homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.144.231
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 237 message thread spans 8 pages: 237 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > >     
Well there ever be another monthly update?
Seattle_SEM




msg:206579
 6:45 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Is it going to be days, weeks, or months, before the next update? At this point, I'm completely exasperated. I've had to explain the current situation ten different times, to my clients, and I don't even have enough information to explain the situation with a modicum of confidence.

Regardless of what everyone else says, I know that this is affecting the quality of the results which Google is providing to it's users - how could it not, the last deepcrawl results are from months ago. And what percentage of the results are from the deep crawler? 80%? 90%?

Try searching for Today is April 6th 2003 [google.com], this stuff hasn't been updated in months. How could this not affect the quality of user results?

All the work that I've done in the past two months is worthless, right now, and it hurts. I'm just asking for information, so I don't continue to look like a fool.

 

pmac




msg:206580
 6:51 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Right from the horse's mouth [webmasterworld.com].

Seattle_SEM




msg:206581
 6:54 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

pmac,
I've read all that....still nothing about when the "next update" will actually be occuring, though.

Perfection




msg:206582
 7:09 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

We were given a clue already:

"More than weeks, less than months." - GoogleGuy

Be happy you know that much.

Maybe Google knows the exact date, and maybe they don't. Either way, it's not their job to tell us or really even bother explaining anything they do or are going to do to us. Their only job is to have the very best search engine they can possibly have. And if what they are doing right now is part of that job (which is seems to be), then they are doing everything they are supposed to do. Anything more than that is just us getting lucky.

Macguru




msg:206583
 7:16 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Here is an exact search for Next Google Update [google.com] on WebmasterWorld.

Most of them say there is no way to know when will be next Google update. It's even truer since Dominic. I am starting to learn reading tea leaves, I will post when I become good at it. ;)

WebGuerrilla




msg:206584
 7:27 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)


He said that the "more than weeks, less than months" clock shouldn't start until the backdate was live at all datacenters. That happened on May 23, which was only 2 weeks ago.

If you take his comment literally, he was saying that it would be somewhere between 5 and 7 weeks. That would put us somewhere close to the old tradditional update cycle. (The last weekend of June thru the first weekend of July)

Seattle_SEM




msg:206585
 7:34 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

WG, I just can't believe that Google's distibution partners would be okay with using (at the EO June) 3-4 month old data for the vast majority of the pages in their index.

Personally, if EO June is the target for the update, I think I'm going to cry.

Chris_R




msg:206586
 8:06 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'd just like to point out that: today is june 2nd, 2003 [205]

gives slightly more results than: Today is April 6th 2003 [37]

When done as a phrase

I don't buy all this google is outdated stuff - a search for "finding nemo" [a new movie]

Google 90,200
Altavista 13,042
Teoma 2,930
AllTheWeb 221,476
MSN 43

All the web has more than twice as many pages, but google blows away the others - it isn't like they don't have the info.

The ATW/Google ratio isn't that much different for a movie that came out in 1987. "Princess Bride":

Google 125,000
Altavista 64,319
Teoma 26,500
AllTheWeb 246,328
MSN 39

europeforvisitors




msg:206587
 8:20 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

I don't buy all this google is outdated stuff - a search for "finding nemo" [a new movie]

All of my new pages are in Google's index (except for two that I published yesterday, which I expect to be listed within a day or two). Google's deep-crawl data may be from April, but the freshbot is still adding new pages to the index.

zeus




msg:206588
 8:30 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Chris_R, the thing about movie is not good, I get a list from Warner Brothers 5-6 month before the movie comes, so I can prepare the site, so its ready and spidered when the time comes.

zeus

Seattle_SEM




msg:206589
 8:45 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Chris_R: This is the most outdated that Google's index has ever been, to my knowledge. Whether or not the rest of the crawlers follow suit is irrelevant - it's Google that it out of date.

Europe: While Freshie may crawl a fair portion of smaller sites, I'm working with several that have > 100,000 pages, and they are, on the whole, massively out of date.

WebGuerrilla




msg:206590
 9:29 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>All of my new pages are in Google's index

That is because your site was in the db in Feb/March. Freshbot seems to be working fine for all older content. It's those of us that have launched new projects after March 31 that are feeling the pain.

Waiting 3+ months to get new content in sucks.

mfishy




msg:206591
 10:00 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

<<I don't buy all this google is outdated stuff>>

Yeah, they have some fresh results.

It is the data that they are using to rank sites that is months old. GoogleGuy has repeatedly admitted this as well as Matt Cutts. GG said something to the effect of "we are using an older snapshot of backlinks".

Agreed WebG, this is starting to really suck. a site brought online in February isn't even new anymore and still shows no backlinks. We will probably get the update Mid July and that would mean 2 updates in 7 months.

Dayo_UK




msg:206592
 10:05 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>>>We will probably get the update Mid July and that would mean 2 updates in 7 months.

No that would be really sad :(

This has really been a bad time to do a new site or to do a re-design

HayMeadows




msg:206593
 10:08 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Waiting this long for new content does suck.

So does seeing spam ridden results. The longer this is out, the more it encourages people to cheat the system. Yes, I've filled out spam reports.

And yes, I'm becoming less and less reliant on Google everyday.

Too bad, I really like Google. PLEASE bring back the monthly updates! Those were fun :-)

steveb




msg:206594
 10:13 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Web Guerilla is right, but it is even more than that Chris_R. Many new pages are indexed... so what? That is both not the point, and not a GOOD point. The point is the new pages are not ranked *properly*. Fresh pages are poorly ranked by definition. It's almost like "guessed" pagerank. Fresh pages are ranked by guessing.

