| 2:09 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Sorry, I spoke too soon, it's back to 216 results. Still cooking.
This is the first big update that I've been through. Does GG let us know when it's done?
| 2:34 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Still seeing 216 results here in Texas. These results have been changing for some of my main keywords. I have seen 64 a few times briefly. 64 results are far more relevant in my industry (and my site does far better), so I hope it sticks. I still trust GG.
| 2:35 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Aol.co.uk is still showing 64 - results are good here. |
Still 216 where I'm sitting in Yorkshire ;)
| 2:37 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Still seeing 216 results myslef... also in Yorkshire.
I've been checking on and off constantly since yesterday morning.
| 2:45 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
No 64. being shown here in Ontario since sometime yesterday. Mix of everything else.
| 2:48 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Many apologies to those (especially in Yorkshire) the results on aol.co.uk are 216 and not 64 as I stated. It's wishful thinking... praying...
| 2:52 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Come on 64, we've got sweeties for you...
| 3:08 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
From here...US, Alabama...it has been 64 since last night, with the exeption of a few minutes here and there.
| 3:15 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
U have to keep in mind, that Google haves problem dealing with redirects. So it's not always a SPAM. In fact technicaly such problem should not exist at all, but it will hapen when G learns how to deal with redirects.
Unfortunately it's busy pretending to be human right now, blind one as it was pointed out...
|too much information|
| 3:15 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I love the 64* results, they are a great improvement. Any idea when they will roll out?
I'm still seeing the older results through www :(
| 3:19 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have seen 64 for 5 minute 2 hours ago on www.
and gone now
| 3:49 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It doesn't matter what Google does, until my sites show up for their few specific terms, the results are not good. I optimize my sites to show up for their terms and their terms only, because they belong there. There is no denying it.
Google needs to step back and look at what they were producing and what they are now producing.
With MSN and Yahoo coming soon, they better concentrate on what is important. Retaining searchers, not driving them away with mediocre results.
[edited by: Marcia at 5:43 pm (utc) on Feb. 16, 2004]
| 4:01 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
oh I do hope you're all wrong about 64**....
If I have to fill up my "picture pages" with text to conform ..all my customers will turn back before download is finished...just wouldn't be what they came for....
Back to drawing on sidewalks for a living!
just a thought ..
under the 64** and GG's way of thinking ...."yahoo" would be considered by "google" to better deserve # 1 slot in a search return on "google" for the term "search engine" ....it should even get # 1 for search term "google".....( one's got loads of information rich text on its start page and links back to the search term and the url of "google"...the other is basically just a logo ) .......;)
I wouldn't feel so bad if I knew that while shooting me down you shot yourselves in the foot guys ;))
| 4:07 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Can confirm: 64.* results showing up on google.de!
| 4:07 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There's lots of talk about adding fresh content and information and talking around the subject more. I agree with this but things don't quite stack up.
I run a number of small sites 15 - 30 pages and pre-Austin the interior pages of these sites always did well. We rode the Florida update reasonably well but Austin was hard for certain industries.
With Brandy it looks like we're back in for our main search phrases site-wide but only the index is being presented when an interior page would be more relevant. Not as good for the user I would have thought?
| 4:08 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
this morning, 64 has changed yet again for my keywords. some that went missing yesterday have returned today, others have plummeted. i still don't see 64 results on www, but that's ok, since 64 doesn't seem to have stabilized yet anyway.
| 4:23 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I agree with you jtodvv!. I am not sure what people are seeing that they are so happy about. I still see a lot of spam sites that are ranked well and good content sites are down. I really hope Yahoo switches soon!. It is tiring to play this game!
| 4:31 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Actually 64.****x results aren't showing on Google .de. I just chevcked keywords for us on 64.xxxx and they are great, as we hoped and as they ahve been on 64.xxx all along. However, they are not the results showing on google.de those are the results we saw for our keywords pre-this update.
This is verified by me checking google.de from here in UK and via a friend/colleague in germany itself. Identical results (post Brandy, or at least not 64.xxx) when searching for our keywords.
