| 10:55 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Still no recent deepcrawl data.
| 8:31 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Just woke up and Yahoo backlinks are 617'000 on www2?
When did this change? Ive just woke up!
Looks like they are adding in the backlinks.
[edited by: dazz at 8:34 am (utc) on May 10, 2003]
| 8:33 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
jep, same here - strange
| 8:34 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Not strange at all really. The www-fi server is the same so basically I would imagine that Google is playing with the algo again.
| 8:44 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Confirmed. Even in fi too its 617,000. Are the deep crawl pages of last month being added?
| 8:46 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I see some of my newer pages appearing in the index. However, the number of pages indexed is below what it should be. Also, the number of backlinks is way off.
| 8:52 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Just woke up and Yahoo backlinks are 617'000 on www2? |
When did this change?
Some 9 hours ago (msg 113 of Update Dominic - Part 6 [webmasterworld.com]).
| 8:52 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Ignore, old news thanks Takagi.
| 10:46 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It looks like Yahoo regain its back links by 60% from 384,000 to 610,000 in previous SJ (not www). None of my sites has regain their backlinks so far.
Curious to know - Has any one get some backlinks back?
| 11:09 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Curious to know - Has any one get some backlinks back? |
Yes. Not what it should be, but certainly better than the zero links I had yesterday on a couple of sites. I have fresh pages showing in cache also.
| 11:16 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
WTF WTF WTF
www = 18
sj = 21
fi = 25
I had 130 links and now www is showing 18...! I was waiting patiently for the update and not getting over excited but this is just ridiculous....
*Pants some more....
| 11:17 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Although I just checked my rankings and im up big style...! Now im confused, gonna go off and investigate ill give you my findings when I have them....!
| 11:37 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
wow, i´ve got one more backlink!
Fom 150 to 151!
| 12:55 pm on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Is anyone seeing varying results on the 9 datacenters? I've got several different results going on. sj and fi still have lost my homepage. ex, in and cu show an old version of my homepage. va, dc ab and zu show the new homepage.
I just wondered if the results were this erratic for anyone else.
Also, www is spitting out old versions of my homepage.
I don't have access to my server logs. Is there a way to see the latest cache dates? It used to be available in the actual results. It hasn't been lately.
| 3:10 pm on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
my understanding to check cache is:
plug in your url
where your url appears click on archive
last visit date will show in bold.
| 3:12 pm on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Think Yahoo was the only one to get backlink back. Checked and ours are still down from 1200 to a pitiful 300. Also checked many competitors - still not showing true backlinks.
Surprised Yahoo gets such favorable treatment considering they are soon to be a strong competitor of Google.. :)
| 4:16 pm on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think we added a few more backlinks in yesterday. I'm assuming people have read HitProf's thread on backlinks too? rfgdxm1, sorry to hear that you don't like the SJ index. I also checked your ingredient theory in your spam report. People had suggested that a long time ago at the GooglePlex, but that's not the primary addition for SJ.
| 4:34 pm on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Looks to me like Google's new algo might be biased to reduce some PR status gained from 'professionally' created backlinks based on knowledge of Google's strategy - like from you guys!
[edited by: WebManager at 4:41 pm (utc) on May 10, 2003]
| 4:35 pm on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I, like a lot of people are confused about the goings on on sj and fi. We've never seen the likes of this before.
You have commented that the data on sj will work it's way onto the other data centers and recent backlinks and filters will be added later.
Did I get it wrong? Are you in fact adding in all the new backlinks and filters before the data will be spread to the other datcenters? I think a lot of people would feel happier if you could clear this up.
| 4:54 pm on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Looks to me like Google's new algo might be biased to reduce some PR status gained from 'professionally' created backlinks based on knowledge of Google's strategy - like from you guys! |
Higly doubt that. All of my backlings were legit. Most were from articles in the press and from other orgs pointing to us spontaneusly. Maybe only 30 or so are from "please add me to your links page" type of thing.
| 5:00 pm on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I tend to agree with rfgdxm1. If these are the results of the new algo, it would be a major step backwards. But, we don't really know for sure if these are the final results. Looks to me as if it's a work-in-process and it has a long way to go until it is complete. I'm still keeping hope alive. :)
| 5:14 pm on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
ya i went down to 1 backlink.. Still waiting for the others to show up.
| 5:18 pm on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Twas a minor update in backlinks, MyWifeSays. I still expect SJ results to be seen at more data centers first.
| 5:42 pm on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google bot crawled anew site of mine today for the first time
(sorry if irrelevant!)
| 6:14 pm on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My homepage is still missing and I'm not alone. Could you please address why this might be happening to many of us? There are so many instances of clean, high PR pages missing in action. Please shed some light...
| 6:15 pm on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Patience is required. My backlinks came back, somewhat reduced but I think I lost some anyhow. For the past week or so they have not been showing at all on sj, now they are.
I imagined that that was what was keeping my home page out of SERPS but no, that is still not there - it comes up on a search on the URL but not on a site search for the domain , although thousands of others do.
I'm relaxed - but it is slightly weird that a link search finds links to a page that doesn't itself appear!
| 6:29 pm on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
please tell us, if missing pages still have a chance to get in the SERPS. Knowing this would make it easier for me to go with new projects, not worrying too much about the missing pages...
| 6:42 pm on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yes Google Guy:
Please shed some light regard to the missing sites / pages. Even just say "If you site are not showing up on sj or fi right now, it's likely not going to be in this update and it could mean it's a spamming site." We will appreciate that. At the least, we don't have to keep drinking and wait for this forever coming upate which is the dooms day of ours, life gets move on...
| 6:43 pm on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
GoogleGuy - never directed a question to you directly but here's my first! 1200 backlinks down to 300 - many missing from various sites that we have developed as we have our copyright/link at the bottom of our Client sites. No method to the madness but is this going to be part of G's new algo to not allow development companies high PR's just from their Client's websites and the "DEVELOPMENT BY BLAH BLAH" tags?
| 6:52 pm on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Your are not alone as all people have 'missing backlinks' because the links are pulled from an old index 2 months ago.
You didn't LOST those missing links, if luckly, google might put them in in this coming update, the real dominic. But I doubt. So, I am quite sure they will be included in the next update (the next one after dominic).
So everybody stop worrying about the backlinks missing because everybody is the same. Even Yahoo, CNN, and Google themselves...
| 7:01 pm on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>rfgdxm1, sorry to hear that you don't like the SJ index.
So far, so bad. :( The dance isn't over, but I have serious doubts Google will find the missing anchor text to the home page of my main site. If this hold, it is something you should look into because this is obviously a Google bug. The backlinks are showing, so Google knows about them. And, this has to be a Google bug. I can see falling down in the SERPs because of an algo change that just doesn't like my on page content. However, this is such an unusual anchor text keyword there is just no way that I could fall from #4 on an allinanchor: search to not being in the top 100.
>I also checked your ingredient theory in your spam report. People had suggested that a long time ago at the GooglePlex, but that's not the primary addition for SJ.
Ah ha, methinks I am on to something. I never suggested that this was a major algo ingredient. Since you know what I am talking about, stop and think. If it were a major algo ingredient, this would positively guarantee lousy Google SERPs across the board. ;) The whole idea of this ingredient would be to make it subtle, and thus at most barely noticeable to searchers.