| 11:31 am on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I personally think its a case of a great deal of big changes down google road - and these hugely major updates, are taking a long time to work round, and in some cases - as we have seen, more than a month...
I see it as google shifting things in the direction everything will be going in soon enough...
get used to it i say!
| 11:36 am on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It may be that they do shift in the future, but Google Guy has said this will be similar to previous updates, with some data added after datacenters line up. This is just a far slower process than other updates. Esmarelda will be "finished" at some point. "Francine" may go on forever.
| 11:42 am on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Sure, reneewood. I would expect at least another update of the form where the crawl/index cycle finishes and then data centers are updated in the traditional dance. |
from: WebGuerrilla's compilation thread: [webmasterworld.com...]
That "another update" was Esmeralda, combined with the merge of deep and freshbot and the signs seem to be going in that more frequent or continuous direction.
[edited by: vitaplease at 11:43 am (utc) on June 24, 2003]
| 11:50 am on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Its more like an slow update process with continuous crawling...
| 11:57 am on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Udates every 2 or 3 days I think, as rfgdxm1 said. I'm seeing some stuff that looks this way for sure. Pretty exciting/scary stuff!
| 12:01 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
<<Looks to me like -ex, -in, and -zu are involved this time.>>
Funny, I'm leaning towards cw leading the way as far as I can see.
I think we will see a rolling update soon, however I believe this update will, eventually, end.
BTW, SERPS on WWW and all datacenters have made a huge switch again, burying one page I follow from #2 to nowhere. This dance still has legs or it's just randomness from here on out :)
| 12:37 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google's data centers received the new index in the following order:
I feel fi, dc, va, ab have same data and ex, cw, in have other set of same data. ex, cw and in have more pages indexed and data is more current.
| 12:49 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
<<ex, cw and in have more pages indexed and data is more current. >>
Yah, which leads me to believe these are a bit ahead of the game.
Strange - Yahoo is showing results for a few terms that are not in any of the datacenters but briefly appeared in a few last night. Somehow the SERPS stuck on Yahoo. I know because I have a highly searched term in Yahoo but no other index and referals are still rolling in.
Maybe this is a rolling update...
| 12:55 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
yahoo and google are switching data between the first group of datacenters (fi, dc, va, ab) and second group of datacenters ex, cw, in for last two days or so. aol is just showing data from first group. sj and zu are redirected to other data centers.
| 1:27 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think it would be very useful if GoogleGuy gave us a definitive answer about the status of this update. Instead of cryptic clues.
| 1:33 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yah, that would be cool, except he probably has litle to say since the index changes dramatically every day and the datacenters are all still quite different.
| 1:39 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't know what's going on with Google, but I know that non-SEO people, casual surfers, are starting to notice. We (I was just a casual surfer until about 2 months ago) never used to notice the monthly updates. But now? One of my co-workers came over yesterday and asked me, since I'm the webmastery one, if I knew what the hell was up with Google-- he was complaining that he couldn't find anything. And last night I searched for something, found what I wanted, closed the window, and then wanted to check it again later from another computer. I searched again for the same thing and could find nothing like what I'd found before. In annoyance I had to go back to the other computer, open the browser, and look through my history to find that page, because Google just wasn't going to give it to me.
It's very annoying and I wish they'd just fix it already. Why can't they put www back on the Dominic index until they're done screwing around? These forums used to be full of good advice-- content, content, content; honesty, common sense, do the right thing, be smug when spammers get banned. Now everyone's stupid and paranoid and they're all trying to learn how to cloak and it's not going to do them any good. It's totally random. Spammers come up top sometimes, smug common-sensers come up top sometimes, and there's no rhyme nor reason despite the tremendous quantities of man-hours devoted to frantic speculation. It's just *random*.
If that's Google's new policy, then I have to say it's annoying. Sure, it shuts down the SEO industry that seems to annoy them somewhat, but it also makes it hard for Grandma to find that page about the baskets that she found last time, where was it, I'm sure this is what I typed into that little box. Etc.
So all somebody has to do is crack Google's old algorhythm and put up an SE that they can bill as "The Way Google Used To Be!"