So what we have are old pages being ranked by very old data, and new pages being ranked by guessing.

Ick.

juniperwasting




msg:206595
 10:18 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

<<<<PLEASE bring back the monthly updates! Those were fun :-) >>>>

More to the point, they made sense and created a goal/deadline.

Dayo_UK




msg:206596
 10:21 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

<<<<PLEASE bring back the monthly updates! Those were fun :-) >>>>
<More to the point, they made sense and created a goal/deadline.>

Doing a continous updates make sense too - however, although freshbot is doing a good job - I dont think it is doing anymore than it did before Dominic (OK - Some pages are staying longer) - But it is just so inconsistent for both the web publishers and the web surfers :(

I cant wait until this uncertain period is over and we can start planning again.

crobb305




msg:206597
 10:22 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

I am sorry...but "more than weeks and less than months" is extremely ambiguous. He is NOT saying less than ONE Month. "Months" is plural and could be 2, 3, 4, 10, or more months. Don't get me wrong, I am glad Googleguy is here. But it has been since the beginning of May and still no deepcrawls, and no sign of an update, and the index is extremely old. Some of my new incoming links, added two days ago, have already been picked up and indexed by Inktomi. Let's go Google.

ALbino




msg:206598
 10:24 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Is everybody suffering from the latest Google update? My hits sure aren't. In fact, they're up 25% from last month, and the cache on my website is only 5 days old (June 1st). Did everybody except me really take a hit this last update, or are the people that are doing better just being quiet? :)

AL.

crobb305




msg:206599
 10:26 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

ALbino,

How old is your site that is doing so well? It could be pretty new and listed by one of the rare freshbot updates this month. Also, some have found that newer sites fared well in the last update and older sites (those with more incoming links and anchor text) suffered. So, if your site is new, I wouldn't gloat too much. Next update may knock it back down.

Dayo_UK




msg:206600
 10:26 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Albino

What goes down has to be replaced with what goes up ;)

Powdork




msg:206601
 10:31 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Waiting 3+ months to get new content in sucks.

I've got this one bookmarked for the nest time someone says the senior members are not complaining.;)

deft_spyder




msg:206602
 10:32 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

""He is NOT saying less than ONE Month. "Months" is plural and could be 2, 3, 4, 10, or more months.""

actually, thats not true. to say "less than months" means that it would be less than what signifies months... the least of that being "2 months".

If i told you id have you something in less than months, id have to have it to you a day before 2 months was official... as in 1 month, 29 days... or however many days are in that month.

crobb305




msg:206603
 10:33 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

actually, thats not true. to say "less than months" means that it would be less than what signifies months... the least of that being "2 months".

The bottom line is, "months" is plural and no one here will argue that. And by definition, "months" is anything GREATER than one month. Could be several months. We said the exact same thing in two different posts, so thank you for reiterating my point. Besides, I think you are reading too much into the word "months" if you think Googleguy calculated that the next update would be less than one month and 29 days prior to his post, based on your explanation LOL.

[edited by: crobb305 at 10:40 pm (utc) on June 6, 2003]

ALbino




msg:206604
 10:39 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

How old is your site that is doing so well? It could be pretty new and listed by one of the rare freshbot updates this month. Also, some have found that newer sites fared well in the last update and older sites (those with more incoming links and anchor text) suffered. So, if your site is new, I wouldn't gloat too much. Next update may knock it back down

My site has been up for about 5 years now. I track my daily Google traffic (specifically from www.google.com) and can say pretty accurately that it's fairly consitent (within a few hundred hits every single day). It's also consitently gone up since probably last September, with the exception of March where it went down slightly.

For what it's worth, I wasn't gloating, I was genuninely curious about how everybody could suddenly be getting less traffic. If someone is getting less traffic, then someone else must be getting more. Unless there's been a drastic reduction in overall traffic TO Google then there shouldn't be a drastic reduction in the overall traffic FROM Google. It seems to me that a lot of people must be doing better this month than last, and those people are just not speaking up because they don't want anything to change. As far as I'm concerned, if Google never changed their algo again I wouldn't complain.

No doubt all these things will be worked out after the next 'update' (or whatever they're going to call it now) and the people that are currently benefiting will be the ones complaining while all the complainers will be keeping to themselves. I just don't see the point. As long as you run a quality website with quality incoming links you're bound to be on top eventually.

AL.

twilight47




msg:206605
 10:41 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'ld just like to know why our site was dropped in the first place. I've e-mailed to google and wrote a reinclusion request, but the only response is an automatic "thanks, we'll respond to you personally". That's the last I've heard. How backlogged with complaints are they? Truly "Give us a clue"

crobb305




msg:206606
 10:43 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

ALbino,

I think most here run quality websites, especially older members. Reading back through the posts, not all sites fared equally. Some were dissed more than others in the last update. Not all sites are missing the same fraction of incoming links and anchor text. I am sure some sites are doing well...many of them have been found to be those with lots of guestbook entries, newer sites, and previously penalized sites.

Congrats that yours is doing well. Many "quality" sites are not.

[edited by: crobb305 at 10:47 pm (utc) on June 6, 2003]

webwoman




msg:206607
 10:45 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

ALbino,

I webmaster several sites - 2 of them experienced better rankings, one dipped slightly and one stayed exactly the same. The one that stayed exactly the same has stayed exactly the same for the past 18 months. The two that got better are 6 months old. The one that dipped is about 3 years old. Go figure...

ALbino




msg:206608
 10:46 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Congrats that yours is doing well. Many "quality" sites are not.

I can respect that. I have complete faith though that Google will eventually work it out and the better sites will rise to the top.

AL.

This 237 message thread spans 8 pages: 237 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > >
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