Re: Bourbon Update - trying to sort out aftermath

Lupercali wrote:

I'm co-editor of a film database site. Principally I do the editorial half
and my co-ed does the coding, which means she should probably be talking
to you, not me, but such is life, and I would sincerely like to understand
what the hell has happened, and is still happening to our site after the
Bourbon Update.

Basically on May 21st, or whenever it was, we lost virtually all of our
Google-referred traffic overnight. Since this accounted for more than half
our total traffic, our total hit count dropped by something like 60-70%.

Pages which had previously ranked in the top 5 Google URLs effectively
disappeared. I found one which had previously ranked #1 hiding down at
#101. Others which had ranked at #3 were entirely removed from Google's
database. At the same time our link count was slashed by over 90% (please
note, we were doing absolutely nothing wrong, or even slightly naughty
according to Google's guidelines. There may have been some 'reciprocal'
linking in there, but we were probably unaware it even existed.)

In any case, around June 23rd, there was an equally sudden, partial
recovery. Overnight, almost a month to the day after the cataclysm, we
suddenly got back about 50% of the traffic we'd lost, and Google quickly
overtook MSN and Yahoo again as our main traffic source.

This much I can comprehend. I don't understand why we were so savagely
dumped, or why we were suddenly partially restored. The adjustment doesn't
seem complete either. I've watched a page which, since the restoration,
has crept from #11 up to #7 (I think it was about #4 originally)

What is driving me nuts is why this restoration has been so _selective_. I
don't know, if I write up a new page, whether Google is going to stick it
at the top of their rankings or pretend it doesn't exist. Considering
that our pages are essentially identical in every respect except for the
synopsis of the movies (which are short, and occur well into the text
body), why would it be that some of our pages have been restored to their
top 3 positions, and others which used to rank in the top two or three are
still absolutely absent from their database (i.e., if you search our site
for them, they simply aren't there.)

There seems to be a pattern to this. For instance, every short film
produced by the Russian studio Soyuzmultfilm has been obliterated, yet
their two feature films have been left alone. European and other
non-American films (including British and Australian) have generally fared
worse than even obscure American films, even though the English language
title is always given. On the other hand, some French films have been
almost completely restored. I simply can't see any logic to it.

Basically it seems as if Google aren't ranking our _site_; they're ranking
each page, based on some arcane criteria. But seeing as how each page is
so close to identical in respect of things that would matter, why would
that make any difference?

Sorry if this all sounds very ignorant. Like I said, I'm the writer, not
the coder. I just wondered if anyone else had experienced such an uneven
effect from Bourbon, and what may have caused it? I mean, I just find it
hard to believe that they programmed the thing to hate Russian short
films, but not French animated movies.And it doesn't even hate all our
soviet short films. One of the Czech ones is now at #1 on Google. *shrug*


Tim Gadd

The dates you quoted are quite aligned with those when Google 'patches' were
installed, which would indicate Bourbon was the culprit. Several sites lost
traffic throughout Bourbon and traffic was restored (not always from what I
hear) almost completely at the end. In my particular case, I seem to have
been badly panelised by Google Images and I have not the slightest clue as
to why.

I wrote a few bits about Bourbon during the time I was badly affected (
http://www.schestowitz.com/Weblog/in...t=Go+%E2%80%BA )
and as far as I can recall, the sites to be suffering at the end, ideally,
should be scrapers and spam sources. Either way, the equilibrium was broken
in what was the biggest Google update in many years.

As for the solution or suggestion:

You mention the 23rd of June as the date of recovery. Bourbon was in fact
completed a week or so beforehand.

Is it possible that you have similar content elsewhere? As in mirrors? Any
reviews of foreign films that overlap with others? If you post the URL, we
can perhaps look at the structure of your site and get a better clue.

Localisation of search results is another thing which might provide an
explanation, especially when it comes to foreign films. Something tells me
Google are driven towards selective SERPs that are tailored to regions
(e.g.
http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archiv...rithm-changed/
).

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com

Thanks to all for help, past and future:


On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:08:22 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

The dates you quoted are quite aligned with those when Google 'patches' were
installed, which would indicate Bourbon was the culprit. Several sites lost
traffic throughout Bourbon and traffic was restored (not always from what I
hear) almost completely at the end. In my particular case, I seem to have
been badly panelised by Google Images and I have not the slightest clue as
to why.

Yes, I forgot to mention that. Previously we were heavily spidered by
Google Images; now they virtually ignore us.

Actually I haven't checked on that since the re-adjustment. It may have
corrected somewhat.

I wrote a few bits about Bourbon during the time I was badly affected (
http://www.schestowitz.com/Weblog/in...t=Go+%E2%80%BA )
and as far as I can recall, the sites to be suffering at the end, ideally,
should be scrapers and spam sources. Either way, the equilibrium was broken
in what was the biggest Google update in many years.

I know we were squeaky clean so far as anything deliberately against
Google's policies. My co-ed's theory at the time of the initial virtual
obliteration of Google referrals was that we may have been effectively
penalized for switching from an html site to a database-driven URL site.
However that happened a couple of years ago, so this seemed a little
unlikely to me. Still, I can manually code html but haven't much of a clue
about PHP/SQL, so she's probably right.

As for the solution or suggestion:

You mention the 23rd of June as the date of recovery. Bourbon was in fact
completed a week or so beforehand.

Yes, that was my understanding, too. Or at least it was my understanding
that it was _going_ to be completed about a week prior to that date.

Is it possible that you have similar content elsewhere? As in mirrors?

Nope. Not unless they've been kept secret from me. I came on board as
co-editor some time into proceedings.

Any
reviews of foreign films that overlap with others?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I think I can safely say that
nothing 'overlaps' with anything else in any meaningful sense that I can
think of.

If you post the URL, we
can perhaps look at the structure of your site and get a better clue.

Sure. The front page is http://www.keyframeonline.com


Tim