homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 40 ( 1 [2]     
Understanding Dominic
Compilation of posts

 10:04 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0)

To avoid to became bored ;) I had the idea to put together some of GoogleGuy's important posts concerning DOMINIC.
For sure not complete, but most essentials should be covered.

Maybe it would be nice if others add what I forgot. It would be nice, too, if we can keep it like some kind of an overview - focused on topic.

Here I go:

SJ started testing a new index with a sightly different build of backlinks.
GoogleGuy msg #44 May 5
rfgdxm1, every index has to pass a really stringent battery of tests before it becomes visible. SEOs might notice a slightly different build of backlinks, but things like that could be balanced by factors that improve search quality more in other areas. The other thing to bear in mind is that it's easy to re-sync something like backlinks or spam snapshots once you're convinced that an algorithm or method is an improvement.

SJ results will show up at other data centers soon
GoogleGuy msg #107 May 5
Critter, it wouldn't surprise me to see SJ results start to show up at other data centers soon.

Test of new method with a known base of backlinks, bringing in more up-to-date backlink and spam info later on
GoogleGuy msg #134 May 5
Traveler, good question. From the first few posts of that 500+ thread, several people mentioned that they have some very new results in SJ. It's natural that we would test new methods by using a known base of backlinks, but that shouldn't be discouraging to people--backlinks are the sort of data that Google could bring back in over a relatively short time frame. And the same thing goes for known snapshots of spam--that can be brought in fairly quickly as well. SEOs notice whether a backlink comes from two months ago or one month ago, but typical users would care more about fresher pages.

SJ index is not old
GoogleGuy msg #146 May 5
Critter, the SJ index isn't an older index. You can verify that by doing a topical query such as SARS. The results are more fresh in SJ than they are in our regular index.

About backlinks from forums
GoogleGuy msg #160 May 5
Critter, if it's the site listed in your profile, it looks like you only have 5-6 domains that link to your site. A few of those are forum links that might not have made it into the base of backlinks. Getting links from places like the Open Directory Project would help, for example.

About guestbook links
GoogleGuy msg 165 May 5
Much more likely that those guestbook links just aren't given weight now, rfgdxm1.

Backlinks and spam snapshots will be added later
GoogleGuy msg 178 May 5
mcavic, I think I did say that newer backlinks and spam snapshots would be pending to be applied over time. Or at least I tried to. :)

SJ data will show up at other data centers first, new data / filters after that
GoogleGuy msg #298 May 5
albert, what you said, except I wouldn't be surprised to see SJ show up at other data centers first, and then to start applying the newer data/filters after that.

Less Backlinks for all sites
GoogleGuy msg #108 May 6
Don't be alarmed if the number of reported backlinks goes down. That's actually to be expected in the update. Most of it affects all sites uniformly, so it comes out in the wash as being equal. The better way to measure it is how your rankings/traffic change.

SJ results will show up at other data centers
GoogleGuy msg #43 May 6
What rfgdxm1 said. I think you'll see SJ results appear at more data centers over time.

Nothing new.
GoogleGuy msg #11 May 8
I'm still hanging around. There's not that much new info to convey, but I'm here.

A few more backlinks were added
GoogleGuy msg #197 May 10
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.

It was only a minor update (so far)
GoogleGuy msg 203 May 10
Twas a minor update in backlinks, MyWifeSays. I still expect SJ results to be seen at more data centers first.

sj/fi index will shift to other data centers. After more backlinks and other data
GoogleGuy msg #52 May 14
webdev, I think almost all of these questions have been answered several hundred threads ago. As late as this morning, I posted saying that I expected sj/fi index data to make its way to other data centers and to various sites. Once that data appears more broadly, we'll gradually be pulling in more backlinks and applying other data.

sj/fi data centers have been approved
GoogleGuy msg #59 May 14
steve128, the sj/fi data centers have been tested and approved. What I said several hundred posts ago was that you can expect an index like that to show up at more (and possibly all) data centers in the future.

More pages and backlinks to be added
GoogleGuy msg #73 May 14
Ltribe, I expect more pages and backlinks to be brought in with time.

Help spread the word ...
GoogleGuy msg#86 May 14
Maybe I'll just set things up to auto-post every 50 posts or so. :)
Please help spread the word so people know what to expect and don't worry too much.




 11:55 pm on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0)

Man, I am honoured - I come out of lurking with my first post, and GG answers! That's made my day - thanks GG!


