| 5:35 am on Nov 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"where did they retrieve it from to render the text on your screen"
From a page that they index. I think some folks are not understanding how these URLs exist.
I put this URL here, once this page is crawled, that URL will show for a site:dmoz.org search. This obviously has no connection to what the dmoz.org robots.txt says since the URL is on webmasterworld. As it happens, that URL will never get indexed, so it won't get a full listing, but Google is doing nothing wrong with including that URL among all the URLs that would show for a site:dmoz.org search because it has seen it on a page that is indexed.
Some people may not like logic, but for a site search I'd like to see pages Google knows exist, rather than URLs Google has seen in html. Pages that actually exist make up a "site".
| 6:00 am on Nov 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am perplexed why "GoogleGuy" has not taken the responsibility as a representative of Google™ to comment in this discussion. My own discoveries following "The Contractors" alerting topic has me quite upset.
| 6:19 am on Nov 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yes that is how they originally retrieved it. But when you do a site: search the URL listing is pulled from Google's index, not from a page that they index. My point was that these url's are indexed, contrary to g1smd's statement that they are NOT.
|From a page that they index. I think some folks are not understanding how these URLs exist. |
Personally, I don't have a problem with the indexing of these URLs and have known how this works for many moons [webmasterworld.com]. But I do think it was a conscious decision in order to increase the size of their index at a convenient time.
| 7:46 am on Nov 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing the newer results where my sandboxed site is showing signs of improvement on 188.8.131.52. The same minor changes I saw last night.
| 9:43 am on Nov 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am perplexed why "GoogleGuy" has not taken the responsibility as a representative of Google™ to comment in this discussion.
He has no responsability to make any comments on this forum..
| 10:06 am on Nov 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Besides, I hope Googleguy has the week-end off!
| 11:20 am on Nov 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
What a dreadful move on behalf of G. Double the size of your index as part of an ego war against MS and in the process double the amount of **** you need to wade through to get to the relevant stuff. Just what we needed - 9 billion pages of ****.
| 10:00 pm on Nov 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google expanded their index I imagine by not following the robots.txt files on websites.
| 10:44 pm on Nov 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I was seeing lots of spam 2 weeks ago, now there's much more.
It seems that a blog spammed with every key phrase you can think of ranks higher than an actual page with relevant content. And the blog doesnt' even have good PR.
This is becoming totally rediculous, if there is an update, I hope the google people smarten the hell up and fix the spam they have allowed in for the past month.
| 10:47 pm on Nov 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Results look fine to me - as for the title of this thread, there's always an update going on...
| 10:53 pm on Nov 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
One of the better usernames I've seen. Welcome to Webmasterworld.
| 11:26 pm on Nov 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Thanks, it's been weeks in production - I had to go for spameler to avoid adjacent aa's -but it seems to work. Thanks honey
| 2:49 am on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Results may look fine for some terms, but for others? Total garbage.
I'm not just #*$!ing because my site has been knocked (it has). I'm able to see that for a term I watch, the number of pages G is reporting have gone from about 60,000, to 1,140,000 pages. OK fine, but the first 10 pages of serps are full of totally unrelated pages (I'd say more than 50%), guestbooks and blogs that have been spammed with 100s of unrelated keywords, spam networks that have no content, all that stuff.
Why should a blog without much PR that has 200 links on one page come up on page 1 of serps for a term that's only mentioned once, in a link? Especially when there are enough quality, relevant sites/pages who actually provide something that the surfer can benefit from finding.
Google should be ashamed at what this algo considers relevant. Like I said, some other terms are looking a bit spammier than they used to, but not too bad. On others it's almost like google has gone insane.
I think it's still a rolling update, but in the past week I KNOW something wrong/wierd has happened, at least on some terms in some sectors. I hope they have a major update, really major.
| 8:22 pm on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Why should a blog without much PR that has 200 links on one page come up on page 1 of serps for a term that's only mentioned once, in a link? |
Figure that out and you will regain your rankings...
Hmmmm...OBL's, anchor text, page one...that might provide some clues.
| 10:28 pm on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The whacky part is that the blog has been spammed by anyone and everyone, with each 'comment' being many many links with anchor text for celebrity names, pills, porn and all that stuff.
The general subject matter of the blog is totally irrelevant to the spam.
Of course the spammers are trying to plant some anchor text for their own sites, but instead the blog is coming up.
There may be a lesson to learn, but I'm not sure what it could be :)
| 4:14 am on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The Google Directory has re-updated to that last funky PR one that was up for awhile before it reverted back to the old one.
| 4:42 am on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It just gets curiouser and curiouser.
| 6:29 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|The Google Directory has re-updated to that last funky PR one that was up for awhile before it reverted back to the old one. |
This prompted me to look at some client sites in the PR5-6 range that had recently received a PR boost (as evidenced by the order of listings in the directory). No changes since then that I can see.
If you're at a PR1, my guess is that you need to go out and get some genuinely good links.
| 7:14 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The directory has reverted back again. One site's been moved to a new category in DMOZ. The latest dump that popped up yesterday has this new cat. This re-revert doesn't.
| 10:38 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|The directory has reverted back again |
I don't think anyone really cares - or ever did care - about Google's directory. (especially at Google)
| This 260 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 260 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  ) |