Google Update Bourbon Part 3

[Sweet Cognac]

Continued From:

[webmasterworld.com...]

---

My whole site has a new cache date of May 25th. Maybe once these other sites around me get recached, I won't hold such an honorable top position. But at least Google has found my pages worthy to sit in the Search again.:) It seems strange to look at the stats and see Google in there, after 6 months of just seeing Yahoo and MSN referrals.

My website has plenty of outbound links, but they are on relevant pages. The problem my site has always had, was a lack of "inbound links." I got tired of searching for people to link to me (with all the spammy sites around) and gave up. So my pages have acquired some links naturally I guess(and I'll bet I still don't have more than 30 inbound links for the whole site) Still have a PR4, which I've had since it disappeared in Nov.

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 8:54 pm (utc) on May 27, 2005]

[helleborine]

Any ideas as to what I'm doing wrong? My robots tag looks like this:
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="all">

Do I need to change that to INDEX, FOLLOW?

I thought this was the default and didn't need to be specified to begin with.

I don't want Google to cache my pages, therefore I have a 'NOARCHIVE' command - that's it.

We're grasping at straws here, folks.

Let's be logical.

<speculation>

It's in Google's best interest to deliver the most relevent pages. Google invests considerable man and computing power to crawl, analyze and sort websites. Which is the most active bot on your site? Google. Who has the largest number of indexed pages? Google. Who used to have the best SERPs? Google.

They try to stay ahead of the competition - like Microsoft, they strive to be lightyears ahead of the competition. Not mere steps ahead. Lightyears (Microsoft has become a bit bloated, maybe Google, too, let's assume not).

They've identified an increasing problem with the SERPs. Is it black hat? Duplicate content? Excessive internal linking? Scrapers? I don't know. But they wouldn't have made such damaging changes to their algo in Bourbon, unless they felt there was something that needed fixing, in order for them to continue to dominate the SE market.

So, and I'm speculating based on my experience in the pharmaceutical industry, they try out a new algo on a sample set of websites, privately, at the Googleplex. They see the results, test them on lab rats, survey the lab rats, and analyze their liver enzyme profile. What they see is good.

Time to implement the algo.

As the algo progressively makes it way re-shuffling the database, Google realizes something unexpected as happened and the new algo is going horribly wrong, with complaints pouring in, and a thread on WebmasterWorld that won't end.

Mmm...mmm... if you're Google, what do you do?

You can shut off the new algo in mid-stream and live with the results as you scramble to fix the mess. Or you pause and try to see how you can tweak it to give the effect on the SERPs you originally intended. But it's more complicated than you think.

Can you make a public statement to the effect that you are, indeed, broken? No way. No good can possibly come of that. Yet, you want to give some hope to webmasters by letting them know something is broken and they are trying to fix it.

Since you can't make a statement, you might symbolically shut off the cache. If webmasters don't get it, shutt off PR. Remember I am speculating here, and it's just as likely that they are having real problems with PR and the cache. But - think about it for a minute at least.

They ought to be acutely aware that something needs urgent fixing. I have to give them this much credit.

</speculation>

[Clint]

Thanks guys for the following posts:

From: Dayo_UK

Clint
If you explain your circumstance in the apache forum someone may be able to help you. (The experts on this type of thing may not be reading this thread)
[webmasterworld.com...]
Not exactly sure what the Registrars mean by mask - when it is done if you check your header using the following tool:-
[searchengineworld.com...]
You will want to see what Status code is returned. If a redirect is in place it should also state a location - this location should be your correct/main site url. I would suggest that you really want a 301 status code - but they may use a 302 or a 303 (as someone elses hosts used in another thread)

Thanks Dayo_UK. Someone mentioned that before, but I thought it was an unrelated issue, apparently not. So, I'll ask that over there. I've tried that URL to check the headers of my main domain, and the domain names which point to it; and in all cases it was http code 200. So, is that good or bad? The domain name I mentioned that yesterday I fwd'd by my registrars instead of cPanel, still has not 'pointed' so I still can't run it through the header checker.

I thought explained "mask". ;) When the "mask domain" box is checked, the fwd'd domain clicked or placed in the address bar, is shown in the address bar. This "masks" your REAL domain name so the fwd'd domain name's URL shows. The inverse is true with the box unchecked; and the fwd'd domain clicked is NOT shown in the address bar, the domain name to which it is fwd'd shows.

