Forum Moderators: open
I checked some of my competition listed in the top 10 and did find one site that scraped some text from me.
What percentage is considered duplicate content? What percentage would trip this filter and why would my site be the one considered the duplicate content?
That's exactly what I'm seeing too, my main page doesn't have a great deal of body text on it, so because I've used the top paragraph as the link description text on many of my backlinks including DMOZ the dupe filter is being triggered. The top para is probably about 10% of the total text on the page, I guess if I add more text to that page (it could do with it anyway) then it should pass the filter? Oh well I guess my pages could do with some new body text! hehe
Simon.
Are others seeing their index pages back today? Am I actually still asleep and this is part of that last very bizarre dream I had? "SLAP" Nope, I felt that, must be awake.
Here's what I found matched:
ab, zu, sj
in, va, dc
ex
fi
cw
Last 3 have unique results from all the others. That atleast made me feel better that all 9 datacenters were not lined up. Means there's hope that there are more changes to come and I may appear where I was, which by all google standards is where I should be: near the top for all 4 of the kwp I tested, but where I only sometimes, and rarely, show up for one or 2 kwp's.
if a search term (that has mysteriously tanked) comes up the same in a search with or without "&filter=0," does that mean duplication is NOT the issue?
if a search term (that has mysteriously tanked) comes up the same in a search with or without "&filter=0," does that mean duplication is NOT the issue?
You are correct, if you are showing with or without the filter, duplication is not the issue.
After all those years you still can't remember/bookmark the URL? :)
Point well taken. With all filters Google tend to go a bit overboard, mowing over the innocent.
Any one here having the same problem again?
This is a huge point which I'm not sure many people have touched on. I have read over and over about how "the average user doesn't notice all of the flux that is going on and it doesn't really affect the usability of google".
I'm sorry but thats just not true.
Say I'm searching for a widget on siteA and I find one I like but I want to think about it. Ten minutes later, I decide I want to buy it but I can't remember siteA's URL so I go back to G but now siteA isn't showing up where it used to (like my site it went from #3 to #400)
A search engine should be fairly static to be usable and for the last 6 weeks Google has been anything but close to static.
Personally, I think something is very broken at Google and I think they must have hit a point of no return where to roll back to the old algo would be more difficult than to just fix what is in production. At least this scenario makes the most sense to me because I can't imagine that what they are doing (basically testing in production) would be something they would want to do.
2 cents from someone who never chimes in.
Something else, other than duplicate, must be being applied
1) Has GG actually confirmed that the &filter=0 is definitely a duplicate content filter?
2) I think Google has basically figured a way to test the main key term that people should be targeting, not necessarily are targeting - given the info they collect from the adwords campaigns and money keywords. Then they apply a series of filters (not IMO simply a duplicate content one).
I say this because the key phrase one of my sites is predominantly targeting is actually the number 2 most popular keyword in my field, therefore the site is actually built for that keyword.
However, despite the fact that I have not really marketed the site to rank well for the number 1 keyword, it's still the only key phrase my site is having problems with before applying "&filter=0".
Does that make sense?
I don't think there's any chance that content is duplicated anywhere...not by me and I doubt I'm a big enough player that my competition would bother.
Even scarier is that my index page doesn't show up in an allinurl search at any of the datacenters.
Luckily (sort of) I was back on page 3 for that main keyphrase so I won't lose enough traffic for it to matter, but I'm hoping this isn't a sign of worse things to come for the keywords that work for me.
Yes there is an duplicate site of my index. :-)
But is was my own mistake. I linked from every
site home to www.domain.de/index.php.
Now are two index sites in Google for my domain.
First www.domain.de/ and second www.domain.de/index.php
To my disadvantage the index.php ist much more down
in the serps.
I changed all the stupid index.php links to only domain.de/.
Hope G will next time take the right one.
myword&filter=0
I just get "no results for myword&filter=0 found"
Am I doing something wrong?
&filter=0 goes at the end of the URL, in your location bar.
I know some will tell me to redirect domain.com to www.domain.com....working on that, but I have some code written to execute from domain.com, and when I redirected, it messed up execution. So, I have some recoding to do.
But I still wonder why this would be happening.
newkeyword keyword keyword
I get the new version of the page returned with a 25th June freshtag which is what I would expect
However if I do a search for the old keyphrase i.e.
oldkeyword keyword keyword
It returns my older page with no freshtag, is this normal behaviour? Might this explain the weird duplicates problem that were seeing.
Simon.
I am in the same boat as you, but with the url 4 ways, even shows all four as backlinks:
www.domain.com
domain.com
www.domain.com/index.shtml
domaion.com/index.shtml
All four pages version of the same page is listed in the directory but dropped really bad in the results.
I don't think this is something you did wrong by linking to the page, I mean, it was not a problem before Dominic, you would think G could tell if they have the same exact file with all different paths, they used to be able to. Did they accidentally delete that part out of the new technology?
The fact is, last week this completely went away in an instant and was correct for two days. Then when the data centers started evolving, the problem returned and has dropped most of the sites with this problem down further and further over time. I saw this same thing happen with positions dropping right before they (G) flicked the switch and corrected it.
I find it hard to believe that Google and it's new technology cannot tell if they have the same file listed with differet paths and somehow merge them into one as they have always done before... at least I'm hoping there is a switch and someone will soon flick it on...
my3cents
If you are doing that search at www then you are probably just seeing results from different datacentres on different searches.
Try it again, but this time directly at each datacentre in turn, and then see if you get consistent results at each single datacentre. I expect that you will.
