Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
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]
My pages reappeared of their own free will after making the changes I spoke of before, they are all two clicks from home page plus I use google sitemaps. Most of the pages that went missing have IBLs to.
So a reinclusion request isnt always necessary.
"Based on Matt Cutts post..
We have a site that is half affiliate and half our own roducts with our own shopping cart...
Are we being penalized for having affiliate links?
If that's the case what should we do get rid of half of our income due to Google?"
I guess Matt talks mostly about an affiliate site should have "Value added" content. And not duplicating the content of affiliate program vendors, or just having collection of affiliate links. I.e he is still talking about "Thin Affiliates" .
Are we being penalized for having affiliate links?
Don't overreact. The affiliate links Matt used as examples were in the footer and looked like run of site links. He made a point of using terms like "not related." I would think that if your affiliate links are well incorporated and not just scattershot or run of site you *should* be okay.
Look at some of the other points Matt made about the new crawl and indexing routines and treatment of supplementals (both in his main post and in his comments). Much of what he describes fits many of the symptoms folks have been experiencing. He has an interesting blurb on being on the "fringe of the crawl" where some pages might pop back and forth between the main and supplemental indexes. That explains a lot right there.
There might not be many quick fixes, though better incoming links is one sure thing. Just be sure to think things through before pulling the trigger on any changes.
We have lots of unique contents on our affiliate products and we don't throw in the links just like that unless it relates to that page..
Still can't figure our why our site is not being fully indexed..
Is inbound quality links something that would give our site such a major boost?
can you please let us know what you cleaned up? Was it spam, as in repeated keywords, links in, out, or ...? Also, what was the penalty in terms of rank?
I thought that only banned sites could do a re-inclusion request, not penalized ones.
[edited by: walkman at 11:54 pm (utc) on May 16, 2006]
< continued here: [webmasterworld.com...] >
[edited by: tedster at 8:21 pm (utc) on May 17, 2006]