Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
I suspected the one to watch was 66.102.9.104.
Now I'll hand over to all those angry webmasters that now have new competition to contend with ;)
Google is bad... Google is evil... etc
Defo the same the URL - it's my site!
If you come back to this thread, please can you look at the issue raised in [webmasterworld.com ].
Jagger3 has not resolved the problem in question on 66.102.9.104....
I know we are looking in different sectors - and I understand your comment that Canonical urls have not been fixed yet.
But surely - the ordering of the site shows that they must be getting close - they know the Canonical url - now all they need to do is actually use it (eg as per the Mirago example - they can detect the canonical - but it still got problems.)
Of course you may be seeing different things - there are certainly sites where the ordering is wrong too - so perhaps the sites you are monitoring fall into this category.
I have a feeling that it needs a crawl based on using the correct canonical before we see results.
GG, is not active in this thread at the moment - which is a shame as it is hard to get Google to talk about Canonical urls at the best of times.
GG - with reference to that Mirago example - would you expect that sites in those type of situations would see the Canonical page actually acting like the Canonical page within the next few days - I mean with Mirago - Google seems to know it is the Canonical - but it still seems to be suffering from the bug.
TearingHairOut - your example is on the same lines as this.
I'm talking about identical pages:
www.food.onlineshoppingbrand/munchies
with the identical page - title/description/cache
to
www.food.onlineshoppingbrand/munchies/(added leading "/")
with the same title/description/cache
[edited by: wordy at 9:23 pm (utc) on Nov. 5, 2005]
Only way I've been able to affect them at all is to create a dummy ' this page doesn't not exist page', remove them from robots and put a link to that page from my homepage.
Brilliant idea! The doesn't exist page would be there forever but at least it wouldn't look like duplicate copy.
I'm going to wait to see if Google resolves this problem during J3. If they don't I'll do exactly what you did.
Well obviously that is the problem. They are not ordering the pages properly on many/most/some effected sites.
I suppose it is easier now to see screwed up sites, but that hardly matters. The fact that the screwups can be easily seen just highlights how many screwups there are, and that nothing has been done to fix problems.
i see multiple DC on which Jagger3 is tested with either jagger1, jagger2 or a combinaison of both (which is 66.102.7.104).
OK, I understand, last night when I looked they got a lot more sites correct than they have now - which is why I am on the optimistic side at the moment.
The sites they did not get correct were in the format cached pages then supplementals (eg missing the homepage at the top - these sites were generally ones where the homepage had not been crawled - eg url only - which I am hoping will improve the next time Gbot does feel like crawling the homepage).
However, some sites today have come back where internal supplementals are outranking the recently cached homepage - is this what you are seeing?
[edited by: Dayo_UK at 9:44 pm (utc) on Nov. 5, 2005]
But - my cafepress store for that site shows up in the top ten for the site name. I wonder if using my regular site navigation on the cafepress pages is what is hurting the site? It seems it is good for users though - makes going back and forth from my site to the store seamless for them - but maybe Google doesn’t like it, or gets confused by it?
Does anyone know if Jagger3 has shown up on .com at all yet? I know it won't be there completely for a while, but I thought that .com may get data from the datacenter(s) with Jagger3 off and on.
Sadly it appears the better results and progress on canonicals on 66.102.7.104 is going to disappear and the mess on 66.102.9.104 dominate.
steveb and idolw, there will be some blending of these two data centers. If you think of 66.102.9.104 as the first order effect and 66.102.7.104 as the second order effect, that won't be far off.
www.domainname.com/topic/product.htm
then
www.domainname.com//topic/product.htm but marked a supplemental so hopefully this may slowly disappear.
Otherwise only stable or up a bit for us - slight relief after being clobbered by Bourbon.
Did reseller win the "I spotted Jagger3 first" Tshirt? limited edition 1 only..
Any thoughts on the situation of the canonical page still not having any rank value within a site search?
Sorry to press - is just I have seen sites where they have come back - eg site:www.domain.com www.domain.com returns www.domain.com top and they dont seem to have problems.
It just seems on [66.102.9.104...] Google is saying we know what the Canonical url is but we are not going to use it :P ;)
Patience Dayo......
[edited by: Dayo_UK at 9:54 pm (utc) on Nov. 5, 2005]
GG - I hope this isn't too off topic, but can you tell us if recip linking with related sites is still a worthwhile thing to do? For the more "SEO Challenged" among us (me included!), it's a relatively simple thing we can do to help our ranking, and I hope it doesn't go away.
You haven't got a hope in hell of a resonse to that question :)
Keep the 66.102.7.104 results
It seems to me that 66.102.7.104 has better results.
One things that bothers is the fact that Google shows the cache from about a year ago, even though I know they have much later caches.
GG, do these suplemental pages with outdated caches count when determining the serps? For example: the link to my site was there 1 year ago, it was removed but the pages are now supplemental and Google shows the much older cache with the link still on. Does the linked page get credit, a penalty or whatever based on that? Essentially, what is counted, the older page that shows in cache, or the last copy that Google grabbed?
It is more confussing because none of those supp pages show as backlinks on Google. I know G doesn't show them all, but chances are that a few would have been shown.
[edited by: walkman at 10:09 pm (utc) on Nov. 5, 2005]
"steveb and idolw, there will be some blending of these two data centers. If you think of 66.102.9.104 as the first order effect and 66.102.7.104 as the second order effect, that won't be far off."
Now we're talking Jagger 3!
Well, thanks for that. The combining could really do a lot to fix the obvious problems and improve the lost and canonical problems significantly. (Wondering about a timeframe on that..........)
That would eliminate my supplemental pages, but drop another one of my sites from #1 to who knows where. No problem with that though since I put up that site with just a bunch of dupe pages to prove how easy it was. Guess I have to build a real site now.
A can of SEO worms would be wide open....
[edited by: petehall at 10:16 pm (utc) on Nov. 5, 2005]
It seems to me that if you happen to look at a niche where there are not many sites lost, you might be wondering what the fuss is about, but if you are in a niche where 66.102.7.104 returns 20% of the sites to proper ranking (and eventually assigns them the correct link power too) then a merging of the results could make the 66.102.9.104 make much more sense... and also be a starting point of being able to react to the new results. I know in one non-english sector, in addition to my page being in the 100s instead of second where it was for five years, that also the normal #1 and #4 results are way down too on 66.102.9.104, so the results there now are just not good. Add back in those three and it's all much more sensible.
