| 3:29 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
well if the effects are being seen of a recent googlebomb, that means the "other" dc's are showing the newer results, that is the SERPs that have taken into account the recent linking activity.
| 3:31 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
that really makes a sence let hope and wait if they will spread.
| 3:35 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
the dc's you like so much show my old backlink figures - therefore either:
- old data on these dc's
- only old backlink information on these dc's
:-) or better :-(
| 3:40 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
first link: searches have been wonky for a long time now,
second, not all the data is old on the other dc's.
| 3:42 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
so do a site: for your url and tell me how many results you get?
| 3:47 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
i did for one of my sites at 22.214.171.124 it shows the same backlinks as in google.com
| 3:47 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Those DCs don't have my sandboxed sites that seem to be creeping back.
| 3:49 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
way too many DCs displaying these un-official results. Something is defintely up and IMO this update ain't done. I still think they need to be synchronized. This way they can add the missing sites and keep the newly un-sanboxed sites. "126.96.36.199" is the one that displayed the first update results (about 3-4 days ago) if I remember correctly...
Having a CNN story about security or a short film rank before NFL for "superbowl" is a freaking joke. None of us own NFL or CNN so we can be unbiased. These results SUCK!
"I still do good at these DCs:
walkan check also these ones
that makes about 10 DC's
something must be cooking (i hope so)"
[edited by: walkman at 3:53 am (utc) on Feb. 7, 2005]
| 3:49 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
itloc, almost twice as many pages on the dc as on google.com
| 3:53 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
hmmm ... could this be possible? :-)
Lets wait ... i need a rest ... watching dc's is hard work...
| 3:54 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
itloc i agree, its hard and its nerve wracking.
Plus SEO's need to stick together, and not let the anti-seo tactics divide us, the only divide and conquer.
| 3:57 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|hope this update will not stick - it would be a joke. my site has been wiped out from the index. |
I think there was a time when google would revert to an old update, but haven't seen them back up recently. With all the apparent complaints I wonder if they are able to anymore. They will eventually fix glitches if any but it might not be before the next update. It must be difficult to focus on your work in a company where all the employees became millionaires on the day of IPO (;
But seriously, be fair they have revolutionized the world and done a lot of good.
| 3:57 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
So far I like this update. The results in the areas I look at are much cleaner. My position is more or less the same, but some very deserving sites have moved up and some rotten sites have been zapped.
| 3:58 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"188.8.131.52" that was the one that start the update and spread to the other DC's within a few hours,why not do the same today?
| 3:59 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
the other dc's are not a rollback, there are new results on them.
| 4:00 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Something is definatly wonky with this update. Before this update I was doing decent, when it happened my traffic tripled(probably to where it should be compared to other engines) and then this morning I am GONE. Totally gone for every single one of my 500+ keywords. I have got maybe 10 visitors instead of thousands.
I do however appear in every other datacenter under good rankings, except the official one that I see when an average user searches.
Hopefully this will be fixed.
| 4:18 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Hopefully this will be fixed."
I'm not sure it's broke.....
I've done about 15 searches today on topics I'm not involved in, and have found less spam, more relevant results than I have since G was new and the 'hot' SE.
SERPs do look a lot more like MSN, but to me that's a good thing. I've noticed that I can now search for a related phrase, and G is smart enough to show results for the primary phrase.
Very interesting.... for those who lost position, hang tough. What we all know is that things change quickly.
| 4:36 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My best advice is to stop watching the data centers! Have a drink, go to bed, write some new content, take the day off ... but stop watching the data centers!
The update isn't over. Its like being really hungry, smelling the food cooking and wanting to eat it while its still raw!
The taste is disgusting and very unsatisfying. I know its hard ... but just wait!
We'll know what has happened when the dust settles. In the meantime, you are just driving yourselves crazy!
| 5:09 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I suggest you build more sites instead of watching the dc's.
None of us have any control at the moment.
| 5:26 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Here's my hope, based on the Florida (was that it?) update in 2003.
A site I had worked on extensively completely disappeared in May of 2003. I did some minor adjustments, but nothing radical.
When the site came back, it came back with a vengeance, and was in the top five results for every keyword I wanted, and it's still in those top spots today.
