Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
A recommendation for the guidelines - more information about "supplemental results" and what that means.
We've got many standard and many supplementals. The supps have very old cache dates even though we've been submitting sitemaps for many months and they appear to get processed.
thanks!
>>Not counting chickens yet :)
I think the flux might bring more than a lot of people expect...<<
Just donīt mention that word FLUX. It remind me of the flux after Borboun, and I really don't have much nerves left for neither a flux or an everflux.
Jagger3 has been very gooooood to my site. Now why should we need a flux?
GoogleGuy..please no more FLUX :-)
But you had a canonical url problem - and I guess that G has finally sorted it for you in full. So less flux for you I reckon my friend.
My main site still has a way to go - so Flux it up GG :)
Anyway there is flux at the moment - eg every time I do a site:www.domain.com search I get different results.
Thx for the info. If my quality feedback is worth at all (for a non English search), pls check the following at the DC you mentioned:
Vuelos Baratos (that is cheap flights in Spanish, and btw I do not SEO for any web in this field)
In the top 12 you get:
1. A site from one individual hotel
2. A piece of news of less than 200 words from summer 2004
3. A web with no content just affiliate links and the design all mixed up (btw i have nothing against affiliates, but at least have them right and not just old javascripts which do not exist any longer and give you the message of Zanox - wrong code)
And we are talking about a sector with plenty of top quality professinal and "amateur" websites...I have not followed this sector much but in J2 the same search looks much more solid
Also results for the sectors I follow (all in Spanish) looked so much better after J1 and J2...anyway it's up to Google to determine what is quality and what is not but this is my humble view...
Google originally indexed both URLs for each page (two different domain names {not a www and non-www issue, though there are some www/non-www sites with the same issue too}) and filtered one domain out as being the duplicate; and that was several years ago.
Recently, one word was changed or deleted in each of the files. Google reindexed the files at the main domain, and updated the search queries that will find those files in the results (they now can't be found for the word that was removed from the files). The cache is updated too.
At the same time, the pages of the "other domain" (the one that had been filtered out for several years) re-appeared in the SERPs all as supplemental results. These pages can all still be found for the word that is no longer on the real page itself.
For some old pages, the cache continues to be one from 18 months ago, and for others the odd result links to a cache from only a few days ago. The snippet shows the old content, including the word that no longer exists.
This isn't an isolated example. I can point to over 50 sites belonging to dozens of people that have the same problem. It stems from a failure in the duplicate content filtering. One URL ranks for the current content, the other for the old content from two years ago - even though both URLs lead to the same physical file.
In some cases a 301 redirect is in place, and in others it isn't - but it seems to make no difference as to what happens to the results. I have tried all manner of ways to get Google to forget the old result: using the removal tool (gone for 90 days then reappeared), using robots.txt (no effect), adding the 301 redirect (no effect), and have just about lost the plot on thos now.
Our good friend at the plex, Matt "spanish eyes" Cutts has just posted on his blog:
------------------------------------------
"Jagger3 update
November 5, 2005 @ 10:20 am · Filed under Google/SEO
Starting yesterday, Jagger3 was visible at the 66.102.9.104 data center. Theres still some minor flux on that data center, but it includes Jagger1, Jagger2, and Jagger3.
-----------------------------------------------
A big THANK YOU to Matt. Very kind of you to post an update during your weekend. Much appreciated.
idolw, if you're reporting spam, I'd feel free to report as much as you can find. :) It's probably better to do a separate report for each spam you see.
How do I report indexing issues about Jagger 3? Which DC should I look to report?
I don't see Help us Improve or Dissatisfied with Results features.
Thank you.
I don't see mine (although they had reappeared on other DC's). Very dissapointed with this.
GG any chance they will feed in the lost sites in at the end like they appeared to do with Jagger2?
Thanks for listening regarding Canonical url problems - just seen MC post regarding this so I do hope they get fully sorted. Still a bit more patience required ;)
Sorry if I have been a pain :( - and sorry about my countdown too ;)
As I have seen your site - dont get to pessimistic to soon - as per MC, some Canonical settling to go - and I am about 80-90% sure that is your problem.
Ack - I dont want to dominate this thread so will take a break after this post.
It seems at this stage they have worked out the most important page for the site (this applys to your site) - but the sites have not got there rankings back yet - make sense?
Fingers crossed.
Also I'm not clear if these deleted pages could still be counted against us as duplicate copies even though they are gone from our site but still in sup results.
As for my sites don't know what to think, they went AWOL and then reappeared at Jagger2 in their old positions on some DC's but they are out of it on the DC that GoogleGuys says to watch.
Just wish I knew what that Sept 22nd buisness was all about, filter/spam penalty..still have no idea :((
[edited by: cleanup at 6:15 pm (utc) on Nov. 5, 2005]
what form? I've been hit really badly and hopefully GG would take a peek and point me in the right direction
ta
No fluctuation in the top 6 in our industry (a home furnishings subsect). The same 4 sites are in the same spots.
Of the top 4, one has commanded the top spot for a long time as their url is the keyword- so they're old and all links have the keyword in the text.
The second in line has nothing but product links on the page.
The third has a pretty heavy reciprocal link page without much concern for link partner relevance. They do a lot of the whacko text below the fold.
I do see a new UK site that is pretty weak up on the first page, and a couple of articles with a PR of 0 from a year old episode on DIY.net.
I hate to be a whiner, but I hope this isn't over...
