Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Has Google Finished With Me?
Posted 02 September 2004 - 08:39 AM
I am hoping this doesn't sound like a stupid question, but has Google finished with indexing and listing the pages I have been working on?
For ages, whenever I ran a "site:www.xxxxxxxx.xx.xx" search, Google would come back with a list of my pages, but no description.
But only last week when I ran this search, google had suddenly taken a description from the pages and added it to the search results for each page.
Since then I have tried looking to see if my pages have now started to appear when I search for the key phrases I optimised the pages for.
But they are nowhere to be seen.
Is this because Google is still playing around with the pages and seeing where to list them, or is it simply because google has finished everything it will do for now and I simply need to do more work?
I am competing in a very competivite term and know this may have something to do with it, but after 6 months I was hoping to appear somewhere...anywhere.
I'm hoping this all makes sense and doesn't sound like confused rubbish
Posted 02 September 2004 - 08:45 AM
Now you're down to using good SEO techniques to start showing up for your preferred search terms. Both on-page and off-page factors.
Posted 02 September 2004 - 12:12 PM
What you first saw were PIPs (partially indexed pages) - Google now seems to do this with all/most sub-pages on their first pass of many new sites, fully indexing only the home page.
On their second pass, you'll sometimes see what you are now seeing, which means that many/most of your pages have now been fully indexed by Google.
However, being indexed is one thing, and being ranked for your chosen keyphrases is quite another - the difference between the two being good SEO, as Randy pointed out.
Posted 02 September 2004 - 08:05 PM
Posted 02 September 2004 - 09:55 PM
That's rather optimistic. On small sites you have a chance to get all pages indexed eventually, but not on large sites. Not these days. It's been happening this way for 16 months and is getting worse.
Take this site as an example. Find a word that's on almost every page. How about "reserved" (as in "All rights reserved" at the bottom of almost every page).
site:www.highrankings.com reserved -- this shows indexed pages
site:www.highrankings.com -reserved -- this shows listed pages
I would not call listed pages "PIPs" for "partially indexed." The fact is, they're merely listed as an indication that Google is aware that the link exists. The words on the page are not indexed at all. Even Google admits this on their site. You have to hit on a word in the URL, and even then the rankings are so low for these listed pages that they're essentially invisible.
This site is typical. I can list other large sites all day long that show a similar ratio of "indexed" to "listed" pages.
Google is broken. Go to Google Watch to find out why.
Posted 02 September 2004 - 10:01 PM
Posted 03 September 2004 - 04:50 PM
So let me get this right: Your evidence shows that all/most 'listed' pages (which I call PIPs) will always remain as listed pages and will never be fully spidered and turned into indexed pages. And the ratio will be approx 80% listed to 20% indexed on most sites. Have I got that right?
Posted 03 September 2004 - 05:27 PM
No, there is churn going on. I've seen the same pages move in and out of "listed" status. But the overall trend over the past few months is fewer indexed pages and more listed pages. It's the ratio that you have to watch over time. Like I say in my essay, the number of listed pages averages between 10 and 70 percent on large sites. Some are approaching 80 percent now, because the shift to listed pages has been fairly dramatic over the last couple of weeks. Not only that, but some small sites are seeing this now. It's getting pretty bad out there. Glad I don't do SEO!
I should hope so. I wrote it.
Posted 04 September 2004 - 02:39 AM
In that case why not say so in the first place?
Having different user names in various forums and posting links to various articles on google-watch, like many of these, isn't really going to add a vast amount of credence to the various google is broken/dying/dead scenarios. Quite the reverse from my point of view.
Posted 04 September 2004 - 08:30 AM
Posted 04 September 2004 - 03:54 PM
Nice tool you made there (scroogle). Seems to me definitive proof that there is a filter in place. Now I know where to focus my attention. Thanks.
Posted 08 September 2004 - 04:27 PM
consitently inconsistent and constantly inconsiderate of consideration
Posted 08 September 2004 - 09:49 PM
I have pages that show up both ways also. They show up as a URL-only listing if I hit on the keyword in the filename. But if I ask for an additional word that's not in the URL+filename then they show up as a indexed entry -- but as a "Supplemental Result."
The Supplemental Results are a separate index, according to GoogleGuy. The official spin is that this is for "difficult" searches where they have to go to this other index to find more results.
Yeah, okay. But the problem is that the Supplemental Results are shown at the end of the normal SERPs after they run out of links for that particular search. They are not merged into the regular rankings. So it is very little consolation when you find your pages indexed in the supplemental index. In fact, it's almost worthless.
I see the supplemental index as a stop-gap holding pattern that they installed to keep going while they fix their 4-byte docID problem. It started appearing in August 2003, which is two months after I first wrote about the 4-byte docID theory.
It's like this, I believe: If there's not a docID number for your page in the main index, then they index that page and file it in the supplemental index. And you languish there until a docID is available and something happens to get you back into the main index for that page. There's constant churn between the two indexes.
In my opinion, this is a very sorry situation. Google should be up front about what's going on with their index, now that they have a disclosure responsibility as a public corporation. It's amazing that they've managed to keep this as quiet as they have for so long. If more watchers had spoken up before the IPO, Google would have been required by the SEC to disclose this problem as a risk in their prospectus.
Posted 08 September 2004 - 10:41 PM
How is this a problem to their searchers or their shareholders?
The only people it's a problem for (if it's even a problem to begin with) are those who's sites aren't getting listed. And since G doesn't owe anyone a listing, nor do they get paid for those listings, it's certainly not a problem to their shareholders or their searchers.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users