Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
I also understand that the recovery could be much more rapid
if the originating problem was with duplicate Title and meta
descripion tags, as opposed to <body> content.
What I've not been able to gather from any of the previous
threads is any information about the time it would take for
the actual recovery process to run.
Can one expect it to happen gradually, over a period of time,
or in one single shot?
If it happens gradually, how long does it usually take?
Also, are there any tell-tale signs that indicate an impending
recovery?
Can those with experience in these matters please throw some
light on all this?
The indexing of body content and a complete reappearance into the results starts with a trickle and then bursts out anything from 3-4 months after the changes.
However, this pre supposes that no further filtering is occurring on your sites, which can keep the results suppressed.
[edited by: Whitey at 11:18 pm (utc) on Dec. 28, 2006]
Are you saying that it'll take 3-4 months for full traffic recovery regardless of what type of duplicate content a site had (i.e. duplicate title/description tags or body content)?
I was under the impression that traffic loss due to duplicate title/description gets recovered much more quickly. Will you please clarify? Thanks.
If you have had to change the URL's from say /index.htm to "/" it can take 3-4 months for the pages to be re indexed and show in the serps. They need to absorb IBL's etc. During this time you may see a trickle effect of results.
Having said this, we have experienced sites that have not come back and are still subject to some filtering, even though their site content is identical, except in diferent languages. So there are some mysteries that we don't know about [ why one site will kick and another, the same will not ] and why filters can still be applied to a site.
I'm wondering if there is some "time delay" filter for sites that previously breached duplicate content for a long time.
Any ideas anyone?
[edited by: Whitey at 9:22 pm (utc) on Dec. 29, 2006]
To answer the above very important question requires a lot more inputs and analysis about the components involved.
We have steps in the remedial cycle which are only just being touched on, but IMO are not complete [ body content duplication ] and Adam Lasnik is only just broaching the subjects of "boilerplates" and "stubs" over at [webmasterworld.com...]
Either some good members:
Haven't got a clue [ I'm sure some have ]
or -
the information is not being shared, because it's considered too valuable [ not in the general spirit of this forum ]
IMO - If the forums are going to be effective on this subject more participation beyond the esteemed efforts of just a few members is going to be required.
I mean getting this fundamental information out is like "drawing out hens teeth".
Sorry for the gripe :)
More efforts required - Happy New Year.
Then, a couple months later, we moved to a new server scheme, and screwed up, by not implementing the httpd file that fixed all of our previous duplicate content issues (Doh! ; )) It took about 6 weeks until google caught up with us, and we lost our rankings again. Our rankings took about 24 hours to tank. It took me about 5 minutes ;) to see what we had done, and to put the fix back in. This time, it took about 3 weeks (we were mentally prepared for 6, so just 3 was a big sigh of relief) until our rankings began to ressurect. Again, once started, our rankings were all back within about 24 hours.
So, our experience has been that you may have to wait 3-6 weeks after you fix the problem, for rankings to return. And once they start to return you can be all back in 24 hours or so.
We have a textbook example of long tail content and thus listings and rankings, with tons and tons of #1 rankings, and lots of "authority" double indented rankings as well.
(I digress: We have not been affected by any data refreshes or whatever you want to call them since October. However, our rankings have been affected mildly in the past few days by an undeniable shift at google in their rankings, but overall, probably slightly for the better. We've gained some #1 spots, in my opinion, deserved in all cases I've seen, and we've been bumped down a spot or two in others, again, I agree, the site above us in those instances are better at that search phrase than us. So, as far as we are concerned, the google data shift in the past few days are providing better results.)
Now then, vital stats: we've been around for years (1998 or so, as I recall), and we have 10s of thousands of pages. We do not engage in anything untoward, I deliberately ignore all things SEO, wo are neither black hat nor white hat - we go bare-headed.<grin>. Worrying about duplicate content URLs is the only thing I've ever worried about "fixing" for google. We are e-commerce, and we operate in many different sectors.
I wish you all the best - if you've fixed your problem, you will be fine. Just try to breathe... ; )
One thing i picked up - your site restored only when all of the pages had been crawled. Yes / No?
Does this indicate a sitewide requirement of validation for recovery versus page by page re instatement?
Any thoughts?
