homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.68.109
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 85 message thread spans 3 pages: 85 ( [1] 2 3 > >     
Controversy so far, opinions please
steve128




msg:153659
 12:26 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

I do not intend to start a new thread going over old ground, what I would like in this thread is reasons why google has decided to put new results live, taken from old data
Come on people there must be a reason, google is not stupid

I, amongst others am not interested in your sites fall from grace in this thread, but your analogy of the situation as whole.

So has google screwed up, or
a master plan

 

jimsthoughts




msg:153660
 12:34 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Ever wonder if Google is doing this "on purpose". By that I mean staggering backlinks like this....we're either seeing "old" or "very old" deepbot results, with deepbot due around any day now? (a guess)makeing links close to 3 months old not count yet...
Could Google be thinking of making the amount of time that links have been placed a factor in the new equasion on purpose?...
Or is this "stale backlinks" a one time thing while they work out some changes?
Dunno - Just a thought.

RawAlex




msg:153661
 12:44 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

It would certainly help newer sites if older backlinks were somehow discounted... and it would be the inverse if the longer a link exists, the more it is worth.

If the idea for google is to get the best, freshest, most up to date results, then penalizing the older links would be a VERY good way to do this.

Alex

rfgdxm1




msg:153662
 12:45 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

My working theories are:

#1) Google is just broken at the moment. Somehow, someway they managed to hose things up. This is why so many sites got hosed. It looks like they are working at the moment with a database missing a lot of important pieces.

#2) Google is making serious changes in the way they do updates. The old way is once a month they took all the data, crunched it, and then cranked out an index. Other than freshbot adds sprinkled in, this was the final product until next months index. But what if Google is moving toward some sort of rolling index where everything isn't updated all at once? Such as doing it in chunks like Alltheweb does. If so, I'd expect such a major change in how things are done would be hard to do seemlessly. At the transition point things would be a bit rocky. If this is true, Google decided that all the sites that got creamed were acceptible collateral damage.

At the moment #1 seems to me more probable. If #2 is the case, the answer will be evident in a few months.

BigDave




msg:153663
 12:50 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Opinion is all that this is.

Google had to move the new update format data over at some point. It was easier to move the data that was already reformatted than it was to reformat one of the newer crawls, or possibly waiting for the next crawl.

It is quite possible that if they went with newer data it would take them two months to get it converted and moved to the datacenters giving us the same problem a couple of months from now.

No matter what, a major change like this was going to be painful and slow.

If they were to try and update the new database and the old databes at the same time, it would require a significant amount of additional computing and personel resources. This way they can put all their people on one project.

No Google has not screwed up. They did not have a choice in the matter. They were going to take a hit, no matter when they did it and sooner is less of a hit than later.

Now they will be able to move forward with their plans.

rfgdxm1




msg:153664
 12:50 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

>If the idea for google is to get the best, freshest, most up to date results, then penalizing the older links would be a VERY good way to do this.

You've got that backwards RawAlex from what has happened. It is *newer* links that in some cases haven't been factored in. This points to Google devaluing newer links. This would make some sense as an anti-spam strategy. It would give time for the filters to spot and whack spammers before they made it high up in the SERPs.

Morgan




msg:153665
 1:04 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

My opinion is they are moving toward something like #2 from rfgdxm1.

Seems like eventually they'd have to do it, a month is a really long time between major reindexings.

To me it would explain using a little bit older data. If they put in an old index and start a new rolling update, they can see more dramatic changes over a short period of time and gauge how things are going. If they start with a totally new one, the update effects would be minimal because not that much would have changed.

That's probably a stretch, but I definitely think they it is all planned, not a mistake.

steve128




msg:153666
 1:05 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

rfgdxm1
Yep I do agree 1# is the most likely, I was hoping to hear that scenario. But can google make a mistake like that?

How..? they can quite easily go back to ealier results and not launch

jrokesmith




msg:153667
 1:09 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Well said BigDave. Google does have a choice and has has been hinting at these changes for months. This was planned and allows them to focus on one thing at a time.

jbgilbert




msg:153668
 1:12 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Opinion:

all these things we are seeing are not intentional.

google had a problem - "huge problem" (probably costs some people their jobs).

google is trying to recover.

if you think it bothers us, what do you think the conversations are like between yahoo, aol and google at the moment?

google is only the newest search engine leader. remember, there have been other dominant leaders (in order; altavista, inktomi, yahoo) AND NOBODY (even google) can keep the number one spot forever.


NovaW




msg:153669
 1:17 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

The people at google probably get a kick out of reading these posts & rightly so. Rolling out something they themselves admit is far from complete seems off the wall - but I doubt anybody lost their job or even is mildly concerned - afterall it is like some 60's love fest down there with all the lava lamps and such.

