twilight47
msg:124013 | 1:27 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
What is the sj server on Google?
|
Bradley
msg:124014 | 1:30 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
From another thread I read about this, its one of Google's datacenters located in San Jose.
|
Anon27
msg:124015 | 1:37 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Hope this helps: www-sj.google .com
|
crobb305
msg:124016 | 1:59 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Wonder what they are doing. When we saw this earlier this week there seemed to be a cap at 1000 for backlinks. Now there isn't a cap. Yahoo listed as 382k backlinks.
|
mipapage
msg:124017 | 2:00 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
My backlinks are outta wack on the main www.google domain! <seconds later> hmm, seems to be finished...
|
jrobbio
msg:124018 | 2:43 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Yeah I'm seeing 384k. Normal results on www though.
|
indigojo
msg:124019 | 2:51 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
YEP me too link:www.yahoo.com
Results 1 - 10 of about 384,000. Search took 0.08 seconds
|
Anon27
msg:124020 | 3:01 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
LOL My 118 links went to 2!
|
crobb305
msg:124021 | 3:02 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
My 584 went to 82. In fact there is a backlink reduction across the board. Yahoo's cut in half. This can't be a glimpse at the "real" update. Hope not :) C
|
Bio4ce
msg:124022 | 3:25 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
This looks like an old database to me. Probably something they are toying with.
|
crobb305
msg:124023 | 3:27 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I thought it was an old database too until I noticed some recently acquired incoming links to my site, and relatively new cache.
|
Oaf357
msg:124024 | 4:00 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
The database is old but definitely a different algo.
|
indigojo
msg:124025 | 4:02 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Well I have a 20 day old site in this index so it can't be that old
|
kaz
msg:124026 | 4:04 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I have data in it from April 21
|
why2kit
msg:124027 | 4:05 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
no - the database conatins april 12 stuff - not that old - the other dataceners (for the stuf i looked at) contain march data
|
markusf
msg:124028 | 4:09 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
it contains one of my pages dated april 27th.. And this site isn't older then 2 weeks..
|
why2kit
msg:124029 | 4:11 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
looks like this could be bad news - maybe googleguy could kick in with some answers at this point?
|
finditnow
msg:124030 | 4:21 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
This is horrible - please tell me this isn'twhat the update will look like.
|
aek
msg:124031 | 2:39 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Do a search at www-sj.google.com for link:www.yahoo.com and yahoo backlinks show 384000 and completely different results from the other servers.
|
Jenstar
msg:124032 | 2:41 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I see the same 384,000 on sj Jen
|
alpine
msg:124033 | 2:50 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
But when I look at the cache of our home page on SJ, it shows a time stamp of 4/21/2003. On www.google.com it is 4/28. Why would that be?
|
jeremy goodrich
msg:124034 | 2:54 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
different datacenters = different index being used. it's been that way for a while with google, they do a 'rolling update' that goes out from one datacenter to another, after it gets built. With that many pages, and that many smart people working there - it only makes sense to figure they have found / or will have a solid way of workin gon 'rolling updates' in the future more, and less reliance on the monthly updates of the past. At least, that is all my opinion from the bits & pieces here and all the google articles. I believe Craig Silverstein said something like that at one point about the weekly / or what not updates. And here, we talk about 'freshbot' all the time - it only makes sense that, on any given moment, you could go to 1 datacenter - and get different info than from another.
|
mrguy
msg:124035 | 3:42 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
What is everybodies freaking obsession with the sj server. Who cares! The dataservers jump back and forth during the month because of the freshbot. It doesn't mean a thing! The update will happen when it happens and we will all get to see the results then.
|
EliteWeb
msg:124036 | 3:45 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
mrguy, i see you've taken the blue pill once before ;) Yah if you dig up info on all googles servers you find find different datacenters, each with its own indexes. You gotta figure in order for people to get best results and for them to keep everything fresh and constantly worken they need more than one :D SJ is a good center ;)
|
crobb305
msg:124037 | 3:48 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I wonder why there is so much anger on this board. mrguy,
I have never seen backlinks change by a factor of 2 or more on any single Datacenter Server unless there is algorithm testing or a new update coming out. I think most can vouch for that. All we are saying is that the changes are interesting. This board is for open discussion, not insults and sarcasm. C
|
why2kit
msg:124038 | 3:56 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
something weird is going on - if anyone has seen freshbot today please let us know. Also it doesn;t really matter which datacenter the change comes from as google does some very smart load balance stuff
|
Oaf357
msg:124039 | 4:00 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
It's an older database but is definitely using a different algo.
|
marcs
msg:124040 | 4:03 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
why2kit: freshbot is doing its usual rounds crawler10.googlebot.com - - [01/May/2003:20:06:06 -0700] "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 4431 "-" "Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)" Plenty more entries in logs.
|
why2kit
msg:124041 | 4:21 am on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Hi marcs - freshie did just visit my server (in the last 15 mins) but just to an index page. are your visits to lower level pages?
|
| This 515 message thread spans 18 pages: 515 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18 ) > > |
|
|
