| 4:23 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I hope its not either. But it certasinly seems like this is the start....
| 4:24 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
why2kit: both index and lower pages, including pages not linked from the index page.
| 4:27 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
thanks marcs - i'm going to start thinking about slashing my wrists now!
| 4:29 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
directory-sj.google.com is showing different listings, but I can't verify if it's updated or not. Anyone else taken a look?
| 4:30 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
why2kit: a few beers or a good night's sleep might be a better idea :)
I don't like what I see on www-sj either, but I doubt that will be the new index. The results are lower quality for my industry.
| 4:31 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
the hits from the cache I've looked at are from april and those same entries at tyh eother datacenters are from march
| 4:32 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yeah coconutz, its new. Ive got a new page in there that freshie hasnt touched, but got picked up in the last deep crawl. Also someones page on a competing term that has been returning a 404 for a month and a half is notably absent.
| 4:35 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Whatever the results on the -sj server are, I don't belive they will become permanent. For my keyword the total results are only 55,000 compared with 70,000 at all of the other datacenters. Unless Google is about to give us an update with an index that is 20% smaller, I don't think we should worry.
At least I hope not as I dropped from #1 to #4 with those results! I'll stay calm until there is reason not to.
| 4:35 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This is bizarre...
2 links on same page...
Backlink shows for site A but not site B.
Also seeing bizarre results, quite a few unrelated, some of my sites ranking strangely high for certain keywords while others not ranking well at all for keywords they have consistently performed well with.
Something's rotten in San Jose. Hope it's not a real update.
| 4:36 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Your all excited about nothing.
Earlier today, I looked a the SJ and got a totally different result than is being given now and also different than what was given the other day when somebody else stated the sj thread.
Your right, they might be testing but it certainly is NOT going to be what the results of the next update are.
It never is.
Why not the dc, ab, va, zu etc.
I guess it gives bored people something to talk about.
| 4:38 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Perhpas theyre testing out the "new and improved" hidden text algo. That would probably reduce the pages by 20%
Ot maybe theyre just toying with us?
| 4:39 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I liked marcs advice - I've got 12 pack of Bass and two packets of smokes - so I set for th evening! - I'm still worried tho!
| 5:13 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You know what, the SJ datacenter is feeding searches for google.com! That's why I see the strange results appear today when I did a search on google.com.
They are sending their test/experiment SERPs to the world without blocking it? I remember the last change on SJ last week doesn't affect/feed the search in google.com. But this time, they are.
Do you think they have finish testing their new also and is showing them to the world?
| 5:15 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
AthlonInside I have also seen these on www. Not sure what it means though.
| 5:18 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well.. my backlinks went down from several thousand to under a hundred - it seems to have gotten rid of all the internal backlinks, bar one! Wonder what's so special about that backlink.. The results are definately fresh though (9th of April).
| 5:20 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I went through some of my results, when you go to page 200 of 500 etc it shows pages and pages of links, with no description of your link. So something is definately funny.
| 5:21 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
something to add to that.. there seems to be some faults.. I'm seeing some backlinks show up, but when I click on the cache my site isn't on that page (it's a dmoz cat that it used to be listed in a couple of months ago) - certainly strange.
| 5:28 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Forget backlinks which can be subject to PR swings. Check a few results with allinurl: I can't imagine that many pages just evaporated. WebmasterWorld shows 63,000 under www and 51,300 under www-sj.
In any event, GG said in another thread a few minutes ago that the rumor of another update is way too early.
[edited by: nativenewyorker at 5:30 am (utc) on May 2, 2003]
| 5:30 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
maybe it's as simple as just loosing all of the 404 pages?
| 5:32 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
All the pigeons must be ill...
| 5:36 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If you got a lot of new files deepcrawled, or a new site deepcrawled, this is a great time to see whice ones will be in the next update, since this test does show pages from the last deepcrawl. An extra 1,000 files listed from my message boards, and almost 2,400 files that I made are there, most of those files were made during the deepcrawl and also got deepcrawled.
I sure wish they gave us a preview every month!
| 5:40 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I am noticing several things. First the reduction in backlinks is not as severe as thought. Normally, Google will say you have twice as many backlinks as they will show. For instance if it says you have 68 backlinks, then it will only list 34 and then only when the omitted results are included. On sj now it quotes the correct amount which would mean a reduction in half, although there really is no reduction at all. This may actually be the update although it would be early. I am seeing significant changes in the serps but I don't have backlinks from high pr sites that should be showing up.
Is it the update? It is MayDay, one of the larger international holidays. I think perhaps yes. If it's not then what does different serps and different backlinks equal?
| 5:52 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
For my new page, I am showing an old title on the sj server. The freshdate on April 26 showed my updated title. When I searhed under the sj server, I show an old title. Please explain............
| 5:55 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
There TESTING the new deepcrawl content.
| 5:57 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Googleguy said in this thread [webmasterworld.com] that it's too early to worry about update. But, there seems to be a lot of movement, even on www. Just wondering if maybe they forgot to give him the memo. jk LOL
| 5:58 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
yes...but when my page was deepcrawled...It had a new title...It shows a title I had from back in march...
| 6:04 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
well crob what googleguy said was "Ugh. It's too early to start all this again. :) "
| 6:09 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|well crob what googleguy said was "Ugh. It's too early to start all this again. :) " |
they started it ;)
| 6:10 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
well crob what googleguy said was "Ugh. It's too early to start all this again. :) " <<<<
Yea, the update...and all that goes with it! )
| 6:10 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
There are for all my homepages (germany) new rankings, i think it is the update!
| 6:17 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Maybe I don't have enough knowledge on the way that google works, but the deepcrawl finished on my server 4-26, so how can the dnace be starting? Seems like a very short time to rebuild what must be a very massive database