| 7:41 pm on Jul 26, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I just saw a spike in my logs from yesterday for referrals from google as well.
| 10:34 pm on Jul 26, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Actually, I found some of my listings, but they look they are just recorded links. They do not have any title or description... strange.
| 11:44 pm on Jul 26, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Littleman, do you think they are just making available their partially indexed pages and you are seeing the results of that?
| 1:24 am on Jul 27, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, that's what looks like to me.
| 1:36 am on Jul 27, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I don't see anything new that we've added in the past month. Just out of curiosity, does Google EVER stop caching your pages? I use the meta tag to keep google from doing this, but it appears it's being ignored (among other things.)
| 4:42 am on Jul 27, 2000 (gmt 0)|
A quick compare of 10 searches show the same results from July 10th.
| 7:57 am on Jul 27, 2000 (gmt 0)|
New site's pages submitted 29 May have appeared, and cached.Have you also spotted this
"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 2 already displayed.
If you would like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included."
This brings up the rest of the site. All pages cached.
| 8:28 am on Jul 27, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing more new listings, these ones are being indexed properly.
| 9:17 am on Jul 27, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Links to yahoo.com show an increase from 860;000 to 2,100,000.
| 2:16 pm on Jul 27, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I too noticed the reindex this morning, but, after rechecking the results I noticed that they have reverted back to the old index. Is anyone else noticing this?
| 2:29 pm on Jul 27, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Me too. I was up early and checked the logs and noticed
several hits into the site from google. Popped over there
and did keyword search for our site and it was great...
We had over 10,000 pages of site indexed.
However, when i went to yahoo and did the same search
only the old pages were returned in the results.
Then later, this morning all 10,000+ pages were gone
from google. I was very excited... now i'm stressed
| 2:32 pm on Jul 27, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the reply Oracle....I went and checked the results once again from a different PC here in the office and I was able to find the pages again. Somewhat strange...Anyone have any insight?
Oracle....I just deleted my cookies, cleared my cache and deleted all temporary internet files and now once again I am able to find the new results.
| 2:45 pm on Jul 27, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I messed my post a little...
Its seems by 10,000 pages are now BACK. But they're still
not showing up through yahoo.
Think i'll watch throughout the day and see what happens...
| 2:04 am on Jul 28, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Looks to me, after digging for a while, that google has been fading new data into the db in order of crawling. That may be why the new stuff has been dropping periodically. They take the new data off line to update then it comes back with the
new listings. (?)
| 7:27 am on Jul 28, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Whats the latest date you know of from submission to time-to-live searchable?
| 7:50 am on Jul 28, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Brand new site, submissons started last week June:
First visit, July 4th
Last visit, July 10th
First visit, July 27th
Last visit, July 28th
Listed yesterday [well for some of it anyway]
Other new additions have also been visited by 2.1 yesterday and today, are they looking for something?
| 10:20 am on Jul 28, 2000 (gmt 0)|
It's also interesting to note, the new entries in Google.com are not yet in Yahoo's google. From my submissions, at least.
| 11:20 am on Jul 28, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Results seem to have stabilised this morning so have been running some checks.
The spam level is *high* [have they switched to Northern Light's algo?:)], doorways, refreshes, hidden text, cloaking it's all there.
Try a few searches and wander through the cache listings, it's ugly.
Seem to be more .asp pages and many more .shtml pages listed.
| 1:38 pm on Jul 28, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Also being hit by 2.1 on non submitted pages.
| 2:18 pm on Jul 28, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Well, I couldn't wait for google to come back. I hated the design on the pages it had cached. It came and re-cached, but now I'm buried! My big KW?....I quit looking after 450.
| 7:59 am on Jul 29, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Yahoogle has updated.
| 3:23 pm on Jul 29, 2000 (gmt 0)|
It has? I'm not seeing any additions yet, perhaps they are going to fade in the data the same way it happened in google.
| 4:46 pm on Jul 29, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Are Yahoogle results the same as regular Google results? Right now I'm finding they're not but hopefully they will update...
| 4:59 pm on Jul 29, 2000 (gmt 0)|
They are switching back and forth between the old and the new dB.
| 8:07 pm on Jul 29, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Do you find the yahoogle results by going to the second tab on Yahoo! (the one that says web pages, I believe?) If so, how many people actually click that tab to find results? I would think they would just take what Yahoo gave them, unless they're more web savvy, and ignore the yahoogle stuff.
| 8:51 pm on Jul 29, 2000 (gmt 0)|
>the one that says web pages
Yes, that's the one.
The difficulty in comparing traffic from the two "strains" of Yahoo is that the positions are rarely close in both.
However after the latest Yahoogle update I now have a site at No. 4 in Yahoo and No 3 in Yahoogle, close enough for a fair comparison. Give it a couple of weeks for the data to build up and I will be able to give you the percentage split.
| 6:58 am on Aug 8, 2000 (gmt 0)|
for what its worth, a few months back we had #1 for a very competitive term in both the WebSites results and within the relevant Category (top category for the term) and traffic was approx 3:1 search vs. category.
i know that's a little different than your question, but still interesting. we also had top-5 in YahInk and the traffic difference was probably 10:1 Sites vs. Pages.
But the pages is still nothing to sneeze at, and definitely still worth it, IMHO.... its still the most traffic to be had on the web, in one location, from an engine...
do others agree?
| 3:05 pm on Aug 8, 2000 (gmt 0)|
The sites vs. pages split is very dependent on the quality of the sites results. Since the sites results are presented first, a user who sees a bunch of excellent choices will be less likely to go to the pages. On the other hand, sometimes the sites results are hard to read, with lots of irrelevant regional categories and the like; in those cases, rather than wading through a bunch of junk, experienced users may click on the "pages" link right away. I'm not sure one can generalize from one keyword to others, although the data should be interesting.