If you think this index is any kind of threat to Google then I'd call that daydreaming. Google is practically a monopoly. They could turn the index upside down and it'd be months before it had any impact. I got shafted too - but heck what can you do apart from wait. They got to find the spam filter switch eventually when the bong smoke clears

[edited by: NovaW at 1:23 am (utc) on May 21, 2003]

steve128




msg:153670
 1:17 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Morgan
Yes good point, that does make sense the more I think of it.
But I still get niggles from a SEO pov, it would not be hard to manipulate.

Big Dave, please explain the ****e we have now, not what we are going to get in the future

cindysunc




msg:153671
 1:33 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

owner edit.

rfgdxm1




msg:153672
 1:51 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

>google is only the newest search engine leader. remember, there have been other dominant leaders (in order; altavista, inktomi, yahoo) AND NOBODY (even google) can keep the number one spot forever.

Don't forget that Yahoo has bought Inktomi. I can't imagine Yahoo would buy Ink if they didn't plan to ditch Google. I see a lot of traffic from Yahoo according to my logs. Yahoo going to Ink definitely increases the level of competition for Google.

BigDave




msg:153673
 1:55 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Steve,

I have explained it several times. They had to change the format of their database to a new format to make it easier to do what they want in the future.

Switching over instantly is not an option, as was seen by how long it took to get each datacenter switched over. This was not applying a patch to the index, which is what the normal update most likely is. They replaced the entier database.

Maintaining and updating two seperate indexes till the time of the switch would have required at least twice the resources in people and machines. That makes it not an option.

They could ignore the public index for three to five months while they put all their efforts into getting the future index ready. I'm sure that would get all sorts of supportive comments on this board.

Now if they can get the Feb + fresh index moved to all the datacenters, and get the new data migrated in within a painful month, they are way ahead of any of the other options IF this new design is that much better.

The major change in this update is not what the results that you are seeing. I suspect it is the additional hooks they have added to enable future improvements. They need the new DB to use the new software and they need the new software to implement the planned improvements.

taos47




msg:153674
 2:25 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

To me, it doesn't matter if this is what they had to do in order to improve or whether or not there is a great relief at the final result.

What bothers me is the arrogance that google is addressing the whole issue.

Using "soviet like" secrecy and cryptic revelations, google has decided to disrespect those in this forum who are mature enough to handle whatever precious timeline they are guarding, as if it made a difference whether it was revealed or not.

And make no mistake, if they don't have a clue as to the real timeline, then there is major incompetence within the ranks.

Additionally, pointing fingers at those in this forum upset by the current state of the most widely used index on the web and patronizing them for being new to this board, as if their sites couldn’t merit serious content and “they just don’t understand”, isn’t very appropriate and further demonstrates the point.

Google should just come clean and stop treating the members of this forum as if they were children. I don’t mind change. Change is good, just play it straight. We can take it.

panicbutton




msg:153675
 2:53 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Webmaster Fantasy #12

Scene 1: GoogleGuy sprints into the humming nerve-center of Google

GoogleGuy: (out of breath, panting) Sergei, Brin, the webmasters aren’t happy with the latest update!

Sergei: Ye gods! This is terrible news! What can we do to appease them?

Brin: But the websurfers are happy, they think we’ve got the best search engine ever!

Sergei: Websurfers? Bah humbug, who cares about them? It’s the Webmasters that we owe our success to, we’ve got to make them happy.

Brin: But what can we do?

Sergei: Hang on, what about we analyse WebmasterWorld and boost the SERPS of the Webmasters that whine the most?

Brin: Brilliant, we can call it “whine-rank”. Better check with legal and get that trademarked! And get HR onto finding a new employee with whine as a surname.

Sergei: Fantastic idea! And while we’re at it let’s disclose our algorithm to the Webmaster that whines the most in a given month.

GoogleGuy: Whew, thanks guys. I was really worried about upsetting them but that should take care of things nicely!

NovaW




msg:153676
 2:54 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Using "soviet like" secrecy and cryptic revelations, google has decided to disrespect those in this forum who are mature enough to handle whatever precious timeline they are guarding, as if it made a difference whether it was revealed or not.

Come on - Google is a business in a relatively competitive arena - even if they are on top. I'm sure their competition hang on every word GG writes too. Imagine if google didn't post here? Then what?

I haven't seen any disrespect by google. They made a change - most of us don't like it right now, GG has given some insight & info about what is going on. They don't owe us any explanation. They are a service for consumers doing searches - not for webmasters. It's upto them how they run their business and if we don't like it then it's tough - we are not their customers.

NovaW




msg:153677
 2:56 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

whine-rank

Now that's funny!

europeforvisitors




msg:153678
 3:08 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

RawAlex wrote:

It would certainly help newer sites if older backlinks were somehow discounted... and it would be the inverse if the longer a link exists, the more it is worth.
If the idea for google is to get the best, freshest, most up to date results, then penalizing the older links would be a VERY good way to do this.

"Best" and "fresh" or "up to date" aren't always synonymous. For many topics, the age of the link (or even of the content) is irrelevant. The age of the link isn't even a good indicator of the content's freshness, since the linked page or site may be updated frequently.