So... any bored engineers out there? I'll draw the witty pictures if you figure out the old algorhythm.
| 1:45 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Seeing some scary stuff. -cw doesn't have my site listed at all, but all the others I am either 1st, 2nd or third. I will be absolutely delighted so long as -cw doesn't stick.
Also noticed the phenomenon in Yahoo, etc. datacentre switches are going completely crazy, more than I've seen before. I'm hoping -cw will disappear!
| 2:20 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
James_Dale, on the other hand, changing SERPS will be a great idea from the surfer's point of view.
Imagine getting to visit different sites on each search. Better variety.
| 2:23 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Speculative reasons for supporting this theory:
-Esmeralda was a witch. Don't think witches die do they?
-Sliced, diced, & spliced Update thread locked down tight as a tick before the "update's" over--or was it over then?Boxed up nice & tidy, an historical document for the "last dance"?
-Hardly any commentary from GG with regard to Esmeralda, but he did say expect one more traditional update after Dominic and here we are at the tail-end of some animal. If your theory is correct, I'd guess Esmeralda's out-to-pasture & we're off to a sputtering roll start.
rfgdxm1, any hints or guesses over there as to how the ODP factors into a continuous update?
| 2:24 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
> Better variety.
Well, more variety anyway. It remains to be seen if
more would consistently mean better.
| 2:34 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
James_Dale -- well, they would not be truly random, of course, since they are still based on relevance and PR. I suspect the main thread here is discussing how well Google is doing on that that ranking. Presumably, results are ranked in order of their final score. But here's the rub...
Out of the many top results for a given query perhaps Google could see that in some cases there is no meaningful difference in score between two results. While they may calculate score values to a precision of 1/1000th or something, I doubt the Google folks or anyone would contend that they can be that accurate.
So if you have two results that whose scores are so close as to be indistinguishable, why shouldn't Google mix up the order these results are displayed? There are some simple techniques to ensure users would get the same results within a session, but two users executing the same query might get a slightly different result set.
This would benefit users because results that were "just as good" but otherwise buried might bubble out of obscurity. While the lack of stability is disconcerting to some, I think it's really the lack of quality that people complain about.
It would be good for sites because the dramatic ebb and flow of traffic resulting from a slight change in scoring would be dampened somewhat.
And it might be good for Google by reducing the incentive to exploit loopholes in their algorithms.
It's just the folks here that would hate it, I think :-)))
| 2:46 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>rfgdxm1, any hints or guesses over there as to how the ODP factors into a continuous update?
I'd guess likely not much at all. Only thing that comes to mind is that I'd expect Google to keep a close eye on the ODP. With a continuous update, I'd suspect that changes at the ODP would tend to be factored in fast. If so, being added or dropped from the ODP could effect a site more quickly.
| 3:23 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have to do the "I do" to. I see what rfgdxm1 has mentioned. I kind of wondered about this a month ago when this all started. The Internet is an evolving business as we all know and the first SE to have almost live pages is the winner. I also remember a message by GoogleGuy that said in something like 2010 we would be whining because a site wasn't updated in a matter of seconds. That leads me to believe that rfgdxm1's theory is right on.
| 3:39 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I see one of my sites appear and disappear and reappear everytime I close and open the browser.
| 3:46 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Esmarelda will be "finished" at some point. "Francine" may go on forever. |
The next update is a male term. I vote for Update "Fibonacci".
I have been seeing continous updates as well.
Is this really a good thing for the casual surfer?
I think people have come to expect a certain level of consistency that may not be offered with a "rolling update". I am not fighting change, or stating that I mind one way or another (roll with the punches...ya know?)....but will this be something that the average user appreciates or will it be a hinderance to locating the same information?
I certainly appreciate "fresh" news, but is it applicable to all searches?
I tend to be more of a google supporter than a google "chicken little", but I'm starting to wonder if all this madness isn't just a ploy to keep seo industry amateurs confused. I'm guessing that the boys and girls at G are either laughing or crying hard right now, and with all the brainpower they have their, I would probably put my money on the former.
