Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
We have noticed some moderate ranking changes in the past 24 hours, which have reverted to previous ranking positions dating back to the middle of December.
Our rankings are secure, so I am not writing this as a complaint, but as the sharing of an obersvation: there is a new shift occuring right now.
In addition, we have also observed a reduction in the number of double listing "authority rankings" for various sites over the past 2 weeks or so. Many of these previous double rankings were indeed redundant, so this removal of some double listings is a perceived good thing in our opinion, at least in the sectors we watch.
Is anyone else having these same sorts of observatiosn these past 24 hours?
[edited by: tedster at 7:25 pm (utc) on Jan. 5, 2007]
For the future, I do think that it is a good move, but Google also keeps records of the websites movements so donīt forget that.
Allmost 80% of trafic for that site is from my country.
This is the only one remaining in supp's and the more important for me as of traffic (about 100k/month and now 6 times less)
The rest are all recovered and are hosted in my country too.
I think google have foccussed far too much on there new toy and the actuall good it can do is confused by a gateway or page containing only ads boosted to top sends out all the wrong signals to webmasters. The issue of low ranked keyword rich domains networked together I feel should have dealt with before boosting keyword close to root. At least florida in boosting universities offered a non commercial benefit. At present google are boosting doorway pages and some of the biggest spammers on the net for what? Yes to ban duplicate content on shopping sites, great, but also suffering are legit sites with silly mistakes.
The aims are admirable in detecting duplicate content but what do you do when educating a customer to comply with rules points out number one result is a gateway page with loads of keyword rich domains with naff content owned by the same person pointing to them. Its sends out all the wrong messages and just implies you should replace one form of spam with another.
Good idea, badly implemented..........
-- I've noticed the results are in the exact order as when you search for the keyword with 'allinanchor'. They never used to be in the same order... Have Google decided to focus more on inbound link anchor text again?
1) The main topic of this thread is about sites that when you do a site:search have supplemental listings appearing above their non supplemental pages. This apparently has occured for the last 18 months but during November and December a lot of sites were treated this way and their rankings were effected causing a 80%+ loss in traffic. Some of these sites have been recovering.
2) Supplemental listed pages. A different problem and although some may have got pages out of this condition in the last day or so, I think that will be for changes they made to their site, new links pointing to the pages or just plain luck rather than Google changing its rules.
Two different issue and perhaps we should keep on theme to the pages that appeared in 1) rather than 'supplemental pages'.
Hi Folks
IMO, what has been taking place for the last few months is a serious genuine attempts from Google's side to clean up its main index of what it considers "less worthy" contents, mainly duplicate contents. During the "cleaning" process, duplicates and other "less worthy" contents might have been converted to supplementals and accordingly remove them from the main index to the supplemental index.
At this advanced point of those series of the so called "data pushes" or the so called "changes", its on time to start discussing the effects of those "changes" on the quality of the emerging Google's serps. After all its the quality of those serps which is going to be the most important factor for evaluating Google as a major search engine.
Do you see now a better quality of Google serps after months of "data refreshes", "data pushes" and "changes"? I.e
- relevant results
- less spam sites
Thanks!
Yes, I have adsense. I dont use it on every page though, maybe about half of them.
During the "cleaning" process, duplicates and other "less worthy" contents might have been converted to supplementals and accordingly remove them from the main index to the supplemental index.
Ok, but why supplementals are listed above index pages for site: search?
Becouse of this all good content pages ranks +100 and more in SERP.
And what about domains with more subdomains?
For a less worthy content in a subdomain ,the whole domain is penalized.
just gone "clean" site:domain command shows no supplemental listings first..site index page first
Anyone come back, that had this experience?
We have some supplemental starting at around number 900 on a site:domain command however these pages appear there correctly as they are dead in one way or another ( deleted pages, https:// pages etc )
Guess the re-jig is still going on, its great to see progress/positive changes
[edited for speling must go to skool ]
Anyone come back, that had this experience?
Randle my sites came back fully yesterday and had suffered from all of the December symptoms. Fingers crossed that your sites come back too.
Ranking have been slipping but I take this as my fault been so busy with another project haven't really worked the site in about 4 months.
beginning to change that today.
[edited by: shogun_ro at 11:10 pm (utc) on Jan. 8, 2007]
Then look through the listings and see if any of your pages have supplemental marked next to them below the description.
reseller - ignoring my own disappointment I can honestly say that a lot of the results in my sector are rubbish.
and I mean very poor indeed.
I have very specific uk searches returning 7/10 usa results. this is on .co.uk and .com G
I do note however that the results are shifting alomst hourly
as I ay above synopsis is NOT based on me thinking I should be at number one. am trying to be as objective as possible
to be subjective I also note that pages of mine that have not been in existence ofr months are actually listed - and not supplemental ones either
what do you see?
