On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 04:21:59 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>Dr. Paula E, Burch wrote:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> Disappearance of pages is rather odd. You can see the history of Google
>>> cache using the following tool:
>>>
>>> http://www.yourcache.com/
>>
>> This looks like a great tool. It doesn't do much for my site yet, since
>> unfortunately I had never consulted it before, but should more more
>> useful to me in the future.
>
>
>It is primarily used to spot disagreement across Google datacentres. I
>thought you would perhaps spot a decline in the number of pages -- a quick
>way of researching what you already have done the laborious way.
>
>
>>> Referrer.org inclusion simply does not sit well. It sounds like the same
>>> scheme which was combatted back in the days of "Florida" when link farms
>>> were targetted. Referrer.org seems like an easy target for Google to spot
>>> and penalise domains for. Remember that there are few shortcuts to good
>>> ranks because once they exist, they get eradicated.
>>
>> Oh, well. It was nice being able to see what pages were linking where,
>> but certainly not worth the troubles it may have caused. Referer.org
>> does screen out most referral spam, but not every bit.
>
>
>Don't necessarily blame referrer.org. It is hard to identify the culprit,
>yet. In the past I had some unexplained declines that had me go nuts,
>making unnecessary changes, erasure, explorations, etc. A short time later
>I discovered that I had done nothing wrong in the first place (remote
>servers were to blame) and all I had to do was to practically wait.
>Patience can pay off even when it's hard -- meantally, that is.
>
>
>> I think the issue might have been the fact that referer.org goes
>> offline fairly often.
>
>Shouldn't make a difference... it is not /your/ domain.
>
>> It may have been making it appear as though my
>> pages that includedlinks to it were not loading fully. The fact that
>> Google was still listing some of my pages that had the referer.org
>> added to them before its last cache of those pages made me think it
>> wasn't referer.org, but now it does seem like the most likely
>> explanation.
>>
>> All the referrer.org links are gone from my site, now.
>
>
>Make sure you save the older versions of the pages if it is not too late
>yet. You might, just might, discover a completely different cause for the
>decline later on. Rather than regretting having made many changes, you can
>revert.
>
>
>>> Lastly, do not submit pages to Google. Google knows your site exists so
>>> you are only wasting your time by re-submitting. If it was of any use,
>>> people would script something to exploit it. This must be the reason for
>>> that CAPTCHA they recently added.
>>
>> I may just be fooling myself, but in the past there were pages that
>> Google ought to have reached on my site that they never bothered to. It
>> seemed as though they did not want to drill down through too many
>> layers. Some pages appeared only after I submitted them. I know that
>> doesn't prove anything. Still, if they paid no attention whatever to
>> their submission form results, they would not have needed to add the
>> CAPTCHA.
>
>
>I know. It's deceiving, but the word on the street is that page submission
>has a futile effect. Maybe it is useful for small Geocities-like sites that
>have no inbound links and are therefore unreachable 'islands'.
If that were the case, why would they get indexed?
>> Thank you so much for your suggestions. I'm working at home now, and
>> not having anyone to talk to about things like this means I really get
>> stuck sometimes.
She likes you, doesn't she?
Sniff.
BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
Elvis does my seo
--
|
|
