows the team has a continuing concern and wants a fix, but presumably they're finding it a challenge.

9:18 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

5+ Year Member

joined:Mar 18, 2006
posts:48
votes: 0


My site is also being reduced to the homepage only. The mozilla gbot is still vigorously crawling my site every minute and everyday but the pages are not in the serps.... really depressed and has fallen ill these days...
8:14 pm on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

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


Thanks Gary/Ellio for getting through to Matt!

I just hope he does something about it...seems like every time I've gotten through to him it's ended up backfiring :(

8:44 pm on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 6, 2004
posts:84
votes: 0


One of my sites is back from supp hell..has been back for a week or so. My other site is not back. My other site is broken up into a few subdomains and they are all in supp hell.

Ie:
www.domain.com
1.domain.com
2.domain.com
3.domain.com

All supped. I dont plan on doing it as I would rather wait this out, but what would happen if you wanted to start over with a new domain name...could your pages then get reindexed into the normal index over time using the new domain?

7:17 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 18, 2004
posts:38
votes: 0


Hi,

i also consider to move the content to a new domain and 301 the old one. Then change the links if possible to the new domain. Has anyone tried this? My domain is not supplemental, but all subpages are lost in the serps.

Dayo_UK

8:54 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Inactive Member
Account Expired

 
 


Hi,

Thanks for the load of stickies I have had.

Everyone so far I have seen has split PR between the non-www and the www (eg Canonical problems).

Looks like a different stage of the same problems that have blighted Google for so long.

10:17 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

New User

5+ Year Member

joined:Mar 12, 2006
posts:7
votes: 0


Hey supplemental club!?

Where are you folks? News in matts blog, only 9 Hours old:
"Abhilash, I checked on one site that was in the supplemental situation and it had gotten ~240 regular pages back. It may take some of the sites a little while to be crawled again, but Iím trying to keep it foremost in the minds of the crawl folks."

Now i generate new hope, that this glitch will be fixed.

Greetings from Germany,

10:31 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 10, 2005
posts:3
votes: 0


My pages get crawled but it seems that the information is not passed trough.

Google sitemaps showed yesterday that it didn't visit my sitemap for a week. But it did visit it. I resended the sitemap and now it is working correctly again.
There's something wrong at the moment the data gets passed trough i think.

10:45 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:May 28, 2004
posts:89
votes: 0


"Matt Cutts Said,

March 21, 2006 @ 12:00 am
Abhilash, I checked on one site that was in the supplemental situation and it had gotten ~240 regular pages back. It may take some of the sites a little while to be crawled again, but Iím trying to keep it foremost in the minds of the crawl folks."

This 265 message thread spans 9 pages: 265