Loosing Cached Pages from Google

Dear All,
I have a web site: http://www.webservicesfree.com which is up for
more than 2 months. Google used to cache about 29 pages but now is
caching only 8 (using site: operator). MSN seems to cache most of the
site!!!. Please tell me why

thank you
linkmaster (AT) webservicesfree (DOT) com
http://www.webservicesfree.com

On 8 Jun 2006 02:05:55 -0700, "smart" <smart_outsourcing (AT) yahoo (DOT) com>
wrote:

Dear All,
I have a web site: http://www.webservicesfree.com which is up for
more than 2 months. Google used to cache about 29 pages but now is
caching only 8 (using site: operator). MSN seems to cache most of the
site!!!. Please tell me why

thank you
linkmaster (AT) webservicesfree (DOT) com
http://www.webservicesfree.com

A tale we hear from all over. It may be because the site genuinely has
problems, or it may be because Google has problems (it does, we know).
So you have to hang in for a bit or get someone to do a study of your
pages.

BB

--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-services.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lempicka-prints.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/armani/index.html

From a internet marketing standpoint you have a link exchange add in
the footer of that page.

In studying your backlinks I do not see many that are natural telling
me that you are inlfating you importance.

Also smart webmasters use the 301 redirect to "www".


smart wrote:

Dear All,
I have a web site: http://www.webservicesfree.com which is up for
more than 2 months. Google used to cache about 29 pages but now is
caching only 8 (using site: operator). MSN seems to cache most of the
site!!!. Please tell me why

thank you
linkmaster (AT) webservicesfree (DOT) com
http://www.webservicesfree.com

Sorry, need coffee, will respond later.

Admin Aaron wrote:

From a internet marketing standpoint you have a link exchange add in
the footer of that page.

In studying your backlinks I do not see many that are natural telling
me that you are inlfating you importance.

Also smart webmasters use the 301 redirect to "www".


smart wrote:
Dear All,
I have a web site: http://www.webservicesfree.com which is up for
more than 2 months. Google used to cache about 29 pages but now is
caching only 8 (using site: operator). MSN seems to cache most of the
site!!!. Please tell me why

thank you
linkmaster (AT) webservicesfree (DOT) com
http://www.webservicesfree.com

__/ [ Big Bill ] on Thursday 08 June 2006 11:24 \__

On 8 Jun 2006 02:05:55 -0700, "smart" <smart_outsourcing (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
wrote:

Dear All,
I have a web site: http://www.webservicesfree.com which is up for
more than 2 months. Google used to cache about 29 pages but now is
caching only 8 (using site: operator). MSN seems to cache most of the
site!!!. Please tell me why

thank you
linkmaster (AT) webservicesfree (DOT) com
http://www.webservicesfree.com

A tale we hear from all over. It may be because the site genuinely has
problems, or it may be because Google has problems (it does, we know).
So you have to hang in for a bit or get someone to do a study of your
pages.

< "site:" operator is broken > is possibility one, which leaves me somewhat
skeptic, based on observations.

I notice that some of my smallish sites lose cached pages, much like your own
site. Nobody knows the exact reason and whether this is permanent, but if
you look at some of the recent dicussions (=threads) in the groups, you will
find all the speculations.

Oh! And Google is, in general, out of hand. The engineers are still trying to
(re-)tame the monstrous algorithms, which have gone AWOL.

Best wishes,

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | X-No-Archive: No. Stand behind what you say
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
5:25pm up 41 days 22:58, 10 users, load average: 0.33, 0.58, 0.96
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

If you try to type a certain url of your site (not returned by the
site: operator) you will find that it is in google index and
cached!!!!!
thanks
linkmaster (AT) webservicesfree (DOT) com
www.webservicesfree.com

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

__/ [ Big Bill ] on Thursday 08 June 2006 11:24 \__

On 8 Jun 2006 02:05:55 -0700, "smart" <smart_outsourcing (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
wrote:

Dear All,
I have a web site: http://www.webservicesfree.com which is up for
more than 2 months. Google used to cache about 29 pages but now is
caching only 8 (using site: operator). MSN seems to cache most of the
site!!!. Please tell me why

thank you
linkmaster (AT) webservicesfree (DOT) com
http://www.webservicesfree.com

A tale we hear from all over. It may be because the site genuinely has
problems, or it may be because Google has problems (it does, we know).
So you have to hang in for a bit or get someone to do a study of your
pages.

"site:" operator is broken > is possibility one, which leaves me somewhat
skeptic, based on observations.

I notice that some of my smallish sites lose cached pages, much like yourown
site. Nobody knows the exact reason and whether this is permanent, but if
you look at some of the recent dicussions (=threads) in the groups, youwill
find all the speculations.

Oh! And Google is, in general, out of hand. The engineers are still trying to
(re-)tame the monstrous algorithms, which have gone AWOL.

