Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    273
    Good News / Bad news
    Just noticed that sometime between 10th and 14th of May several of my sites that had flipped to being almost totally supplemental have now had all the supplementals removed.

    The abd news is they all now only have just a few pages indexed.

    The good news is that all the pages Google now lists do have cached copies with the relatively recent cache date of 6th - 8th May.

    My guess is that Google have belatedly realised that they have got some pretty ropey data in their databases and have given up trying to sort it out and have decided to re-crawl it all instead and re-build their databases with new data.

    Of course, I could be totally wrong but at least the above theory gives me hope.


    Meanwhile for my own ancient family homepages
    myhomepages.myisp.co.uk/index.html
    (supplemental - cache date 23 june 2005)

    is still first above

    myhomepages.myisp.co.uk/
    (cache date 9 may 2006)

    when I do a search of my own name.

    So Google still has a problem knowing that a folder default URL and an explict folder index/html are one and the same thing.



    Les

  2. #2
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    Seeing the same things, the supplemental going away:

    http://forum.abestweb.com/showthread.php?t=72583

    It's happened to me about 3 or 4 times where the Google traffic slowed up a bunch only to come back later.

  3. #3
    Action Jackson - King of the World
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,201
    The supplemental does not show up on a site: command but rest assured they are still indexed. It' been that way for a few days now.

  4. #4
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    273
    The supplemental does not show up on a site: command but rest assured they are still indexed. It' been that way for a few days now.
    Nope, not so.

    Down to 8 pages on one site and previously supplementals are now definitely totally awol

    Putting in a very explicit string for something that I know exists does not find the awol page.

    Google was broken.

    Now Google has shaken up the cookie jar, thrown out the crumbs, so all we can hope is that they are looking for new contents for the cookie jar.

  5. #5
    Action Jackson - King of the World
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,201
    Mine don't show up on a site command either but if I do a search for a specific one they turn up. So site:domainname.com pagename

  6. #6
    Crazy like a fox suzigeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,096
    I posted this link in another thread but it applies here also. Matt Cutts answers all your recent Google indexing questions :

    http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/indexing-timeline/
    Suz~~GearGirl~~

  7. #7
    All Around Web Guy Cursal's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    829
    Thansk for the update Suzi.

    Nice to see Matt putt it all in one place

  8. #8
    notary sojac Herb ԿԬ's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Central/Western NY State
    Posts
    7,741
    Lightbulb
    I think his thinking is a little skewed when it comes to what we do as affiliates.

  9. #9
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    273
    Thanks Suzi for the link to the latest Matts Cutts blog

    However on reading this bit

    The team refreshing our supplemental results checked out feedback, and on May 5th they discovered that a site: query didnt return supplemental results. I think that they had a fix out for that the same day. Later, they noticed that a difference in the parser meant that site: queries didnt work with hyphenated domains. I believe they got a quick fix out soon afterwards, with a full fix for site: queries on hyphenated domains in supplemental results expected this week.
    I do begin to wonder about the quality of staff in the Google software team. Ok they are wizz at some pretty complicated algorithms, but was a very basic error. Worse it was something that presuambly used to be ok.

    How can you not have picked up the hyphenated domain name error before going live. Have they not heard of automated regression testing. i.e. testing software that records a series of actions and then replays them against later version of the software. I was doing this sort of thing 15 years ago , albeit against green screens and not web browsers, but there again the presentation part of Google results is a dead simple browse app.

  10. #10
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    273
    Incidentally has anyone tried changing all their buy links to Javascript ?

    Presuambly then Google would not be able to work out that outgoing links were affiliate ones. Of course, one might lose people who do not have Javascript enabled, but it the traffic went up by more than the conversion ratio went down ...

  11. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. The bad news and the good news
    By Joe Lilly in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: December 18th, 2006, 03:32 PM
  2. Well...good news and bad news..
    By MoneyBusiness in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: September 14th, 2006, 09:10 PM
  3. Good News and Bad News
    By CrazyGuy in forum Cusimano.com Scripts
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: November 18th, 2002, 03:09 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •