Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

June 27 - changes

         

bontar

9:51 am on Jun 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



<Admin note: See also June 27 - we fully recovered from traffic drop [webmasterworld.com]>

This time I prefer to keep calm about this update. So instead of start a thread about how evil-ish is Google, I decided to start a thread to discover the cause of all this mess.

I'll try to explain all SEO relevant characteristics of my affected site (I have other sites not affected by this update), and I hope more people do the same, so we can find a pattern and act consequently.

Morphology:

The site is three years old, and is structured in folder, and every folder is about a different theme and they are not related.

Every folder has articles (unique content), a discussion forum, a links section and in some cases, photo galleries.

Most of the articles have a thread in the forum to discuss about it. And the first user comments are displayed under the article. After the comments, there is a link to the related forum thread, so the discussion can go on without disturbing too much.

The article has a link to the thread, but the forum thread has no link back to the article.

I run Adsense ads in all the pages of the site.

Inbound links:

4 of the subwebs ( folders) of the site have an inbound link from 4 different DMOZ categories.

There are some (maybe 3 or 4) link exchanges, but from/to related sites.

Outbound links:

All the outbound links are to 'good' sites. The outbound links are usually only in the links section, and some directly from the articles.

Inner linkage:

The main page of the domain links to all the folders of the site.

All the pages in the folders have a link to the rest of pages of the same folder.

In addition, the footer of all the pages have links to the rest of the root of the other folders.

Every folder has a valid sitemap submitted to google a few months ago.

Special folders:

One of the mini-sites (folders) is a 'free photo album' application, so there are a lot of pages with the same text, but with a different picture.

Other mini-site is a directory of hotels and restaurants of a city in Spain, so again there are a lot of 'similar' pages.

Evolution in the serps:

The last two months the number of indexed pages in google has been growing after being in the supplemental hell.

The position in the serps for a open broad of searches was quite good, always in the first page for my targeted keywords and variations.

Panic actions:

I know I should have stayed away from making changes now, but.... Today I've created a robots.txt that exclude googlebot from indexing the images of the free photo album site, and the details of every hotel and restaurant from the spanish city site.

---------------

Any similarity with your affected sites?

[edited by: tedster at 8:07 pm (utc) on June 28, 2006]

The_Tank

12:43 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Recently I joined Google Analytics, and I added a little javascript on the footer of all the pages for monitorizing the adsense clicks. It didn't work, but I forget to remove the script... Could it be the cause?

I doubt it.

This is actually the first update where my site has benifited. In terms of google updates my site has had whack, whack, whack, whack, yes!

The only major change to the site was to keep the URLs shorter for deep pages.

Wibfision

2:00 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



My site which has been online since 1999 has been badly affected by this update. I don't use Google site maps, content is all handwritten (by myself) and is unique.

I really think that this is a bug similar to the one that caused the delisting of pages in the second week of March (the problem back then was that only the home page was in the index on the BD data centres,the only other listed pages being outdated and old supplemental listings).

I was wondering if those sites currently affected also suffered from the above problem? If so, it might be a clue that this is indeed a bug which will be rectified by Google. I hope so.

tigger

2:05 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



>I was wondering if those sites currently affected also suffered from the above problem? If so

yep I got hit by that one as well but fully recovered after 3 days a friend in similar industry has also been hit by both "bugs"

donelson

2:13 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



What I don't understand is how the sites that are affected differ from the ones that aren't affected...

Is there any semi-official Google ("Matt Cutts" etc) discussion of what's going on?

ontrack

2:15 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



My site had held the top 5 positions in key search terms for a long time, one of them was 1 for over two years the others high on the list for about a year, yesterday, they went from these spots to the thirties in rank. But today they appear to slowly be working their way back up, only by a few spots but back up just the same.

Okay, here's my theory, my site is several years old and very large, and content relevant something google likes. A lot of people having problems have the same scenario. Maybe Google takes these sites every once in a while and knocks them down a bit to see if they are still good enough to work their way back up through popularity with visitors. Just a theory.

tigger

2:17 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



last time this happened it did seem to point towards some type of affiliate filter and even though my own site has a lot of original content its been hit again - just hope like last time its bounces back

RichTC

2:45 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



A site of ours that has been badly hit by this is similar in so much that its a large authority site that has some affiliate sections on it.

What i cant understand with this update is that we have pages listing for keywords irrelevent to those pages. For example. A dedicated internal page to "blue smokey widgets" that previously ranked say 6 in the serps (PR5) has vanished yet in position 24 i see a page about "Red wotsits" (PR2)with a link to "smokey widgets" on it that has replaced it.

In a number of cases the page isnt even relevent to the search string, its like google listing anything anywhere for the site

bontar

2:46 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



And what about the hosting?

