Re: Bourbon Update - trying to sort out aftermath

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:15:04 +1000, Lupercali
<celery (AT) somanyspoons (DOT) com> 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%

OK, now, you say it was slashed - how were you measuring it both
before and after?

(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.

Was there a corresponding leap in backlinks, using the same method of
assessing this you had used prior to and post the update?

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

Ah. That may not be good. I'm wondering out loud here if you;re
tripping some kind if duplicate filter. Just wondering, mind, not
saying for sure. It may be worth taking note of.

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.)

It could well be that they'll reappear, they just didn't get
re-indexed yet.

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.

Then I'd be inclined to analyse the page structure and the ibl
structure relating to both and do a comparison.

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.

It'll be there.

Basically it seems as if Google aren't ranking our _site_;

I don't think they ever did, they assess the component parts of a
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?

Obviously it does so we might assume that Google have a different idea
about what matters.

Sorry if this all sounds very ignorant. Like I said, I'm the writer, not
the coder.

See, the coder who knows what goes on behind the presentation might
have more idea about what's different between the pages.

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.

Tempting to throw in anti-Russian shorts gags here...

And it doesn't even hate all our soviet
short films. One of the Czech ones is now at #1 on Google. *shrug*

I think you have a couple of problems but I suspect that one of them
is that a lot of stuff got dropped out of the index and hasn't been
put back in yet. I'd hang tight for a couple of months (honest!) and
then see how things are then.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:40:49 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:15:04 +1000, Lupercali
celery (AT) somanyspoons (DOT) com> wrote:

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%

OK, now, you say it was slashed - how were you measuring it both
before and after?

Do you mean our Google traffic, the ranking of individual pages within
Google, or our links?

Well, anyway:

a) by the hits coming from Google searches
b) simply by how high the page appeared in Google's results
c) in this case I only have my co-eds word to go. She told me that after
May 21 our links-in fell from about 350 to about 30 on both Google and
Alexa. I can't verify the previous figure as I'd never bothered looking at
it. The site was charging ahead, and I was perfectly happy to take care of
the editorial side of things and leave the technical aspects to her. At the
time I arrived the site was already structured such that she knew her away
around it instinctively and it was more productive for me to work mainly on
content.

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.

Was there a corresponding leap in backlinks, using the same method of
assessing this you had used prior to and post the update?

As above, I can't answer that I'm afraid, since I hadn't studied this
aspect prior to the crash.

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

Ah. That may not be good. I'm wondering out loud here if you;re
tripping some kind if duplicate filter. Just wondering, mind, not
saying for sure. It may be worth taking note of.

Yes, that occurred to me. However, it still seems peculiar, if the problem
is a similarity between pages, that it would affect some pages and not
others, when the parts which are similar are similar for all of them.

For example here is a page which Google used to adore, and now detests:

http://www.keyframeonline.com/kf.php?op=details&a=427

and here is a page which it still adores

http://www.keyframeonline.com/kf.php?op=details&a=462

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.)

It could well be that they'll reappear, they just didn't get
re-indexed yet.

Here's hoping.

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?

Obviously it does so we might assume that Google have a different idea
about what matters.

That much is clear.

[...]

I think you have a couple of problems but I suspect that one of them
is that a lot of stuff got dropped out of the index and hasn't been
put back in yet. I'd hang tight for a couple of months (honest!) and
then see how things are then.

I hope you're right. As I said, things still haven't totally settled. One
page I can think of used to rank around #4 for the TV series title on
Google. After Bourbon it plummeted to something like #50. A month later it
jumped back up to the top 15. Since then I've seen it consecutively at #11,
10, and last I looked, 7.

However, a large number of pages simply aren't there at all at the moment.

The only way you'll find 'Hedgehog in the Fog' on Keyframe via Google for
instance, is if it's mentioned on another page. *shrug*

Thanks again

Tim

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 06:06:39 +1000, Lupercali
<celery (AT) somanyspoons (DOT) com> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:40:49 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:15:04 +1000, Lupercali
celery (AT) somanyspoons (DOT) com> wrote:

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%

OK, now, you say it was slashed - how were you measuring it both
before and after?