This quote from wired magazine always stands out in my mind....."In general, optimizers make a living by guessing what Google regards as important. The way Brin sees it, the optimizers are co-opting Google's bond of trust with its users. He regards optimizers the way a mother grizzly might regard a hunter jabbing at her cub with a stick."
I'm guessing that a little short-term disappointment for users is worth the long-term benefit of throwing most seo "huntin' dogs" off the scent of google's algo. By keeping seo's away from manipulating results, it offers long-term benefits to users by reducing the amount of spam (which is ultimately the nemesis of a quality search engine).
Most of us know that this will be a "whole new ballgame" for doing SEO. For now, the only thing we can do is build quality sites with good structure and informational content, and hope for the best.
I think the mamma grizzly is growling and clawing a bit. Just my .02
[edited by: stuntdubl at 4:17 pm (utc) on June 24, 2003]
| 3:56 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
<<I see one of my sites appear and disappear and reappear everytime I close and open the browser. >>
This is all part of the changes GoogleGuy said we would all be happy about!
Here is my advice
BE PATIENT - If you wait long enough your site might be totally gone rather than appearing and vanishing.
BUILD CONTENT - It beats mowing the lawn and maybe someday Google may index it for a few hours.
GET LINKS - Just make sure they aren't descriptive links cause then you'll be booted from all relevant terms.
PUT YOUR SALES COPY ON EVERY PAGE - May annoy the user but this way when GG ranks your contact page #1 and buries your index page, at least you got a shot at a sale
LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE- At least you now have a new chance of being #1 every day
IF YOU ARE A WW MEMBER AND YOUR SITES ARE DOING WELL - Make sure to call all the others whiners and say that Google is fine it's just that "Your site sucks!"
Seriously, though, the only plan that keeps me cranking through all this is putting out tons of pages and sites. Throw enough #$@#@ against the wall and some will stick.
| 4:03 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
--Throw enough #$@#@ against the wall and some will stick.--
I agree! Looks like this is really the only way to do good an Google anymore.
If what were seeing are the changes we all would be happy about, stop the bus and let me off.....
| 4:11 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I like the idea of a rolling update. I have a site which is growing at a rate of 5-10 pages every day. I have noticed that it only takes a two days ( for my new pages to get indexed and they are staying (not like the old freshbot).
If rolling update = More fresh content in the SERPs, then it will be better for both the websurfer and the webdeveloper.
| 4:11 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
That "Throw enough #$@#@ against the wall and some will stick" logic does make some sense, and seems worrisome. If Google is umpredictable, and a quality, stable site with lots of inbound links can't stay on page one, that webmaster might just figure that using doorway pages, domains, etc. is the way to go. If you can't win with quality, then try quantity.
| 4:15 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Instead of saying "Throw enough #$@#@ against the wall and some will stick" maybe I should have said "Throw enough #$@#@ against the wall and some will always be around the top when the sweeping changes occur every hour"
| 4:22 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I think people have come to expect a certain level of consistency that may not be offered with a "rolling update". |
I disagree. In fact, many "searchers" actually assume that Google is constantly being updated. A "once-a-month" update schedule just doesn't make sense unless you have some deeper knowledge about how Google works. Personally, I learned about the monthly "update" the day I found this forum :)
| 4:30 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>I disagree. In fact, many "searchers" actually assume that Google is constantly being updated.
Yeah, a lot of people I know think Google should be like the computer on the Enterprise. Always with the right, up to the moment answer. In the past, the truth is Google could have put on the home page "The current index is stale by X days, as the last update was on [insert date here.]" The searchers would much prefer seeing something like "The current index is updated daily for your maximum search satisfaction."
| 4:32 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I disagree. In fact, many "searchers" actually assume that Google is constantly being updated. |
This is probably true, but I think searchers expect the same results to be in the same "ballpark" as they were before. I am certainly not non-bias, but for some of the terms I have been noting lately, sites can go from top 20 to past 200 in a matter of hours. I hope there will be more consistency than this, and I expect that there will be.
| This 216 message thread spans 8 pages: 216 (  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ) > > |