My affected site is in a shared hosting, can it be a problem for googlebot?

lobo235

2:48 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



My site is also on shared hosting.

tigger

2:50 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



nope - my dropped site is on its own rack - sorry

europeforvisitors

2:54 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)



My affected site is in a shared hosting, can it be a problem for googlebot?

No.

Wibfision

3:04 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



My site also has some affiliate links - but again it has lots of unique content. There are many sites around with more affiliate links and less unique content than my site, so I don't understand, if it is an affiliate filter, why those sites are not affected and mine is.

I also have many content rich pages with no affiliate links whatsoever and they have still been filtered - it appears to apply to the whole domain.

donelson

3:09 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



We have no affiliates at all, and all but one of our sites is badly affected.

tigger

3:09 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



same here Wibfision although I have noticed a lot of sites with my market vanish that are affiliate sites - I'm not saying its just an affiliate filter but maybe one of the triggering factors - just guessing ;0(

donelson

HELPPPPPPPPPPP confused another theory blown away

bontar

3:15 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I'm just tempted to ask if the fourth number of the ip of the affected sites is a prime number...

I'm unable to find a reason why google has dropped my site to the 10th page of the serps.

tigger

3:24 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



like everyone that has been effected here a G blip!

colin_h

3:31 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)



I've always had a short fuse and a dislike for processed cheese. Could this be the reason why my website has been hit by Google's latest idiotic mistake?

;-)

Col

p.s. Oh yeah, I once hurt a small mouse.

bontar

3:35 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I've just discovered a strange(r) behaviour of the 'site:' command.

If I do a site:www.mysite.com -a -e -i -o -u I get 1600 results of supplementals with weird titles...

In my unaffected sites the site: command behaves as usual (no supplemental, no ghost pages...). Can you test it in your affected sites?

jk3210

3:35 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Taking the long view over the last two years, it seems that this occurance is falling into an *intentional* periodic pattern --something that can't be attributed to causes nearly as simple as "aff links" or "sharded hosting," etc. Something that's being introduced ex-algo. Maybe something similar (in theory, at least) to ontrack's suggestion.

Strange as it seems, this behavior reminds me of that "Crazy Ivan" procedure in the movie "Hunt for Red October." In other words, an apparently bizarre act undertaken for a very valid purpose.

tigger

3:35 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



LOL you've been in the sun too long Colin

tflight

3:41 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



If I do a site:www.mysite.com -a -e -i -o -u I get 1600 results of supplementals with weird titles...

Yes. I see the exact same thing. Sites which took a significant drop show all supplemental with weird titles on that query. Other sites which didn't take a significant drop on the 27th show the expected results for that query.

Also, my homepage is missing from the normal "site:www.example.com" query.

bontar

3:42 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Forget my last comment, the site: command is broken in all but one of my sites (both affected and not).

It could be also that all of my sites but one are affected and I haven't noticed yet...

Or it could be too much alcohol in my veins.

bontar

3:55 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



In 64.233.189.107 the site: -a -e -i command is not broken, and the serps are pre-27J, i.e. GOOD

donelson

4:04 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



bontar,

Yes, our sites are behaving as pre-June27 on that DC as well, but...

Godddddam Google is still showing the 5 year-old DMOZ title for our site, Grrrrr!

How is any company able to give a FALSE NAME for your own copyrighted product?

trinorthlighting

4:43 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



The reason for the serp changes is the supplemental index being recrawled and dropped into google.

bharatb

4:57 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)



bontar,

our site is also behaving like pre27j

Wibfision

5:15 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



When I use the site command for www.domain.com on 64.233.189.107 everything is as it should be - on the default google.com (64.233.183.104) the homepage is on the second page of results preceded by a load of supplementals.

This really does look like a Google problem. Is anyone from Google reading this? Please speak to us!

FinanceGirls

5:19 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



my site command is now normal on this dc 64.233.189.107,,BUT the results for us are NOT pre 6/27. We were in the top 5 on Google and on that dc we are on page 2 and 3 for our 2 main keywords. Will that mean bad news for us when Google corrects itself?

donelson

5:21 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



The reason for the serp changes is the supplemental index being recrawled and dropped into google.

Isn't there a less disruptive way for Google to do these updates? A LESS EXPENSIVE way ( for us and for Google? )

I will tell you what is Evil about Google: Their Supremely Arrogant Attitude.

RichTC

5:33 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



The results on 64.233.189.107 dont look to bad from where im looking - we are still missing a load of pages but its better than the current data centres being served up.

I think the data on 64.233.189.107 is only on one or two other data centres unless someone can confirm otherwise so currently it looks like the cr@p im currently seeing is here to stay!

This 178 message thread spans 6 pages: 178