Maybe, just maybe, the sites with real content and white hat SEO are going to spring to the top as they did for me almost two years ago.
Or maybe I'm going to win the lottery and buy my own island.
| 5:37 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Aim for the lottery and the island ; )
| 5:38 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"I'm not sure it's broke..... "
well, many disagree, especially when you don't even rank in the top 50 for your "domain.com" or "unique corporate name"
| 5:49 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Larry & Sergey,
Hope this reaches you. I am a well-wisher of Google & was a fan....uptil now.
my website is online since 1999. for last 5 years, we have been on first page first site for our primary keywords.
But, now with this recent algo change of urs, we are nowhere.
This is simply NOT LOGICAL! I categorically state that, we have not spammed or used any technique which is called as black-hat.
In your race in rolling out new products, you have forgotten what your core competancy & responsibility is.
If this is the way you are gonna give importance to the quality of your algo, then I forsee Google going the Alta Vista way. I know many people have already said this before, but I just HAD to say this.
| 5:50 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
also...MSN search looks good......& at this rate it could seen be the demise of google search
| 5:59 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Maybe it's still in flux...
| 6:43 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I will have to say your welcome MSN on behalf of Google! Laugh!
MSN picked the right time to enter the search engine war!
Just a few weeks ago there were only a few of us on here that were #*$!ing about Google. Now there seems to be hundreds! What do you all think of Google now? Are you all still PRO-GOOGLE?
Bring the heat MSN!
| 6:48 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I see the results on 184.108.40.206 sticking - on most of the terms that I searched for this datacentre had the most precise amount of "competitors".
These 64.* serps have been around for the past 3 weeks but only on a few datacentres. They won't be the new results.
Let this play out, in the next 24 I think you will see the new serps, good or bad...
And for you all saying that msn's search is great - you must be fooling yourselves. Maybe your sites are ranking well, I say enjoy this while you can. Over the next two years (once your out, your out) you will see the spam drop out, MSN serps are amazingly spammy right now.
| 7:00 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
metagod: are there differences between 220.127.116.11 and the 64... serps?
| 7:17 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
18.104.22.168 shows a set of results with duplicates.
One site that uses frames shows twice in the Top 40. Main Google downgrades the duplicate better.
Main Google, IMHO, competes better with the current MSN results.
| 7:53 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I do believe that msn is good for the search engine market as well as webmasters and site owners. If it weren't for msn and yahoo the impact of this would have been worse for us. Yes we diversify but still it isn't in comparison to the traffic google has supplied us.
The way I see it. If google drops out of the race, we are down to the 2. It would seem as if we would be no better off. Either yahoo or msn would take more market share. One change in the leader and many site owners and webmasters will be in the exact same boat.
Webmasters and sit owners, I think are better of with a third strong player. Sad thing in many markets, the third player has a hard time keeping up unless they come up with something new and add a new "category" to the market to where they can be #1 and get branded first before the competeition catches on.
| 7:59 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have worked with numerous sites over the last 6 years.
I collect alot of data, because thats what I do for whatever reason. Because of this I have site history on over 100 sites.
Looking at 40 of these sites, here is my input on Allegra.
1. Old onsite optimization has regained weight.
2. Many filters have eased off significantly, trapping less sites in purgatory. This is true in the case of both old and new sites.
3. The need to have anchor text to break filters, has been greatly minimized.
4. Inbound links are being treated differently.
Questions rolling around in my head regarding inbounds.
A. Is google considering accumulative linkage?
Not only current inbounds, but linkage over a period of time.
A link gone, still carries weight?
I have sites that currenly have next to zero inbounds that rank well on terms that they haven't for a least a year.
Or is due to old fashioned on page optimization?
B. Are the benefits to inbound links, traveling farther throughout a site?
Not to long ago one heavy PR link to a homepage could raise a site overall. Are we back to this with a twist?
Of the 40 sites all but one are ecoms sites and the age of these sites range from 6 years to 5 months.
24 sites gained significantly in this update.
8 of the above sites were released from purgatory.
12 sites held steady. No significant changes.
4 sites plunged. No tricky stuff related to these, not much different compared to the others, they just went MIA
[edited by: minnapple at 8:09 am (utc) on Feb. 7, 2005]