Do you mean our Google traffic, the ranking of individual pages within
Google, or our links?

Well, anyway:

a) by the hits coming from Google searches

That isn't directly an indication of how many links you have in
Google. You could kind of get there, but it would be a roundabout
route.

b) simply by how high the page appeared in Google's results

More of an indication but I remain unconvinced.

c) in this case I only have my co-eds word to go. She told me that after
May 21 our links-in fell from about 350 to about 30 on both Google and
Alexa.

Where Google's concerned, how would she know? The backlink facility on
Google is notoriously inconsistent. Deliberately so, apparently,
Google proudly declare they just show a "sample". Alexa draws its
idiosyncratic conclusions from data drawn from those who use its
toolbar, so that's a sample too. So we're looking at two inaccurate
samples.

I can't verify the previous figure as I'd never bothered looking at
it. The site was charging ahead, and I was perfectly happy to take care of
the editorial side of things and leave the technical aspects to her.

I have to say there's no apparent indication she doesn't know her
business. I'd tidy things a bit, but that's me.

At the
time I arrived the site was already structured such that she knew her away
around it instinctively and it was more productive for me to work mainly on
content.


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.

Was there a corresponding leap in backlinks, using the same method of
assessing this you had used prior to and post the update?

As above, I can't answer that I'm afraid, since I hadn't studied this
aspect prior to the crash.


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

Ah. That may not be good. I'm wondering out loud here if you;re
tripping some kind if duplicate filter. Just wondering, mind, not
saying for sure. It may be worth taking note of.

Having had a peek I doubt that that's the case.

Yes, that occurred to me. However, it still seems peculiar, if the problem
is a similarity between pages, that it would affect some pages and not
others, when the parts which are similar are similar for all of them.

For example here is a page which Google used to adore, and now detests:

http://www.keyframeonline.com/kf.php?op=details&a=427

and here is a page which it still adores

http://www.keyframeonline.com/kf.php?op=details&a=462

Let's go at this a slightly different way. How long have you had to
login, what's the difference in what you can see between logging in
and not logging in, and is either of these two pages mentioned above
only available if you log in?

I need a hand from the others here; guys, sometimes I look at the
source code for a page on this site and there's a whacking great
session id easily visible in the code (I was looking earlier this
evening).

Sometimes it isn't there. This is weird to me but I imagine there's an
explanation.

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.)

It could well be that they'll reappear, they just didn't get
re-indexed yet.

Here's hoping.



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?

Obviously it does so we might assume that Google have a different idea
about what matters.

That much is clear.

[...]

I think you have a couple of problems but I suspect that one of them
is that a lot of stuff got dropped out of the index and hasn't been
put back in yet. I'd hang tight for a couple of months (honest!) and
then see how things are then.

I hope you're right. As I said, things still haven't totally settled. One
page I can think of used to rank around #4 for the TV series title on
Google. After Bourbon it plummeted to something like #50. A month later it
jumped back up to the top 15. Since then I've seen it consecutively at #11,
10, and last I looked, 7.

Then the consequences of the update are still making themselves
manifest. It's a bit like chucking a stone into a lake, long after
the event you still see ripples.

However, a large number of pages simply aren't there at all at the moment.

The only way you'll find 'Hedgehog in the Fog' on Keyframe via Google for
instance, is if it's mentioned on another page. *shrug*

Just what was it ranking well for? This could be very significant too.

I had a peek around your site earlier. Do you know (I expect you do)
Jack Kirby did animation in his early days? He was a tweener.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:00:30 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 06:06:39 +1000, Lupercali
celery (AT) somanyspoons (DOT) com> wrote:

OK, now, you say it was slashed - how were you measuring it both
before and after?

Do you mean our Google traffic, the ranking of individual pages within
Google, or our links?