So I'm still trying to determine which of these methods is better.

From: jd01

Clint
Without too much detail...

it was THEIR URL that would appear in the address bar.

This is definitely a possible duplicate issue.

You will need to make sure any redirecting is a 301, NOT a 302. (Use a header check to make sure, no matter what your host tells you.)

I would be happy to answer more thoroughly in the Apache forum. If someone else does not get there first =)

Justin

Added: Just as a rule... I believe, you are generally best to actually host the domains and then redirect and manage them yourself, so you are in control of all aspects of the domain.

Ok Justin, thanks, the problem is, I don't know how to "make sure any redirecting is a 301", I am unaware of how to accomplish this. As soon as this damn domain name I pointed yesterday will complete, then I could put it in the header check area and if it says a "301" for it, then that's that. ;) If not, then I'm still going to have to know HOW to make it a "301"....of which I'll guess I'll ask at the Apache forum.
Thanks.

From: Tropical Island

Clint:
We have a web site that has 4 other domains parked and pointing at it for years. When you enter these parked domains the main site comes up with the url of the parked domain.

We have had great rankings in all 3 SE's for this main site for many years.

This method for parked domains has been in use for years. We use Interland for hosting, one of the main players, and this is how they do it.

This is not the problem.

So now I'm getting more confused. Are you now saying that I don't need to worry about these fwd'd domains? When you run the header check on them, do they return a 200 code, or 301?
Thanks again to all.
-Clint

[BillyS]

Man this thread's got legs, but it seems to veer off target at times.

[fearlessrick]

helle, point taken. I was, as you suggest, grasping at straws. Taking a more proactive approach now.

[helleborine]

Fearlessrick, we grasp at straws most desperately when the world appears most absurd.

Like the SERPs!

On the bright side, some of us are not changing their sites, and waiting it out (control group) while others have already implemented changes (experimental group).

We are enough people here to, given enough time, make some sense out of it.

[SimmoAka]

>I just received an email which contained an article about the DMOZ, called "Trouble at the ODP."<

It could be the reason why Google "suspended" its PR on the toolbar for few days ago. Not to say that Google PR wasn´t already dead in practice for the last few months or so

I read that also. Very interesting but i'd doubt if it were likely to have an effect on Google. It largely goes some way to backing up what many have hinted at for a long time and i can't see G responding to hearsay - unless they know more than we do of course!

[AnonyMouse]

Given that there is no apparent logic behind the SERPs in my sector, I'm sitting firmly in the control group!

There is no consistency or common theme anywhere to be seen, so I'm going to take a long summer holiday. A really really long one. Maybe when I come back there will be something to analyse and formulate a strategy around, but for now there's no thread to unravel.

The only factor that does seem clear is an intention by Google to do away with affiliate sites - in the SERPS I watch, the source sites and even individual providers themselves are now ranking, where before it was entirely dominated by affiliates.

[Clint]

Man this thread's got legs, but it seems to veer off target at times.

Not exactly. For no one knows as of yet exactly what the hell is going on nor why it is happening. So, the only "target" is to find out the specifics of the "why's", and "how's" to fix it which is as of this point, "anything". To use a euphemism--we all are "hunting" here and as of now we are all using "tools" such as bows & arrows, handguns, rifles, BB-guns, sling slots, rocks, etc., (i.e. grasping at straws/ideas as to what caused the removals), and we must continue on with that until we can find out which one of these "tools" is "on target" (i.e. the cause for removal), then we can all use the "appropriate tool" (fix to get our ranks back) to get things back the way they were.

[Clint]

The only factor that does seem clear is an intention by Google to do away with affiliate sites - in the SERPS I watch, the source sites and even individual providers themselves are now ranking, where before it was entirely dominated by affiliates.

You must have missed my posts. ;) It's exactly the opposite in my case. For where I was once on top, on the 1st page for hundreds of search phrases, I have been replaced by these "affiliate sites", directories, links pages, etc. and other non-relevant content.

[annej]

The second site will also disappear the minute you gain enough redirects and incoming scrapper links.

So you are thinking we are getting punished because uninvited scraper sites have linked to us? That's a scary thought.