Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Stop looking at [64.233.187.104...] aka [gfe-jc.google.com...] when you should be looking at [gfe-eh.google.com...] aka [72.14.207.104...] instead...
On the latter DC there is a big cleanup of older Supplemental Results in progress.
[edited by: tedster at 3:53 am (utc) on Aug. 18, 2006]
Its incredible that they cant fix there search system, all this HALF fixes which came with time because they dont have space, omitted results, supplemental results and when you make a search with millions of results, you get omitted text after 3 pages, jesus thats no SE, that a kids laptop, buy some servers if you still want business or you will realy get beat buy MSN search next year, they dont have any excusses.
With today's updates I think that I now fully understand what supplemental results really are, and what they are for, and am sure that you have to wait a year for them to be dropped.
The correct measure of whether a site has a problem is not how many supplemental URLs are showing, but how many URLs show as normal results for the canonical URL for each page of the site.
Eliminating multiple URLs for the same content, and fixing things where there are multiple pages with the same title tag and/or meta description are key to getting things back on track. Internal distribution of PR is important too; and that hinges on Internal PR being directed back at the correct URL for the root homepage (link back to http://www.domain.com/ in exactly that format from every page of the site).
Related thread: [webmasterworld.com ]
[edited by: g1smd at 10:25 pm (utc) on Aug. 17, 2006]
Multiple URLs for the same content, and multiple pages with same title and or meta description are key to getting things fixed.
Can you expand on that a bit? It sounds like you are saying that having multiple urls for the same content is a good thing, and that seems unlikely to me. Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
EDIT: never mind, looks like you edited the statement already.
I had an old supplemental at the #1 spot in the list:
. www.mydomain.com/?NF=1
that was over a year old, and my site has never even used query strings. I did a 301 on those and it seems to have worked, but it took over a month...
Also, my in-the-toilet SERPs suddenly reverted to pre-27 June this morning as well.
Next month, who knows if more things will be fixed or hurt.
I guess I've just joined the club.
New traffic is up about 1/3 now if the economy would go up and gas prices down we'd probably start making money again.
[edited by: Bewenched at 4:55 am (utc) on Aug. 18, 2006]
With today's updates I think that I now fully understand what supplemental results really are, and what they are for, and am sure that you have to wait a year for them to be dropped.
g1smd, I'd really appreciate your sharing your conclusions on the bolded parts in your quote above.
Exactly one year ago, I also did a full site architecture overhaul. Supplementalism did not strike until April 2006 however. Today's changes are positive so far -- but I have seen similar progress disappear several times over the last 4 months
Thanks.
Although, on a supplemental note, I am holding steady at just 11 now and I notice that my index page lies just beneath those 11, so maybe when they go I'll get back to the top again.
Anyway, all the best for a fruitful day to all (I love Fridays, always drunk by 3pm).
Col :-)
Forgive my for being naieve, but why or how do you know that THAT is the one to be watching?
"Forgive my for being naieve, but why or how do you know that THAT is the one to be watching?"
Because either Matt Cutts or GoogleGuy has mentioned previously that [72.14.207.104...] has the new infrastructure (BigDaddy) ;-)
My site got pummelled on June 27th, and didn't recover on July 27th.
As of today, virtually all of my #1 and top 3 rankings are back where they were for 3 years prior to June 27th.
Also, the "site search supplemental problem" for me is fixed. I only have one page showing up as supplemental when doing a site:www.mydomain.com search, and it is at the bottom of the list now where it should be (for the past 7 weeks, that supplemental page was showing up at the top, above my home page).
Something got fixed/tweaked/changed/removed yesterday...
I have seen some strange thisngs when I try to used advanced search features. If I try to get 100 page listing ... it only gives me 30 and then when I do re-enter the 100 request it halves the number of accessible pages ... but either way, it's nice to see my pages back again, in the right order :-)
You mentioned these searchs in another thread, could you expound on exactly what each search will show us or what we should expect to see?
site:domain.com
site:domain.com inurl:www
site:domain.com -inurl:www
site:www.domain.com
site:www.domain.com inurl:www
site:www.domain.com -inurl:www
I am trying to explain these searchs to a friend and not able to make myself very clear as to what each one should show and thought maybe I could get a clearer explanation from one of the resident experts such as yourself.
I don't know, did anyone else think that sounded like gibberish? I'm tired and haven't had enough coffee yet.
The pool beckons ... see you all tomorrow AM.
All the Best
Col ;-)
http://gfe-eh.google.com/ aka [72.14.207.104...]I see here the site: command for all affected domains from me works like expected, but at my best search queries, still my pages are not to find.
http://gfe-eh.google.com/ aka [72.14.207.104...]my cache here is April 1.
In practice, many sites will show a selection of both www and non-www URLs. The aim here is maximise the number of www pages listed, and maximise the number of listed www pages that are not supplemental.
The number of non-www pages listed as supplemental is totally irrelevant. As long as non-www URLs redirect to their equivalent www pages for live pages and return a 404 error for pages that no longer exist, then all is well with the site. Google will hang on to those types of supplemental results (URLs that redirect or are gone) for a year or more. You cannot alter that. Don't bother measuring them.
Every page of a normal site has the current content as a normal URL, and the older version of the same page is stored as a supplemental result. You see the supplemental result when you search for older content that used to be on the page, but no longer is. You cannot change this.
For a site with duplicate content, then none, some, or all URLs for that same content will be normal results and none, some, or all alternative URLs will be shown as supplemental results. Aim to get all non-canonical URLs deindexed. What is left will be a mixture of normal and supplemental results. Let Google reindex the site. It will take a while for the supplemental status to be lifted for the remaining URLs.
The "nonsense" searches like site:www.domain.com -inurl:www (show all www pages that do not have a www in the URL) show non-www URLs whatever their status is, and www URLs that have a supplemental tag for at least one version of the cached content.
Some sites return zero for some of the searches. Those are the ones that have perfect canonicalisation. Most others show many anomolies.
The take away here is to measure how many normal www results there are, not how many supplemental or non-www results there are.
Umm, "the take away here is..."; jeez I'm starting to sound like Matt Cutts. Oi! Google! Stop messing with my mind...
I just took a look at the mother of the new infrastructure [72.14.207.104...]
It seems that the folks at the plex are aiming now at what they "expect" or "think" or "imagine" to be duplicates. I see articles published on pages and have been there since 1998 which turned to supplementals. After all those looooong years, suddenly somebody among our good friends, at Google's crawl/index Team, thought.. oh here we have some supplementals. C'mon give me a break ;-)
Wish the friends at the plex better luck next time :-)
I just took a look at the mother of the new infrastructure [72.14.207.104<...]Hope to recover!
With one of my most important search queries, I floated before June 27th between place 3 and 6.
Since June 27th not in the first 100.
Now on place 16 at this data center.