Well, anyway:

a) by the hits coming from Google searches

That isn't directly an indication of how many links you have in
Google. You could kind of get there, but it would be a roundabout
route.

b) simply by how high the page appeared in Google's results

More of an indication but I remain unconvinced.

c) in this case I only have my co-eds word to go. She told me that after
May 21 our links-in fell from about 350 to about 30 on both Google and
Alexa.

Where Google's concerned, how would she know?

I think we're talking about different things here. Or, you're talking about
one thing, and I'm talking about three.

For example here is a page which Google used to adore, and now detests:

http://www.keyframeonline.com/kf.php?op=details&a=427

and here is a page which it still adores

http://www.keyframeonline.com/kf.php?op=details&a=462


Let's go at this a slightly different way. How long have you had to
login, what's the difference in what you can see between logging in
and not logging in, and is either of these two pages mentioned above
only available if you log in?

If you're talking about Keyframe members logging it, the only effect on
the content of the main profile pages, us that the 'login' link is replaced
with three short text links: 'log out', 'welcome back (whoever)' - which
links to the user's profile page, and 'my account', which links to what you
would expect.

Logging in makes no difference to the visibility or appearance of the pages
(except the links noted above)

I'm not sure what your question "how long have you had to login" means.

The only way you'll find 'Hedgehog in the Fog' on Keyframe via Google for
instance, is if it's mentioned on another page. *shrug*

Just what was it ranking well for? This could be very significant too.

Perhaps we're using the word 'rank' in a different context. I simply meant
that prior to May 21st, if you typed "hedgehog in the fog" into google's
searchbox, Keyframe's "Hedgehog in the Fog" page would be either the first
or the third result returned (I don't remember which). Now it doesn't
return it at all.

I had a peek around your site earlier. Do you know (I expect you do)
Jack Kirby did animation in his early days? He was a tweener.

With Fleischer. That reminds me, a store near here was selling the
original 40's Fleischer Superman cartoons for $2 a DVD. I meant to get
them.

Cheers

Tim

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:24:53 +1000, Lupercali
<celery (AT) somanyspoons (DOT) com> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:00:30 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 06:06:39 +1000, Lupercali
celery (AT) somanyspoons (DOT) com> wrote:

OK, now, you say it was slashed - how were you measuring it both
before and after?

Do you mean our Google traffic, the ranking of individual pages within
Google, or our links?

Well, anyway:

a) by the hits coming from Google searches

That isn't directly an indication of how many links you have in
Google. You could kind of get there, but it would be a roundabout
route.

b) simply by how high the page appeared in Google's results

More of an indication but I remain unconvinced.

c) in this case I only have my co-eds word to go. She told me that after
May 21 our links-in fell from about 350 to about 30 on both Google and
Alexa.

Where Google's concerned, how would she know?

I think we're talking about different things here. Or, you're talking about
one thing, and I'm talking about three.




For example here is a page which Google used to adore, and now detests:

http://www.keyframeonline.com/kf.php?op=details&a=427

and here is a page which it still adores

http://www.keyframeonline.com/kf.php?op=details&a=462


Let's go at this a slightly different way. How long have you had to
login, what's the difference in what you can see between logging in
and not logging in, and is either of these two pages mentioned above
only available if you log in?

If you're talking about Keyframe members logging it, the only effect on
the content of the main profile pages, us that the 'login' link is replaced
with three short text links: 'log out', 'welcome back (whoever)' - which
links to the user's profile page, and 'my account', which links to what you
would expect.

Logging in makes no difference to the visibility or appearance of the pages
(except the links noted above)

I'm not sure what your question "how long have you had to login" means.

I mean there's something that we aren't being told and I'm trying to
fathom what it is. It's something you probably don't know about and
your co-ed doesn't think is material. Or not, and you will find that
all the pages go back to where they were. I think we should talk
directly to her, actually.

