:site now return no sup results

Some findings of thew :site command in google and its results

[stinkfoot]

Ok. As an intro to those of you who don't know me I have a site, or 12, all of whom were hit by google with a massive penalty pre big daddy and have never recovered. This is all good 90%+ unique content using simple static html that is updated as a minimum 1 time a week with new pages and added content to old.

Over the last 2 years of this penalty I have been using the :site command and finding that supplementary results will come up first. No on a recent inspection I am finding my home page is back on top an there are no sup results I can see on any of my sites.

Is this a unique case or has this sort of thing been happening to others?

[AndyA]

Did your site hit the pavement in November/December 2004? If so, it does sound somewhat like mine. I do still have some pages showing as supplemental, but they are beginning to drop to the bottom, allowing non-supplemental pages to come first.

How are your rankings? Are they beginning to return to where they were previously? Mine are mixed, but traffic from Google is 10% of what it was in October 2004.

I honestly believe that the answer to many of our problems today lies with whatever changed with Google back in late 2004.

[AndyA]

I thought I'd expand on my previous thought with a question:

Is there any place that lists the dates of Google changes/updates, and what the general thoughts are as to what changed on each date? i.e., December 2004: Backlink update and duplicate meta description penalty. (Just using this as an example, I don't know for certain if either of those things happened in December 2004.)

I've been able to find the dates listed for Google Dances, etc., but none of them have indicated what changes are attributed to that date.

[BigDave]

I hope you have been using site: instead of :site.

[stinkfoot]

hi Andy,

>Did your site hit the pavement in November/December 2004? If so, it does sound somewhat like mine. I do still have some pages showing as supplemental, but they are beginning to drop to the bottom, allowing non-supplemental pages to come first.

Yes it was about that time. 4 years of top ranking for most of my sites and some pages that had few inbound links to them.

>How are your rankings?

Terrible

>Are they beginning to return to where they were previously? Mine are mixed, but traffic from Google is 10% of what it was in October 2004.

I have been penalise horrendously. If i search for some "unique text" in a string search the only time any of my pages will not come absolute bottom of the pile would be if it were 100% unique. eg if there were 4 pages with the same string on I would be bottom of the 4 if there were 10 I would be bottom of the 10 if there were 100000 ... you get the picture. It is not just a penalty in fact, it is total victimisation from google imo.

>I honestly believe that the answer to many of our problems today lies with whatever changed with Google back in late 2004.

Very possible. The thing is I have done a number of things since then. Improved the look and feel of the site, added content, changed content, there has been no improvement for any of my sites really in ranking.

I cant complain really. My network does make a good living for me and my team without google. Yahoo has over the last year started to take my sites up as they can see that all of the info is of good quality and the experience of users on the site is a good one. MSN also like my sites. The only people that don't are the guys at google.

[stinkfoot]

>I hope you have been using site: instead of :site.

Spotted the typo .. oops .. thanks for pointing it out