 12:05 am on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)

GoogleGuy, do you know if future dances will be like this, or will it go back to five day dances and it's over? And can you tell is if the dance has started? Half the people here think it hasn't, even though it started dancing six days ago!


 2:15 am on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)

yeah, that is what we thought. no freshy data on -sj/-fi for most if not all folks. definitely not for us.

notwithstanding a few comments by GG, which did not put any timelines on anything however, we find it hard to believe these two indices would be brought live for any length of time without some freshy, freshy applied to the face first. and we don t see any freshy, freshy, yet....]

we'll check our site and the posts again tomorrow and see what we see.


 3:51 am on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)

AnonyMouse, I like your nick. :)


 4:01 am on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)

Chris_D, a slower waltz-like dance would certainly suit me. :) People can get awfully frenzied during dance time.


 5:41 am on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think this has been said before. I will repeat it :-

Generally google applies it's filters and then brings in the backlinks which helped in a major way in deciding the quality of serps(untill now). Now this time around what they are trying to do is attack SPAM right in those initial stages [before bringing in those backlinks because somehow i feel they have realised that backlinks are being misused]. Hence they are assuming that doing it this way will reduce a significant amount of SPAM.

This brings us back to the question of why an old index. The best possible answer i have got is that since it is old data they can test on it before starting to apply those filters on all the servers.(also accounts for the fact why not all backlinks are considered for now)

To some of those who say that this is a goof-up i tend to disagree. I believe that GG was not aware of the changes, but the 3 member team responsible for the updates was. They had planned this.

{Yeah keep bumping this over the update thread...}


 7:38 am on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)

trillianjedi wrote:
I'm beginning to wonder if the posting of yesterday that suggested this may be a monumental c*ck-up by google, and they are now trying to pick up the pieces, is true.

I do feel very sorry for those with sites who rely on google for traffic. It's not necessarily their fault that is the case - google created this monster, they know people rely on it, and they have a moral duty to control it.

Hah, moral duty. They have a moral duty to serve reasonable results to the public, not to keep SEO's happy or in business.

Your whining is awful. You don't even stop to consider that there might be a technical reason to not add backlinks yet. E.g. They want some simple data to test with that has not had function after function run across it.

I don't know why GG even bothers responding to such rude comments.


 10:56 am on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)

Actually, if you re-read my original post, rather than the quote of a quote which always messes things up a bit, you'll see I did assume it was a problem..... anyway.

I had way too much coffee that day - I did post something rather more light hearted a few posts down from that one!

I think maybe it's your turn for a cold beer!



 11:20 am on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)

Mil2k: "This brings us back to the question of why an old index. The best possible answer i have got is that since it is old data they can test on it before starting to apply those filters on all the servers.(also accounts for the fact why not all backlinks are considered for now)"

Ya, I feel the same. GG said several times that they would prefer to combat spam by wholescale algo rather than hand-to-hand fighting.

I believe Google's engineers have been trying several times to tweak its algo and spam filters in order to accomplish what is said to be close to perfection. Adding another spam filter might not be as simple as adding another sentence or line, but the filter/algo may be consisted of thousands of co-related functions, variables and conditions. After several tedious attempts to tweak the algo and spam filters, spam sites can still be found poping up here and there.

Then practically there are 2 ways that you can do it...Keep on revising and tweaking the algo & filter OR rebuild the new one. My pure guess is that G decided "To Rebuild the New One" as it is simpler, easier and more cost effective in the long run than to keep on reviewing and tweaking the algo/filter.

By rebuilding the new ones, G can elinimate all the bugs hidden in its algo/filter without having to spend tremendous time & resources in finding, analyzing and fixing them, and yet not sure if those bugs could be solved completely.

It is something like, if you were going to build a house, a good house contractor would give an advice that - Buy a "bare" land and then build the new house on top of it is much cheaper than buying a land with the old house and undergo massive renovation!

Starting somewhere at the baseline, Google got that "bare" land and then they can start building its new index by continuously adding new links, algo and spam filters set by set.

This is a possible explanation why G decided to take out its spam filter. It is not a nonsense act but because of economy - Economy in term of resources, time and the better chance to win.

In short, rebuilding is better than renovation.


 5:58 pm on May 15, 2003 (gmt 0)

Let's continue the discussion in here [webmasterworld.com].

This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 40 ( 1 [2]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved