Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
I have noticed that the numbers of indexed URLs from the sitemaps of my main site have been steadily reduced in the last two days. The reduction rate is about 5% per day. This drop takes place in all sub-directories and also shows on the results of a site command search. However, it seems that the fully indexed pages are not affected. Does anyone experience this?
We had been a PR6, then 5, down to 4... all the time ranking improved and the number of links reported increased.
Now links reported are down by 50% and we're back to a PR5. Even stranger (to me at least) is that Google Webmaster continues to show more links.
I don't get it other than the fact the link:command is getting pretty useless (and yes, I know it was confusing before but at least there seemed to be some kind of pattern).
For a search term I monitor the long-time holder of spot #2 has dropped to spot #39. It's annoyed me a long time because it's an article that's syndicated and appears on many websites and even several blogs.
Funny... this could almost describe an article on a client site, except for one aspect. The article wasn't syndicated... it was completely original and very good... but it did/does appear "on many websites and even several blogs." It went from #2 to the mid thirties (and now has dropped out entirely as another page on our site, not nearly as appropriate, has shown up in the twenties). So, Google may be treating dupes more harshly, but, for the first time that I've seen in a while, they've gotten the identification wrong, at least in this case.
Also, Google's reranking of one-word terms is continuing, and they're playing around with what appear to be different slots for different verticals for which the one-word terms apply. This is very similar to what we've been seeing with slots in Universal Search for news results, video results, etc, where they're experimenting with different placements.
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 8:53 pm (utc) on Mar. 2, 2008]
This is very similar to what we've been seeing with slots in Universal Search for news results, video results, etc, where they're experimenting with different placements.
I'm noticing these "segregated" results in the Google Experimental Search
tests, too, FWIW.
I agree, mybe Google is leaning towards categorized (?)
results, in both one and two-word SERPs..
I also have to say I am about six shades of sick of seeing you tube and wiki in the SERPs. If I want to search either of them, I can go straight to the respective site.
They, unlike WebmasterWorld, have functioning search.
Speaking of which, Brett, if you are out there, when will we get our skins back so I can reinstall a search bar?
It is funny that a couple days a go i got again back my PR5 that was lowered 3 months a go from PR5 to PR4.
Just saw similar problem that has marcus about month a go:
and it has been solved for him in mean times. Let's hope that same thing will happen to my site.
[edited by: tedster at 3:04 pm (utc) on Mar. 10, 2008]
[edit reason] link fixed [/edit]
I'm also seeing some of my newer pages jump from position 7 or 8 to either the top position or second, displacing pages (that offer less relevent content) that have been there for eons!
I'm wondering at the moment if Google has devalued age or is it just simply placing more emphasis on the click-through/bounce back ratio?
I've removed the plural widgets from our home page. Previously our home page was #1 for widgets service , now our home page is not in the top 100 and inner page is at #86.
My hypothesis is that if you rank well for the singular of certain words then it takes very little use on page to also rank for the plural. The reverse does not work however for the terms that I follow.
Can anyone add weight to or destroy this hypothesis?
[edited by: Hissingsid at 10:10 am (utc) on Mar. 10, 2008]
I assume that this may be a new version of what I've called the "honeymoon period" for new sites. That is, if the user data that Google collects for a new site in the SERPs doesn't show that Google searchers like it, it still may vanish just as fast as it showed up. Time will tell.
Can anyone confirm if this applies to the websites that has experienced heavy drops?
I know Google segments it's front page SERPs so that certain classifications of sites show so there is variety. At least for now they seem to have added the "new site" classification to the front page mix. I can see it in the form of 2 different newer sites which should not be there, rotating to the front page, but never being there at the same time.
they seem to have added the "new site" classification to the front page mix. I can see it in the form of 2 different newer sites which should not be there, rotating to the front page, but never being there at the same time
Isn't what's going on pretty characteristic of a 'true' Google dance,
or am I just remembering the old days .. ?
Isn't what's going on pretty characteristic of a 'true' Google dance...?
On Friday night it sure looked like it on the datacenters/IPs. Different IPs were all over the place.
On Saturday they returned to being in sync.
On Sunday they stayed in sync and moved together like a conga line.
Some keywords I looked at were all over the map 1 to 10. Others were stable 1 to 5 with movement 6 to 10.
or am I just remembering the old days .. ?
Probably just some kind of nostaliga ;) Google's infrastructure is vastly different compared to the days when we had a once-a-month "Google Dance".
I think that JeremyL's observation of two new sites "rotating to the front page, but never being there at the same time" is fascinating. I'm on the lookout for more examples of that one!
I have seen 7-9 position sites individually, jump to position 3 or 5, occasionally position 2.
Then the site drops back and another site will jump up and go back.
The cycle time is about 6-12 hours.
There are also periods of time, hours that these sites remain in positions 7-9. Not always in the same order.
This observation is all for the same three word phrase.
These are NOT new sites, they have been around since at least 2000.