The only way you'll find 'Hedgehog in the Fog' on Keyframe via Google for
instance, is if it's mentioned on another page. *shrug*

No, it's in there.

Just what was it ranking well for? This could be very significant too.

Perhaps we're using the word 'rank' in a different context. I simply meant
that prior to May 21st, if you typed "hedgehog in the fog" into google's
searchbox, Keyframe's "Hedgehog in the Fog" page would be either the first
or the third result returned (I don't remember which). Now it doesn't
return it at all.

No, it's in there. Use the "search within results" field lowdown on
the Google results page and it brings it up several times..

I had a peek around your site earlier. Do you know (I expect you do)
Jack Kirby did animation in his early days? He was a tweener.

With Fleischer. That reminds me, a store near here was selling the
original 40's Fleischer Superman cartoons for $2 a DVD. I meant to get
them.

I heard there's a dvd, an official Marvel release, with the first 100
or so issues of the Fantastic Four on it. I've got most of the
original issues but it'd be a cheap way of filling in the gaps in the
story-lines - I've still never read the Hulk/Thing battle.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:43:27 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:24:53 +1000, Lupercali
celery (AT) somanyspoons (DOT) com> wrote:

I'm not sure what your question "how long have you had to login" means.

I mean there's something that we aren't being told and I'm trying to
fathom what it is. It's something you probably don't know about and
your co-ed doesn't think is material.

Certainly it's something I don't know about. I can't say whether she thinks
it's material.

Or not, and you will find that
all the pages go back to where they were. I think we should talk
directly to her, actually.

I agree. I've asked her to get involved in this thread. The contact address
at keyframe, BTW, is hers not mine. I don't use my keyframe address because
I hate webmail and it always buggers up on my browser somehow. So if you
write to that address, you're writing to A. I realised I didn't include my
own email address. It's fluke (AT) southcom (DOT) com.au

The only way you'll find 'Hedgehog in the Fog' on Keyframe via Google for
instance, is if it's mentioned on another page. *shrug*

No, it's in there.

*shrug*. Is it possible google Australia is giving different results?

(either that or it's been re-added in the past few days)

Just what was it ranking well for? This could be very significant too.

Perhaps we're using the word 'rank' in a different context. I simply meant
that prior to May 21st, if you typed "hedgehog in the fog" into google's
searchbox, Keyframe's "Hedgehog in the Fog" page would be either the first
or the third result returned (I don't remember which). Now it doesn't
return it at all.

No, it's in there. Use the "search within results" field lowdown on
the Google results page and it brings it up several times..

I get two pages, neither of which are the main page for that film - which
is what I was referring to before when I said the main page wasn't
appearing.

I had a peek around your site earlier. Do you know (I expect you do)
Jack Kirby did animation in his early days? He was a tweener.

With Fleischer. That reminds me, a store near here was selling the
original 40's Fleischer Superman cartoons for $2 a DVD. I meant to get
them.

I heard there's a dvd, an official Marvel release, with the first 100
or so issues of the Fantastic Four on it. I've got most of the
original issues but it'd be a cheap way of filling in the gaps in the
story-lines - I've still never read the Hulk/Thing battle.

It's been 'wondered' by a few people how American TV animation might have
gone if the Superman style had become the dominant one rather than the
Hanna Barbera one. It isn't that much unlike the anime style in some ways.

NB one of my favourite books when I was a kid was something to do with the
Fantastic Four going to the moon. I guess you could argue that this sort
of thing has actually resurfaced via 'The Incredibles'.

Tim Gadd

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 01:07:37 +1000, Lupercali
<celery (AT) somanyspoons (DOT) com> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:43:27 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:24:53 +1000, Lupercali
celery (AT) somanyspoons (DOT) com> wrote:

I'm not sure what your question "how long have you had to login" means.

I mean there's something that we aren't being told and I'm trying to
fathom what it is. It's something you probably don't know about and
your co-ed doesn't think is material.

Certainly it's something I don't know about. I can't say whether she thinks
it's material.