GG, any idea when those 64.xxx results will roll-out to the UK, or are they not going to now?
| 4:40 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
still no 64 ... in lancashire, uk, but got to agree with BeeDeeDubbleU, even though this 64 is looking really good for me, I can just see it all tumbling down in six months and we will all be back here pulling our hair out as with florida - really need the balance of other big search engines, so once one goes florida on us, at least we have the others as safety net.
| 6:27 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Let's watch the update, see what's happening, and try to discuss what's productive for our own sites. If anyone wants to whine about spam instead, you know exactly where the spam report is and how to do it. Take it to email, but not here.
Please - no brown-nosing about making reports, and no specific search terms or URLs.
Like it says on the front page, let's stay with this:
"...discussion for the independent web professional."
C'mon guys, we've got work to do! :)
| 6:33 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|If anyone wants to whine about spam instead, you know exactly where the spam report is. |
Could we declare a moratorium on whining about drops in search rankings, too? :-)
| 6:36 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have been checking .co.uk and .com all day for but results haven't shown 64. results at all. Does anyone know if this is actually going to happen or if it is just a case of me waiting patiently....and praying lol
| 6:38 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I would like to hear more from webmasters about the introduction of stemming and how google is now highlighting the keywords relative to the search.
For example keyword1 was searched but google highlights keyword1 and another keyword which is either a plural or singular version or a word related to the original search.
On 64.**** you can see them highlight many new words that wasn't searched for.
| 6:48 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If you type in the search for a two word phrase, with the second word having two possible suffixes, if version-1 is what's on the page and version-2 is what you searched for it'll come up with the page with the version-1 phrase (what's on the page) highlighted just as though it were version-2.
It's much easier to see on less competitive terms.
| 7:00 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|You know we watch your words as carefully as Alan Greenspan's ;) |
Should be "more" carefully <g>, although I'd imagine we'll be watching Tim's just as closely soon :-)
| 7:03 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
64 is blessedly back in Philly and other parts of the US. I have Indextools so I'm able to see the search number my Google visitors come in from. Very helpful...not that it doesn't preclude my refreshing like a maniac every 2 milliseconds.
| 7:15 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Here is my well-behaved, politically correct, google friendly "brandy update" from California:
216.**** still showing in southern California. Have noticed slight shuffling in the results, but nothing of any consequense.
Dates no longer appear infront of the cached link, but our page is date stamped and the google cached dates for our site appear as follows:
64.xxx - Sat, 14 Feb 2004 0:47:10 CST
216.xxx - Sat, 14 Feb 2004 0:47:10 CST
Live california Google - Sat, 14 Feb 2004 0:47:10 CST
Hope this has not offended anyone - GG, moderators, etc.
| 7:17 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
From GG, way way back there (#307 Brandy2)
> 2:14 am on Feb 15, 2004 (utc -6)
> Okay, I just talked to somebody else at Google.
> ... Sounds like 64.x.x.x is indeed the wave of
> the future. ... it may roll out over several
> days instead of being done over the weekend
& now, a Reader's Digest version:
Patience, Grasshopper, patience.
| 7:18 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have comcast cable internet at home and at work. I work about 20 miles or so from where I live. At home I am seeing 64. results on www and at work I am still seeing the old (crappy) results. I just thought you all might find that interesting.
| 7:21 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Here is something interesting which amazed me about the "new google" ...
In the past, there was a lot of worry about transfering domains because a day or two of being off the net could result in your site being gone from google.com for a month or more.
We have a site (main site, highest traffic site, authority hub site) which was down hard for five full days at the beginning of the month. Fresh dates went away but the site was not dropped. Rank in the SERPs of the main page appears to be unaffected but a few of the sub pages have dropped a couple of places.
Is this the kinder, gentler, googlebot?
Has anyone else seen this happening?
... or ... is this just an "update is not done" issue and there is more to come?
It looks to me like the freshness of the index is a major consideration but that Google will refrain from dropping the main "authority" site in an industry, even if it is missing in action for an extended period.
| 8:22 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Back in Feb 2002 my web site was down for six weeks while transferring to a new ISP. Didn't get dropped by Google. It is a content site, currently PR5, online since 2000.