Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
I have been away for a week (just a quick look in, a couple of times during the week, even though I was supposed to be on "holiday") and while I was away Google got rid of the results that I previously referred to as BigDaddy A and B leaving only the experimental results, and the cleaned up version (with the oldest supplementals deleted) left behind, and the "cleaned up" version is the one that is on the vast majority of the datacentres now.
The "same snippet for every page" problem has also been fixed.
Sites that installed a 301 redirect before 2005 June no longer show the redirected URL in the SERPs.
Pages that went 404, and sites that went domain expired, before 2005 June no longer show up in the search results.
New Supplemental Results have appeared for any pages that have changed their status or their content at any time since 2005 June. For pages that are gone, the Supplemental Result has a cache of the final version that was online. For pages that have been updated, the Supplemental Result shows the previous content in the snippet, and the normal result shows current content in the snippet. In both cases the cache is usually only a few days or weeks old.
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 1:36 pm (utc) on May 19, 2006]
A new page linked only from that page now shows up in all datacentres, so the new content (the link) added on May 21st has been indexed and followed even if the cache copy hasn't been updated to show that newer version of the page.
When a default 'Under Construction' page can become the number one page for a search that includes 'Linux', then obviously any attempt at SEO is utterly useless.
I mean, how many pages on the net have the word Linux on them? More than a billion I would guess. And yet, out of all these pages, an 'Under Construction' page that does not have the word Linux anywhere is selected by the algo as the authoritive page.
Come on Matt or GoogleGuy, tell us again how we should design our sites for visitors if we want good search results. Spew forth some more rubbish about Relevance. How long are you two going to keep banging the Relevance drum anyway.
I mean what's the deal with the authority site overload on those DCs. It seems that whenever Google realises their normal results are beyond poor they can crank up the authority switch to sweep the dust under the carpet, so to speak.
Yes I have, that is my point.
There are so many examples of these now. They completely negate everything that is said about on page relevant quality information. At first they were a novilty, now the seem to be the <insert hat colour> SEO du'jour.
I do have a question though, can a googlebomb avoid the sandbox effect?
They also then made a bunch of new Supplemental Results for any page that had changed status since 2005 June.
For any page that has gone 404, or where the domain has expired, since 2005 June, the new Supplemental Result shows the very last version of the page that was online.
For any page edited since 2005 June, and that is still online, the new version of the page is shown as a normal result, and the previous version of the content shows as a Supplemental Result dated anywhere from 2005 June to 2006 March.
Google used to hold on to old data for up to 3 years. It seems now that they only keep it for 9 to 12 months. I see that as an improvement.
A site:domain.com search shows all pages as www and all as normal results. Same result for site:www.domain.com searches.
A site:domain.com -www search shows a mix of www and non-www pages, all 20 of which are tagged as Supplemental Results. Some of those Supplemental Results have dates as far back as 2005 October and some are as recent as one week ago. A site:domain.com -inurl:www search shows the same result. The inurl operator is surely broken here.
I don't know why any of these pages are tagged as Supplemental in this search, when they are normal results in a site: search. I don't know why some (just a few) pages also show as non-www (maybe the host took the 301 redirect down briefly, last October?).
I still haven't found any Supplemental Results older than 2005-06-20 but I will keep on looking.
OK I partly see what is going on. The 20 Supplemental Results are mostly for pages that no longer exist. Those are the ones with a cache date from 2005 October, and none of those appear when you do a simple site:domain.com search. Still no idea why a few show as non-www though.
However, there are several Supplemental entries mentioned (in the -www and -inurl:www searches) that are for pages that do still exist. Those have a cache date from only a week or so ago. Those are a total anomaly.
"Refreshing" these rotting corpses just makes me tingly all over...
Search results on some datacentres (and this number is declining all the time) still find the page for the old content that was removed from the page about 2 weeks ago (about May 15th I think). Other datacentres do not return it for those searches (and that result is spreading to more and more datacentres).