Best wishes,

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | X-No-Archive: No. Stand behind what you say
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
5:25pm up 41 days 22:58, 10 users, load average: 0.33, 0.58, 0.96
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

__/ [ smart ] on Friday 09 June 2006 04:29 \__

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
__/ [ Big Bill ] on Thursday 08 June 2006 11:24 \__

On 8 Jun 2006 02:05:55 -0700, "smart" <smart_outsourcing (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
wrote:

Dear All,
I have a web site: http://www.webservicesfree.com which is up for
more than 2 months. Google used to cache about 29 pages but now is
caching only 8 (using site: operator). MSN seems to cache most of the
site!!!. Please tell me why

thank you
linkmaster (AT) webservicesfree (DOT) com
http://www.webservicesfree.com

A tale we hear from all over. It may be because the site genuinely has
problems, or it may be because Google has problems (it does, we know).
So you have to hang in for a bit or get someone to do a study of your
pages.

"site:" operator is broken > is possibility one, which leaves me
somewhat skeptic, based on observations.

I notice that some of my smallish sites lose cached pages, much like your
own site. Nobody knows the exact reason and whether this is permanent, but
if you look at some of the recent dicussions (=threads) in the groups, you
will find all the speculations.

Oh! And Google is, in general, out of hand. The engineers are still trying
to (re-)tame the monstrous algorithms, which have gone AWOL.

If you try to type a certain url of your site (not returned by the
site: operator) you will find that it is in google index and
cached!!!!!

In most cases (if not all) I found that pages really did get dropped out of
the index. If you enter an exact URL, I suspect you will just be referred to
it. Requesting the cache will point you to the page, if its cache is
inexistent (just checked this to confirm).

Best wishes,

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
7:30am up 42 days 13:03, 10 users, load average: 1.43, 1.56, 1.18
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information

When I tried it I found that the url where cached (older date)
thank you
glossary (AT) webservicesfree (DOT) com
www.webservicesfree.com
Roy Schestowitz wrote:

__/ [ smart ] on Friday 09 June 2006 04:29 \__

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
__/ [ Big Bill ] on Thursday 08 June 2006 11:24 \__

On 8 Jun 2006 02:05:55 -0700, "smart" <smart_outsourcing (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
wrote:

Dear All,
I have a web site: http://www.webservicesfree.com which is up for
more than 2 months. Google used to cache about 29 pages but now is
caching only 8 (using site: operator). MSN seems to cache most of the
site!!!. Please tell me why

thank you
linkmaster (AT) webservicesfree (DOT) com
http://www.webservicesfree.com

A tale we hear from all over. It may be because the site genuinely has
problems, or it may be because Google has problems (it does, we know).
So you have to hang in for a bit or get someone to do a study of your
pages.

"site:" operator is broken > is possibility one, which leaves me
somewhat skeptic, based on observations.

I notice that some of my smallish sites lose cached pages, much like your
own site. Nobody knows the exact reason and whether this is permanent,but
if you look at some of the recent dicussions (=threads) in the groups, you
will find all the speculations.

Oh! And Google is, in general, out of hand. The engineers are still trying
to (re-)tame the monstrous algorithms, which have gone AWOL.

If you try to type a certain url of your site (not returned by the
site: operator) you will find that it is in google index and
cached!!!!!

In most cases (if not all) I found that pages really did get dropped out of
the index. If you enter an exact URL, I suspect you will just be referredto
it. Requesting the cache will point you to the page, if its cache is
inexistent (just checked this to confirm).

Best wishes,

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
7:30am up 42 days 13:03, 10 users, load average: 1.43, 1.56, 1.18
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information

__/ [ bedwani (AT) yahoo (DOT) com ] on Friday 09 June 2006 20:34 \__

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
__/ [ smart ] on Friday 09 June 2006 04:29 \__

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
__/ [ Big Bill ] on Thursday 08 June 2006 11:24 \__

On 8 Jun 2006 02:05:55 -0700, "smart" <smart_outsourcing (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
wrote:

Dear All,
I have a web site: http://www.webservicesfree.com which is up for
more than 2 months. Google used to cache about 29 pages but now is
caching only 8 (using site: operator). MSN seems to cache most of the
site!!!. Please tell me why

thank you
linkmaster (AT) webservicesfree (DOT) com
http://www.webservicesfree.com

A tale we hear from all over. It may be because the site genuinely
has problems, or it may be because Google has problems (it does, we
know).
So you have to hang in for a bit or get someone to do a study of
your pages.

"site:" operator is broken > is possibility one, which leaves me
somewhat skeptic, based on observations.

I notice that some of my smallish sites lose cached pages, much like
your own site. Nobody knows the exact reason and whether this is
permanent, but if you look at some of the recent dicussions (=threads)
in the groups, you will find all the speculations.

Oh! And Google is, in general, out of hand. The engineers are still
trying to (re-)tame the monstrous algorithms, which have gone AWOL.

If you try to type a certain url of your site (not returned by the
site: operator) you will find that it is in google index and
cached!!!!!

In most cases (if not all) I found that pages really did get dropped out
of the index. If you enter an exact URL, I suspect you will just be
referred to it. Requesting the cache will point you to the page, if its
cache is inexistent (just checked this to confirm).

When I tried it I found that the url where cached (older date)
thank you

Thanks for that little nugget of information. It might help me better
understand what the jack is going on in the datacentres. I saw the number of
indexed pages increase steadily, which is not what I had hoped for. I was
wishfully thinking that the old status quo would be reached overnight.

Best wishes,

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Nothing to see in this sig, please move along"
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
4:50am up 43 days 10:23, 10 users, load average: 1.17, 1.21, 1.07
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine