CCowboy
msg:108364 | 6:16 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
rfgdxm1 Do you think it was a "load balancing" issue?
|
jeremymgp
msg:108365 | 6:18 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Hi Just searched out here in Korea, www.google.com showing 617000 backlinks for Yahoo and my site also has the sj/fi data. Looks to be migrating. Can't wait for the June update so see some new backlinks, the backlinks being "factored in" is really slow. Good luck with it all, Jeremy
|
crobb305
msg:108366 | 7:10 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
UGH! I wish everyone would wait a few seconds and then double check before posting here. NOTHING has changed on www in the past 2 weeks worth posting about! EVERYTHING has been bouncing back and forth. NO UPDATE! In fact, I see fresh dates = freshbot! ERRRR
|
CCowboy
msg:108367 | 7:15 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
crobb305 I waited about 7 minutes, before posting... saw the 617,000 results for about 56 minutes. I don't think I was that hasty... Just maybe a little to hopeful!
|
crobb305
msg:108368 | 7:16 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
| Wish I was in Dallas... drinking at "Matt's No Place." |
|
I live in Dallas! But, I have never heard of "Matt's No Place" :) C
|
Hollywood
msg:108369 | 7:18 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Crobb What? Man you people are loosin' me, what was this comment about... I think I have been be-googled out, or maybe it was that last cig, was it a cig? :) - Hollywood
|
phil_in_oz
msg:108370 | 7:18 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I am seeing some activity here in Oz - seems to be migrating from -fi.
|
asomani
msg:108371 | 7:19 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
It is 661k in India. Also, there is hardly any change in the results. This is hardly an update.
|
CCowboy
msg:108372 | 7:22 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
crobb305 It's off of Abrams and Live Oak. Very nice... They only have an Open Sign. Tell Kirk, the bartender Jon L. said hello!
|
hiacea
msg:108373 | 7:25 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
661k in uk
|
Chris_D
msg:108374 | 7:25 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I get the same as rfgdxm1. www.google can get its results from a server, via a load balancing arrangement, from any of 9 datacentres. Each datacentre has a nominal IP address - and a specific address for the machine which you connected to - so you can tell which datacentre is providing you the data. 7 datacentres are showing 661K yahoo links, on these IP addresses:
www-ex is 216.239.47.2
www.va is 216.239.48.94
www-dc is 216.239.47.46
www-ab is 216.239.47.102
www-in is 216.239.48.242
www.zu is 208.175.232.194
www.cw is 216.239.49.2 2 datacentres are showing 617K yahoo links on these IP addresses:
www-sj is 216.239.47.166
www-fi is 216.239.49.41 At the moment, I'm seeing:
www at 216.239.47.46 (ie www-dc provided the results)
www2 at 216.239.47.166 (ie www-sj provided the results)
www3 at 216.239.47.166 (ie www-sj provided the results) ....and its been pretty much like that for the past week [webmasterworld.com...] Nothing has changed - not that I can see anyway..... Do your own research, your mileage may vary etc Chris_D
|
r3ved
msg:108375 | 7:30 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
-fi results in San Diego, still showing back-links to a site that went down over 2 months ago though. That makes about what, 4 times that sj or fi have migrated to www and gone back. I would bet that by morning (PST) the results are back to the old index or we start seeing the new index.
|
CCowboy
msg:108376 | 7:30 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Chris_D, I was getting the 617,000 www. results on 216.239.53.99 for about 56 minutes. Which data center is that? Now 216.239.53.99 is showing old 661,000!
|
entropy
msg:108377 | 8:01 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
216.239.53.99 is www-in
|
Chris_D
msg:108378 | 8:06 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
The results on that IP indicate that its in one of the '7' currently saying 661K
|
entropy
msg:108379 | 8:11 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Chris_D I don't think those IPs you provided are correct.
