Somethings Up Right Now! -- 30 domains just went "home page only"

[tiori]

All of my websites (30 of them) now show only the homepage when doing a site:www.domain.com .....

This just happenned within the last hour. Previously had thousands of sup's and regular pages.

[ramachandra]

[72.14.207.99...] having only 3 pages in Index and out of 3 pages 2 pages are home page, one with root as www.mydomain.com and another is www.mydomain.com/index.asp I think Google is still hanging with canonical problem with the sites.

Anyone noticing the canonical issues on this DC?

[MLHmptn]

And yet again, 72.14.203's are no longer showing the 2nd set of SERP's. Can someone tell me what is going on? :>~ I just really want to know!

[coosblues]

My site almost doubled in the number of pages indexed on 72.14.203.99 which seems to be quite different than what most are seeing these days. I can only hope that sticks, but I know what is good for one can spell disaster for another - good luck.

[taps]

Ok, there is something going on. Had a huge dupe content problem in Feb 2005, solved in May 2005. Had many supplementals after that.

Now all data from the "wrong" URLs are deleted. For my non-www-URL I see three result sets.

For example:
64.233.161.107 - 365 results (bad)
64.233.171.99 - 1 result (better)
64.233.189.104- 0 results (great)

All supplementals seem to be gone. Don't know if that has an influence on my regular serps. But it is nice to see Google cleaning up their results.

[Dayo_UK]

Anyone else had their homepage dropped (or reverted to a very very old cache) depending on the DC - while internal pages remain indexed?

[tigger]

about the only thing thats not happened yet Dayo

[Steph_R]

"Anyone else had their homepage dropped (or reverted to a very very old cache) depending on the DC - while internal pages remain indexed?"

Yes. Just happened last night.

[djmick200]

72.14.203.99 is returning a better number of pages indexed for my "pages missing" site.

site:www.mysite.tld - 507 pages
site:www.mysite.tld/ - 507 pages
site:mysite.tld - 507 pages
site:mysite.tld/ - 507 pages

ALL return the same amount of pages with NO supplementals.

My default at present is 66.249.93.104 and is showing

site:www.mysite.tld - 285 pages
site:www.mysite.tld/ - 275 pages
site:mysite.tld - 337 pages
site:mysite.tld/ - 272 pages

The 2 above without the trailing slash have supplemental pages.

On both DCs my ranking search terms havent changed. Not all the extra pages are ranking well plus I notice a lot of the results on both DC's are using on page text in the snippet and not the meta descrption - all those pages using the on page text have an April 29th cache date.

Changing times by the look of it.

[edited by: djmick200 at 2:49 pm (utc) on May 3, 2006]

[BillyS]

djmick200 - Glad to see someone else seeing the same thing I mentioned back in msg. #28.

[g1smd]

I assume that site:domain.com -inurl:www now returns zero results.

If it does, then your problems are fixed (in that DC at least).

[djmick200]

I assume that site:domain.com -inurl:www now returns zero results.
If it does, then your problems are fixed (in that DC at least).

Not sure what to try but i done both of these on 72.14.203.99 -

site:www.mysite.tld -inurl:mysite.tld returned no results
site:mysite.tld -inurl:www.mysite.tld returns 269 results, all supplemental.

g1smd can you tell me what that means? I haven't a clue.

[F_Rose]

I don't see any difference in supplemental results on DC 72.14.203.99 for our site.

One thing I have noticed is our rankings drop again on this DC...

[g1smd]

The "experimental" 72.14.207.99 results that had spread over to 72.14.203.99 yesterday are no longer there today. The latter DC has reverted back to "normal" BD results now.

[arnarn]

I think it would be worthwhile when reporting supplementals information if there could be some comment on "good" supplementals vs. "bad" supplementals, where "good" supplementals are those that would ideally be retained (i.e. unique and of value), vs "bad" supplementals which are old or actually missing or have been replaced with something else or a result of REALLY duplicate content.

Is there any consensus at this point whether G is getting rid of the old and removing the "supplemental" tag from the "good", or are they just removing supplementals, period..?

My hope is that G is trowing out the bad and keeping the good as non-supplemental? Actually, I my hope is that they just get rid of "supplemental" totally!

-

[edited by: arnarn at 3:36 pm (utc) on May 3, 2006]

[F_Rose]

64.233.167.99 is showing the cleanest results..

Is this spreading to any other DC's?

Is anyone seeing any supplemental results on this DC?

[Kangol]

F_Rose,
I also like 64.233.167.99. It seems that people here are more interested in 72.* DCs where my site ranks only for obscure terms.

[F_Rose]

Could anyone answer me why are you more interested in 72 DC's, what good are you seeing in these DC's except for a total mess..

[64.233.167.99...] is nothing but perfect..

Correct me if I am wrong...

[300m]

I was under the impression that 2 dc's were going to be popping in and out on the serps for the next couple of weeks running different data sets.

I would be more inclined to accept that from what I watch as serps are dancing daily for the past week at least.

[arnarn]

[64.233.167.99...] appears to us to have only a first level directory scan of the site, with everything else GONE.

So, maybe you're best off if you put all of your pages at the first level -- that way you'd get all of your pages indexed. I've seen some sites where that's exactly what they do and they rank VERY WELL!

-

[F_Rose]

"So, maybe you're best off if you put all of your pages at the first level -- that way you'd get all of your pages indexed."

Please explain in detail..

Thank you..

[phpdude]

[64.233.167.99...]

Might be perfect to you, but to me it stinks.

[Kangol]

That's not the point.
I do not see a difference in supplementals between 72.14.203.99 and 64.233.167.99/72.14.207.99. Why is 72.14.203.99 better?

[F_Rose]

"http://64.233.167.99
Might be perfect to you, but to me it stinks."

Please let me know what issues stink the most in this DC?

[wheelie34]

"http://64.233.167.99
Might be perfect to you, but to me it stinks."

Looks good to me ;0 main competition moves down, I move up, hopefully thats the future, results look good in my sector, travel & tourism

[phpdude]

For the area I watch, that DC has heavily rewarded sites that have purchased 1000's of site wide links from other sites.

In the other DC's, that effect is dampened.

At least for the area I'm interested in.

The saying "One mans gargage is another mans treasure" is very true when it comes to DC watching.

[F_Rose]

Does 64.233.167.99 look like the future? Is it spreading to any other DC's?

To me it looks as an experimental DC, or perhaps that DC G is keeping as a clean copy, sort of a backup of clean results..

Who knows?

[tigger]

the crazy thing is 64.233.167.99 is showing my site ranking 10th for a competitive term but showing less pages than .com where as the same term on .com is 19th

[g1smd]

The DC at 64.233.167.99 is now giving out the "experimental" results that have migrated to other datacentres from 72.14.207.99 in recent days.

[F_Rose]

"The DC at 64.233.167.99 is now giving out the "experimental" results that have migrated to other datacentres from 72.14.207.99 in recent days."

If that's the case, is it worth watching this DC? Will it migrate to more DC's eventually?

[tigger]

it maybe experimental but its still not pulling my dropped pages back