Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary. Now with pictures!
- Posted on
- Google - Searching 8,058,044,651 web pages!!
- David Off
November 11, 2004, 2:35 pm
rate this thread
I've not noticed that many changes for my rankings apart from appearing
for a competitive single keyword in pos.38 for the first time.
- Laurie D. T. Mann
November 12, 2004, 12:08 am
Re: Google - Searching 8,058,044,651 web pages!!
Some of my pages shifted a little bit; not a lot though given how many
pages are said to be showing up in the results for my phrases now. But
enough that I will be tweaking just a little here and there to see if
that helps but i am going to wait one more day to see how things stand
before I upload any changes. .
Other pages stayed the same or just dropped one spot. Given one SERP
tripled in amount of results, I don't think that is too bad of a deal.
(how many of them are dynamic duplicates?)
Its just my opinion, but dont read into this like Google is doing something
substantial to bring back all those missing URL's that vanished from the
index for no apparent reason. (That could easily double their Index) I say
this because this announcement coincides rather too close to the night I
resubmitted my site to their index under the correct URL, and amazingly
enough , the next morning , my missing pages that have been gone from the
google index since June-July are now all (nearly fully ) back in the index.
I have been posting here about my problems pretty regularly, and Emailing
Google too, but no one could really pinpoint the exact problem why this was
Googles explanation that it was a normal reindexing did not make sense
because the home page was the only one really indexed, but as it turns
ut - not really.
They had my site listed as : http://mysite.com and not
http://www.mysite.com like it had always been since the day I submitted it.
Now that the site is showing up back in the Index, I see that Googlebot is
including a LOT of dynamic pages from my Bulletin board. I suspect this was
the original reason why Google quit indexing the remainder of my site. Its
possible the bulletin board was one of the first URL's on the site as a bot
would view it back then - so if its true that Google frowns on dynamic pages
so much, then this is what happened to my site. I am still at a loss why the
site was indexed at all if indeed this is a factor, because I am fairly
certain the bulletin board was there even when Google was visiting pretty
regularly and updating the pages with the good content pretty regularly. Its
possible they tightened the belt so to speak on this dynamic URL criteria,
which caused the loss of these sites with such pages, but asking Google how
Googlebot works is a lost case.
At any rate, I decided to inform them of the above findings , but my hopes
were again let down when they only reinforced that dynamic URL's can cause
problems, but would not offer any insight on weather my site will be
reindexed or is penalized or if there is a time period before Google will
return to the site to check if its been reorganizeed to be more Google
friendly. I have since moved the bulletin board to the last URL listed on
the site, hoping if it does bog down a bot, at least the more relevent
content stands a good chance of being indexed.
I have to admit though I am disappointed in how Google handles and
appreciates concerns from site owners who appreciate their efforts and try
to give something back. I hope something I wrote here helps someone else who
may be having the same frustrations. If Google is indeed penalizing sites
with good content with intent to keep them out of the index - then for
certain the next generation of search engines to take over will shortly be
Yahoo and MSN. Neither of these sites have problems crawling the dynamic URL
| Google doubles index size:
| I've not noticed that many changes for my rankings apart from appearing
| for a competitive single keyword in pos.38 for the first time.
- » ssh on command line: force using a group size (prime size) of 1024 (and no...
- — The site's Newest Thread. Posted in » Secure Shell Forum