One could argue that older links should get more of a boost in Google, since (a) authoritative sites tend to be well-established, and (b) giving less weight to newer links would make it more difficult to spam the index with disposable domains.

In any case, it's highly unlikely that Google will ever be foolish enough to use the age of a link as a measure of relevance.

Polarisman




msg:153679
 3:20 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

"Whine-rank", how appropriate. Some people here think that their time is well spent REPEATEDLY complaining about how Google has "screwed up". As if Google, or for that matter most of us here, really care to hear on and on about their issues with the update. Once and we get the point.

I doubt that "most us us" don't like the new index. You just hear from those who don't like how their sites ended up in the not-yet-final SERPS. In the end it's a zero-sum game, as many winners as there are losers. The "losers" just tend to be way more vocal about how they feel.

Try to not worry about what you cannot control and focus on working on what you can.

John_Creed




msg:153680
 3:35 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>Using "soviet like" secrecy and cryptic revelations, google has decided to disrespect those in this forum who are mature enough to handle whatever precious timeline they are guarding, as if it made a difference whether it was revealed or not.

Additionally, pointing fingers at those in this forum upset by the current state of the most widely used index on the web and patronizing them for being new to this board, as if their sites couldn't merit serious content and "they just don't understand", isn't very appropriate and further demonstrates the point.
>>

100% agreed.

Morgan




msg:153681
 3:41 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Disagreed. 100%.

People have their panties in a bunch because they are basing their businesses on a search engine that used to be predictable. That's dumb for two reasons:

1. You have no control over it, didn't pay for it, were never promised anything, and chose to depend on it anyway.

2. It's best for Google to be less predictable in their algortithm. I love all the information we had on it, but it enables spam, builds a look alike web of unreadable keyword page title, and all the good information made by webmasters who god forbid don't come here to read get lost in the noise. That doesn't make them "less relevant". It just means they have better things to do.

I for one like this situation, a lot of competitors who forgot how to do any traditional marketing are spending all their time crying about Google instead of taking advantage of all the other ways of making money out there.

Stefan




msg:153682
 3:44 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

In all fairness to Google Guy, he'd be thrashed by the plex if he told us too much, and he maintained his composure for a long time through a lot of (legitimate) complaints. The guy is human (I think, not 100% on that, could be AI), it eventually got to him. I find Google to be rather a monster too now, but GG could just stay away if he wanted. I can't believe how he keeps coming back the way he does... it would be worse if he weren't here at all.

John_Creed




msg:153683
 3:47 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>
Disagree 100%

People have their panties in a bunch because they are basing their businesses on a search engine that used to be predictable. That's dumb for two reasons:
>>

That has nothing to do with the persons comment.

If Google is going through changes than fine. Tell us. If you leave us hanging or give misleading answers than people WILL complain.

That should be expected.

Kirby




msg:153684
 3:53 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

I have explained it several times.

BigDave, I agree with you, but you're going to be blue in the face explaining this especially with GG's message 3 in this thread:
[webmasterworld.com...]

John_Creed




msg:153685
 3:53 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

I agree we want GoogleGuy here, of course.

But when there are ligitmate problems going on for an extended period of time than you have to expect that people will begin to get a little grouchy.

A simple answer such as, "Google is going through changes, it might take a long time(a month or so) but in the end things will be better in the long-run," would be a much better answer than the one's we have been getting.

A week or more ago we were led to believe that within a few days to a week SJ would have propagated over to the other datacenters and the update would be over. Which turned out to not be true.

Google is a MONOPOLY. They have a responsibility to us, whether they like it or not.

GoogleGuy




msg:153686
 3:58 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

taos47, if I've come across as arrogant, I apologize. I'm trying to do the best I can to brief webmasters on what they can expect and to answer questions. I can't answer every question, but I'll do what I can to give indications that webmasters can use.

panicbutton, thanks for adding some much-needed humor. :)

deanril




msg:153687
 4:00 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think this is bad timing, IMHO.

Yahoo buys Inkomi, logic says Yahoo, will use Inkomi.

There is 80% MS by google now. Yahoo takes a walk, now its 55% at best.

Now you can debate me all you want, but the results coming up now, some are completely off the wall, no relevance.

Now is not the time to come up with unrelevant searches. Im sorry its not. 25% will be gone, they may lose more to other engines for this ingenious idea of theirs. Im with this guy.

NoveW - They got to find the spam filter switch eventually when the bong smoke clears

You would have to be very high to do this at this point in time.

Many here think google is so big months can go by with typing in pencils and Mcdonalds Big Macs are the first results you get. I differ in that oppinion.

BigDave




msg:153688
 4:04 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Yeah, those results on a search on "pencils" are all totally irrelevant. I would never dream of arguing with you on that one.

This 85 message thread spans 3 pages: 85 ( [1] 2 3 > >
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.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved