Google kicked out SEOChat from its index

[sufyaaan]

Surprisingly enough, Google is on its way to completely delisting SEOChat.com from its index.

site:forums.seochat.com (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=http://forums.seochat.com%2F&btnG=Google+Search&meta=) shows no results.

site:www.seochat.com (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=www.seochat.com%2F&btnG=Google+Search&meta=) shows no results.

They are baffled to the bone and needs your help… Hehe… :D

[rustybrick]

I see 12,700 pages indexed - http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.seochat.com

But the forums look to be delisted http://www.google.com/search?q=site:forums.seochat.com

[dazzlindonna]

Big Daddy datacenters are slicing and dicing many sites (meaning, rapidly dumping their pages into supplemental results). It could be just a temporary thing while BD gets itself worked out, or it could be a bug, or it could be something BD wants to do intentionally. In any case, it's likely just one of many sites that are affected by BD.

Or...it could be that their little plan to strategically use nofollow everywhere but a sitemap has backfired on them. If so, that too is probably temporary until G gets all the changes sorted out. However, that kind of temporary thing can often last quite a few very painful months.

[rustybrick]

Dazz, do you see any pages for the www?

[dazzlindonna]

Yes, but some dcs show 265,000, some 12,700, so there's obviously delisting happening.

[sufyaaan]

For me...

Running the query forums.seochat.com on Google.com returns only a single result.

Running the query www.seochat.com on Google.com returns only a single result.

Running the query site:forums.seochat.com on Google.com returns 265,000 results - all much like Supp. results without their unique snippets.

Running the query site:www.seochat.com on Google.com returns 265,000 results - all much like Supp. results without their unique snippets.

[gabs]

hmmm..

Wonder if anyone external had anything to do with it ?

SC really p**sed some people off..

[seo-ireland]

I think it's a temporary thing. Lots of forums going supplimental and losing pages all over the place.

[amitpatel_3001]

I Also feel thats its a temporary one.
Because all my sites were also having same type of results 2 days back and i got a lot worried thinking that i was banned.

[rustybrick]

Our forum looks pretty healthy

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:forums.seroundtable.com

So does:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:forums.searchenginewatch.com

[gabs]

Yep not seeing any problems with mine yours or DD forums..

SC is flaging some filter/penalty ...

[leeds1]

if you dig a little on searchenginewatch you'll see the pages go duplicate

eg: http://64.233.179.104/search?q=site:forums.searchenginewatch.com&hl=en&lr=&start=70&sa=N

and if you search mcdar on all the DCs for "seo forums" SEW is OK on the "old" ones but not BD - so they have probs

looks like heavily seo'd forums are toast - VB ones with no mods are OK

[Jordo]

The problem is widespread, not just with forums or seochat. webmasterworld suplemental - Big Daddy thread (http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/33351.htm)

People are also leaving comments about it on Matt Cutt's blog.

[rustybrick]

Supplemental is different then delisted, no? :)

[randfish]

Note that for the search query "SEO" at Google, www.seochat.com is still the first organic result (below the onebox for the stock quote - which is pure idiocy).

In that result, I still see the forums as one of the options, but that appears to be its only listing in the Google SERPs. It's damn odd to me that they'd penalize the indexing but not the rankings.... Makes me wonder if there isn't something going on from the SEOChat admins - in the robots.txt or on the server level.

[rustybrick]

I heard they recently deployed many nofollow attributes to the site. Maybe they over did it? Maybe not.

But for the term SEO, the forums is a category link, not sure exactly how those work. :)

The www seems to be fine to me.

[sufyaaan]

I heard they recently deployed many nofollow attributes to the site. Maybe they over did it? Maybe not.

But for the term SEO, the forums is a category link, not sure exactly how those work. :)

The www seems to be fine to me.
Barry - As far as I know, its's all algorithmic. According to Matt Cutts, the algorithms pick the sites where this could be helpful. Of course money isn’t involved at all. Here is the link to the blog http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/ui-fun-better-snippets

[rustybrick]

Right, but it may run off a slightly different index or be coded differently, to currently not exclude pages that are delisted.

[rustybrick]

It may be the use of 301s that has made Google go out of whack on this. If they did any massive 301ing of URLs, Google has reportedly been having problems with it in the big daddy index.

[Jordo]

Supplemental is different then delisted, no? :)

True... thought I read on the seochat forums that their pages went supplemental. Should have checked for myself before posting.

[sufyaaan]

It may be the use of 301s that has made Google go out of whack on this. If they did any massive 301ing of URLs, Google has reportedly been having problems with it in the big daddy index.
That's not out of the question.

I remember they implemented descriptive URLs soon before the fallout and must have done 301s on the old ones massively. So that might have triggered any flag or whatever that led to the current scenario.

I have a hunch that their massive usage of nofollow on nearly all outbound links all of a sudden OR its usage even on internal pages might have caused the trouble. ;)

[roudy]

I had such problem before. I fixed it by removing the METAs below:

<meta http-equiv="Pragma" content="no-cache" />
<meta http-equiv="Expires" content="-1" /> <meta http-equiv="Cache-Control" content="no-cache" />

These METAs are used in forum.seochat.com page source.

Believe or not this is the solution, remove it and see the results!

[Wit]

Ummm, you're kidding, right?
{goes off to change the seochat html code}



But to be honest: these meta tags are both practically useless and totally harmless :) Can't imagine them having ANYTHING to do with this.

[Robert Paulson]

Our forum looks pretty healthy

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:forums.seroundtable.com
[/url]

As I dig I only show 304 results before they "omitted similar results", despite reporting 10,400 results.

And I haven't checked datacenter to datacenter (which is quite possibly the reason for this), but I'm seeing something with our forum similar to what Rand reported - pages that appear as supplemental, or don't appear at all in a site: search are still ranking quite nicely.

[gabs]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2005-32%2CGGLG%3Aen&q=site%3Awww.aberdareonline.co.uk&meta=

Amazing :D

[rustybrick]

As I dig I only show 304 results before they "omitted similar results", despite reporting 10,400 results.

And I haven't checked datacenter to datacenter (which is quite possibly the reason for this), but I'm seeing something with our forum similar to what Rand reported - pages that appear as supplemental, or don't appear at all in a site: search are still ranking quite nicely.
That is good, because this forum only has about 500 unique threads.

[ShoeMoney]

Wow good thing they implemented that whole nofollow tag so they could retain there PR =P

[pk_synths]

Could this be Google's "Don't Be Greedy" Penalty?? ;P It's amazing how the tides can turn in a matter of a few short months.

[randfish]

I'm seeing a few hundred thousand results - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aforums.seochat.com

Have they been put back in? Was it a spidering issue? Did someone throw up a nofollow in the robots.txt?

[Wit]

I remember Googleguy mentioning something about a (general) fix of the supplemental/deindexing issue. Could be that. Nothing much betweem the lines of his post. Of course he didn't mention SC specifically (since he posted on WMW heheh)

[cityneil]

I remember they implemented descriptive URLs soon before the fallout and must have done 301s on the old ones massively. So that might have triggered any flag or whatever that led to the current scenario.

Matt Cutts said at SES NY there was no limit to the number of 301's for any site. He did say not a good idea to redirect a redirect!

[rustybrick]

I still get

Your search - site:forums.seochat.com - did not match any documents.

[gabs]

Works for me in London..

but just went on Mcdar..

And got "Your search - site:forums.seochat.com - did not match any documents. "


On
64.233.161.147
64.233.171.99
64.233.171.104
64.233.171.147

so on..

Its about 50/50 on mcdar DC's

woo hoo 200 posts ;)

[dazzlindonna]

Googleguy update on the supplemental problem - we'll soon see if that is what is affecting seo chat or not.

"I think we found what the immediate issue was. Future indexing should start picking up most affected people's pages again, though it may take a few more days for it to be visible."