Re: Bourbon Update - trying to sort out aftermath

My literary site has been penalised 100 places in the Google listings thus
becoming practically invisible on Google. Hits are down by 50%. The
likeliest explanation is duplicate content in files which is unfortunately
inescapable with the design. The site was designed before Google existed and
I am damned if I will scrap it and start from scratch again. The people that
are damaged are those whose work I put up.


--
Douglas Clark, Bath, Somerset, England ....
http://www.dgdclynx.plus.com
"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% (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

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 06:51:59 +0100, "Douglas Clark"
<dgdclynx (AT) NOSPAMdgdclynx (DOT) plus.com> wrote:

My literary site has been penalised

penalised?

100 places in the Google listings thus
becoming practically invisible on Google. Hits are down by 50%. The
likeliest explanation is duplicate content in files

if I may ask, according to whom?

which is unfortunately
inescapable with the design. The site was designed before Google existed and
I am damned if I will scrap it and start from scratch again.

why not?

The people that
are damaged are those whose work I put up.

Only till they find someone else to put them up. Do you want to let us
have a look at the site, see if we can suggest anything?

BB

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

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 06:51:59 +0100, "Douglas Clark"
dgdclynx (AT) NOSPAMdgdclynx (DOT) plus.com> wrote:

My literary site has been penalised

penalised?

100 places in the Google listings thus
becoming practically invisible on Google. Hits are down by 50%. The
likeliest explanation is duplicate content in files

if I may ask, according to whom?

which is unfortunately
inescapable with the design. The site was designed before Google existed
and
I am damned if I will scrap it and start from scratch again.

why not?

The people that
are damaged are those whose work I put up.

Only till they find someone else to put them up. Do you want to let us
have a look at the site, see if we can suggest anything?

BB

I followed the now closed discussion on Bourbon at Google News on

http://www.webmasterworld.com and people there looked at my site and the
verdict was that I was suffering from the duplicate content penalty.