Here is what I go on. In order: www-ex ¦ 216.239.33.*
www-sj ¦ 216.239.35.*
www-va ¦ 216.239.37.*
www-dc ¦ 216.239.39.*
www-fi ¦ 216.239.41.*
www-ab ¦ 216.239.51.*
www-in ¦ 216.239.53.*
www-zu ¦ 216.239.55.*
www-cw ¦ 216.239.57.* www2 and www3 point to www-sj at this time. Those people who keep saying SJ is moving to www, you're wrong. It's not SJ that's moving it's you getting forwarded to the SJ or FI data center. Those data centers aren't just there for Google to test out indexes. Real people are using them to query the index. Since the newer indexes are only on 2 of 9 data centers, the chances of some googler getting the new index is probably 1/4.5.
|
shaadi
msg:108380 | 8:19 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
agree with you entropy
|
Chris_D
msg:108381 | 8:25 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Hi entropy, The IPs you provided are the nominal published DNS IPs eg WWW-IN.GOOGLE.COM is 216.239.53.100
(they all nominally end with 100) The IPs I listed were from a traceroute, which said that the server I got was 216.239.48.242 at WWW-IN.GOOGLE.COM The best analogy is that its like a rotary dial group - there is a nice rounded 'published' number - and there are any number of 'unpublished' lines - ie the DNS shows a published number - I'm watching the actual line numbers. As the difference shows - DNS is nominal - you'll aways get that datacentre on the "DNS number" - I wanted to see which 'lines' they are actually using. Because I think we will see the world of a continious update soon [webmasterworld.com...] So - your IP list is correct - for published nominal DNS IPs - I have been watching the traceroute IPs.
|
AthlonInside
msg:108382 | 7:44 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
GG said this
| 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. |
|
So does that means FI is first data center (and the only for now) that get the data from SJ and is applied with newer data + filters?! FI got newer data because the total results are greater than SJ. FI has spam filter because a lot of sites is missing! ... There are strange things happening in FI because it block my site from appearing with CERTAIN keywords - should I call this the SEMI-PENALTY?! There are no dirty tricks on my site, just keywords blocked are usually used in anchor text. A NEW FILTER?!
|
cyberax
msg:108383 | 7:46 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I just saw the data from sj flash into www-ab, but a few seconds later it was gone again.
|
Dayo_UK
msg:108384 | 7:57 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
FI Certainly is not stable.... One of my Keywords is jumping from 7th to 4th and back again. AthlonInside - I have also noticed that pages are not appearing on certain keywords :( - strange perhaps their is a filter if the density is to high? - this is a complete guess though.
|
AthlonInside
msg:108385 | 8:05 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Dayo_UK, I think both of us are in the same faith! How good if it is the old time where updates is done on time and algo is simple enough to understand.
|
littlecloud
msg:108386 | 8:32 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
although both-sj,and -fi have the new sites from april crawl, only -sj has a cache of these, so -fi cant be ranking them if it does not know whats on the page?
|
Dayo_UK
msg:108387 | 8:45 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
littlecloud Most search engines manage to rank websites without caching the pages. FI data is certianly ranked.
|
entropy
msg:108388 | 8:47 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
It would know what was on the page. The mechanism for showing the cached copy is just fubarred until they load the entire set of data, which they probably don't do during the initial processing to save time. Chris_D:
I think those 216.239.48.* and 216.239.47.* addresses are just IP routers. You can't actually perform a query on any of them.
|
rfgdxm1
msg:108389 | 8:52 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
>There are strange things happening in FI because it block my site from appearing with CERTAIN keywords - should I call this the SEMI-PENALTY?! Check with allinanchor, and also a unique string from those pages. Google may have lost your inbound anchor text like they did with a site of mine. If so, you may just be buried very far down in the SERPs.
|
UK_Web_Guy
msg:108390 | 8:59 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
One thing I will say about FI SERPS is that some sub pages are still being displayed ahead of index pages. things like contact pages etc am sure this will be ironed out as things progress, but doesn't provide brilliant user experience in these cases at the moment
|
Dynamoo
msg:108391 | 9:05 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I get 661k in the UK too. As I keep saying, this is not an update, this was first spotted almost two weeks ago now.
|
trillianjedi
msg:108392 | 9:57 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
There is no question this is an update. It's just a different kind of update to the kind that we're used to seeing. It's an "update in progress". Why do so many people not understand the DNS situation with google though? This thread must have gone through that like 30 times already. TJ
|
| This 302 message thread spans 11 pages: 302 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 11 ) > > |
|
|