I don't think she does - Alison, isn't it? I don't have her email any
more. She's re-writing the urls of the pages in an engine-friendly
fashion, so I think you should wait and see what happens after that.

Or not, and you will find that
all the pages go back to where they were. I think we should talk
directly to her, actually.

I agree. I've asked her to get involved in this thread. The contact address
at keyframe, BTW, is hers not mine. I don't use my keyframe address because
I hate webmail and it always buggers up on my browser somehow. So if you
write to that address, you're writing to A. I realised I didn't include my
own email address. It's fluke (AT) southcom (DOT) com.au


The only way you'll find 'Hedgehog in the Fog' on Keyframe via Google for
instance, is if it's mentioned on another page. *shrug*

No, it's in there.

*shrug*. Is it possible google Australia is giving different results?

Um, a little - Google Local?

(either that or it's been re-added in the past few days)

Just what was it ranking well for? This could be very significant too.

Perhaps we're using the word 'rank' in a different context. I simply meant
that prior to May 21st, if you typed "hedgehog in the fog" into google's
searchbox, Keyframe's "Hedgehog in the Fog" page would be either the first
or the third result returned (I don't remember which). Now it doesn't
return it at all.

No, it's in there. Use the "search within results" field lowdown on
the Google results page and it brings it up several times..


I get two pages, neither of which are the main page for that film - which
is what I was referring to before when I said the main page wasn't
appearing.

Are there more than one page for that film?

I heard there's a dvd, an official Marvel release, with the first 100
or so issues of the Fantastic Four on it. I've got most of the
original issues but it'd be a cheap way of filling in the gaps in the
story-lines - I've still never read the Hulk/Thing battle.

It's been 'wondered' by a few people how American TV animation might have
gone if the Superman style had become the dominant one rather than the
Hanna Barbera one. It isn't that much unlike the anime style in some ways.

NB one of my favourite books when I was a kid was something to do with the
Fantastic Four going to the moon.

Not to meet the Watcher?

I guess you could argue that this sort
of thing has actually resurfaced via 'The Incredibles'.

Can't comment as I've not seen it yet. You know I have the only proper
Treacle People site in existence featuring proper stills (well, I know
they were *all* stills) from the original production studio? I mailed
it in to your suggestions url.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:07:28 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 01:07:37 +1000, Lupercali
celery (AT) somanyspoons (DOT) com> wrote:

Certainly it's something I don't know about. I can't say whether she thinks
it's material.

I don't think she does - Alison, isn't it?

Athena.

I don't have her email any
more.

It's the main keyframe contact addy.

She's re-writing the urls of the pages in an engine-friendly
fashion, so I think you should wait and see what happens after that.

I guess I'm out of the loop.

I get two pages, neither of which are the main page for that film - which
is what I was referring to before when I said the main page wasn't
appearing.

Are there more than one page for that film?

No. But there are other pages which _mention_ it. .e.g., it may still be
showing up on the main page because it's on the recently added page, or it
may be showing up on the 'short films' page, or it may be showing up on the
'My Little Pony' page because somewhere in there it says " 'My Little Pony
is absolutely nothing like 'Hedgehog in the Fog" - but the actual primary
page dedicated to HitF isn't showing up.

NB one of my favourite books when I was a kid was something to do with the
Fantastic Four going to the moon.

Not to meet the Watcher?

Who knows what those guys were doing. The only phrase that leaps to mind
for some reason is "The Uncle Wiggly Crater"

I guess you could argue that this sort
of thing has actually resurfaced via 'The Incredibles'.

Can't comment as I've not seen it yet.

IMO not as great as it's been hyped, but while watching it I experienced an
epiphany that I was sick of 3D animation, which may have coloured my view.

You know I have the only proper
Treacle People site in existence featuring proper stills (well, I know
they were *all* stills) from the original production studio? I mailed
it in to your suggestions url.

Sorry, that would have gone to Athena, not me. But she FWDd me an email
which is probably it, so I'll check.