Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Pages Dropping Out of Big Daddy Index

Part 2

         

GoogleGuy

7:59 pm on May 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Continued from: [webmasterworld.com...]


internetheaven, you said:

I had 20,300 pages showing for a site:www.example.com search yesterday and for the past month. Today it dropped to 509 but my traffic is still pretty constant. I normally get around 4,500 - 5,000 to that site per day and today I've already got 4,000.

So, either Google doesn't account for even a small percentage of my traffic (which I doubt) or the way Google stores information about my site has changed. i.e. the 20,300 pages are still there, Google will only tell me about 509 of them. As far as I can tell, I think the other pages have been supplemented.

That resonated with something that I was talking about with the crawl/index team. internetheaven, was that post about the site in your profile, or a different site? Your post aligns exactly with one thing I've seen in a couple ways. It would align even more if you were talking about a different site than the one in your profile. :) If you were talking about a different site, would mind sending the site name to bostonpubcon2006 [at] gmail.com with the subject line of "crawlpages" and the name of your site, plus the handle "internetheaven"? I'd like to check the theory.

Just to give folks an update, we've been going through the feedback and noticed one thing. We've been refreshing some (but not all) of the supplemental results. One part of the supplemental indexing system didn't return any results for [site:domain.com] (that is, a site: search with no additional terms). So that would match with fewer results being reported for site: queries but traffic not changing much. The pages are available for queries matching the supplemental results, but just adding a term or stopword to site: wouldn't automatically access those supplemental results.

I'm checking with the crawl/index folks if this might factor into what people are seeing, and I should hear back later today or tomorrow. In the mean time, interested folks might want to check if their search traffic has gone up/down by a major amount, and see if there are fewer/more supplemental results for a site: search for their domain. Since folks outside Google couldn't force the supplemental results to return site: results, it needed a crawl/index person to notice that fact based on the feedback that we've gotten.

Anyone that wants to send more info along those lines to bostonpubcon2006 [at] gmail.com with the subject line "crawlpages" is welcome to. So you might send something like "I originally wrote about domain.com. I looked at my logs and haven't seen a major decrease in traffic; my traffic is about the same. I used to have about X% supplemental results, and now I hardly see any supplemental results with a site:domain.com query."

I've still got someone reading the bostonpubcon email alias, and I've worked with the Sitemaps team to exclude that as a factor. The crawl/index folks are reading portions of the feedback too; if there's more that I notice, I'll stop by to let you know.

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 8:07 pm (utc) on May 8, 2006]

Steph_R

12:43 pm on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I see the same thing. Googlebot is spidering like crazy today.

trinorthlighting

12:45 pm on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



I have dynamic sites, google dropped some pages, but then they came back. As far as session id's go, I have a switch whick does not allow spiders to start sessions and it seems to work fine. Just make sure there are no session id's in your site map.

trinorthlighting

12:48 pm on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



I am also seeing alot of spidering this week.

From googlebot 2.1 and mozzila bot

dramstore

12:50 pm on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Same here 10K so far

jrs_66

1:11 pm on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Last night, half of my indexed pages dissapeared. The kicker is that for the first time, many of my pages have gone supplemental. I can't explain this... I've worked a purely white hat strategy in a black hat topic and got burned...

Anyone know the Cutts email for reporting supplemental pages?

sodascouts

3:32 pm on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I've been following this topic with interest. I see people have been looking for trends. I have two fansites, one of which is affected, one of which is not. They make good contrasting examples, so I thought I would offer them.

The website that is unaffected has thousands of pages and went online in 2001. However, I have not updated it on a regular basis for several months. Its format is very basic. It is still #1 for our keyword and when I do the Site: search all 10 pages of results are non-supplemental. This has been the case for many months; there was no improvement or change at all regarding its positioning or indexing.

My other website has been drastically affected. It went online in November of 2005. I update it several times a week. I have been experimenting with .css and am not yet good at it; therefore its coding is not as clean. Pre-Big Daddy, its position for our keyword had reached #12. Now, it radically changes daily, up and down, and completely unpredictably - it doesn't rise every day or fall every day. One day it is #33, one day it is #72, the next day it is #55 - you get the idea. Initially after Big Daddy, 4 pages were non-supplemental out of over 600 total. After a couple weeks, that had gone up to 12 - all of which were older versions (one of which had actually been deleted). A site: check today reveals that the site now has only 7 pages that are non-supplemental. Again, this is completely unpredictable, and I have done nothing differently on the pages that are indexed than I have on the pages that are supplemental.

I'm afraid I have no answers, just these strikingly different examples to contribute to the pot.

[edited by: jatar_k at 3:40 pm (utc) on May 16, 2006]

F_Rose

4:38 pm on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Does this come to show, that newer sites are affected due to Big Daddy and older untouched sites is being untouched with the Bid Daddy Infrastructure?

tigger

4:40 pm on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



its hitting both, my friends site is 2 years older than mine and he got hit as well

F_Rose

4:43 pm on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Our domain name is 6 years old, however we did a redesign that launched in Jan. '06. I have a feeling that redesigned sites and new site are especially hit hard with Big Daddy.

Correct me if I am wrong..

colin_h

4:44 pm on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)



I've got client sites from many years ago that I still monitor. They haven't been hit. My theory is that if you made major changes to your site due to last years Google update madness, then you're likely to get hit with supplimentals etc. If your site has remained unchanged for many years, no matter how much spam is in it, it will probably stay where it was.

p.s. The older sites that I monitor still are crammed with pointless, repeating keywords ... and they are still getting number 1 listings for massive keywords (250 million +).

Oh well, wadyagonndo?

Col :-)

glenng

4:48 pm on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I am beginning to think that what Google is doing is intentional. Some recent things done - PR in the toolbar may not be accurate, backlinks only a sampling. Could they be changing the site: command, so that only a sampling of the pages indexed are shown? Obviously, this would throw off many web site owners attempting to optimise their sites. After all the less to analyze out of the Googleplex the harder to gain a higher ranking in the SERP's.

Another thought is that if Google is having problems with indexing pages of a site - wouldn't it affect the SERP's - number of pages of a site and lost backlinks thereby causing a SERP's change?

fred9989

4:50 pm on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Funnily enough the same thought hit me this afternoon - that this is the shape of the new Google. Fluctuating results, no-analyzable algorithm - the only question is "Would the searchers notice?" No - why should they?
Rod

Atomic

4:58 pm on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



My older sites are holding up well but newer sites are not. Newer for me means anything less than 4 years old. My sites older than 5 years are well indexed (without Google sitmaps thank you). I do find it odd that a site 3-1/2 years old is down to 20 pages.

F_Rose

5:05 pm on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



So my theory is correct. Google is mostly giving problems for new and major redesigned site..

cbartow

5:14 pm on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



My theory is that if you made major changes to your site due to last years Google update madness, then you're likely to get hit with supplimentals etc. If your site has remained unchanged for many years, no matter how much spam is in it, it will probably stay where it was.

I disagree with this, and have proof. I completely redid the URL's on two sites in the beginning of March using the same format. One of the sites has been re-indexed correctly and is getting more traffic. The second has dropped off, is mostly supplemental, and gets about 20% of the traffic it use to.

This 249 message thread spans 17 pages: 249