Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
There have been no changes to the site or in links from or to it.
Although all pages are unique, many of the deeper pages are showing supplemental status, and visible page rank has not been assigned to the deep pages. So is there some sort of PR [ page strength ] drain on the overall site as the new pages are awaiting strengthening.
Does anyone understand the deal on these types of traffic movements?
being part of a Google text of some kind
Can you explain this phrase?
being part of a Google text of some kindCan you explain this phrase?
I think "text" here was intended to be "test".
Google could be tracking sudden increase in traffic to a domain and looking at bounce rates especially if a site is new and IBLs don't come from trusted sources.
I think "text" here was intended to be "test".
Yes, sorry, fat fingers. Google seems to be always testing both the SERPs and boosting or removing certain sites. For example, if they see a little burst of interest on a url that's at #8, that url may get a major boost for a bit to see how well users respond to it in the top 3. Right now their testing seems to be quite intense, both for various algo shifts and promoting/demoting sites.
This particular site is in a foreign language. The trouble is that not all the feed content we receive is in that language - at a guess approx only 60% is. The balance is in English.
On the other hand we have an English language site, same host, same ownership, pages are linked to the foreign language site [ for translation purposes ].
I suspect he pattern went something like this:
- G releases pages into results
- G compares pages over the week and completes the deployment.
- G says - hang on a minute, x pages are duplicates with site B
- G downgrades algo score
- G pages removed from results
To fix, those pages need to be identified and blocked, and they'll likely return in 7-14 days.
It could also be that the added pages that have gone "supplemental" dragged down the overall page strength. These are my 2 hunches.
If the algo is a bit more aggressive, the balance of unique to duplcate content could have tipped the site.
Is this a fair conclusion? [ i haven't examined the logs yet to confirm ]
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 12:59 am (utc) on July 23, 2007]
What concerns me is that G appears to dump an entire site for partial duplicate content, and i think it comes into play conjointly with the effect of supplementals
SEOTPI - you provoked my thinking - with the emphasis on the supplementals - any chance you could elaborate on what you experienced - am i on the right track?
What i see, with your remark, is that the effect is the same as the duplicate content filter. If say 50% of the site is considered duplicate [ or of little value ], then gets assigned to the supplemental index it can score the whole site down the plughole.
On the other hand, if the site is adding pages and the overall site strength falls temporarily whilst awaiting PR attributes, this could also drag a site down. But this idea seems strange because previously I've seen steady increases associated with pages at a higher level [ and PR ].
Any thoughts on this or the process?
[edited by: Whitey at 3:01 am (utc) on July 23, 2007]
I’d say it depends on how heavily you are depending on internal linking to boost your keyword search terms, if your pages are dropping in to the supplemental indices then the internal linking from those pages is greatly devalued, hence if you are losing your lower level pages and they are all providing power to the landing pages above then that page starts to slip from its search terms and can even turn supplemental.
I don’t see supplemental pages within a site passing power, supplemental external links yes, but within your site it can be a disaster depending on how reliant your are on internal linking.
Just my thoughts,
Vimes.
