homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 174.129.103.100
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 610 message thread spans 21 pages: < < 610 ( 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > >     
Update Allegra Part 2 Update 2-2-2005
Macro




msg:752948
 11:51 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

complain about a real problem

Can't see the sandbox being a "real" problem, or a problem at all. It's there to stop the SPAM. If I start a new company called Mesothelioma Lawyers Ltd you reckon I should show up in the top 500 purely because that's my company name?

Sure, the "sandbox", whatever it is, hurts some. It hurts people who are creating sites for free traffic. Many of them are spammers/freeloaders. It also hurts others. They - particularly anyone starting a new business with a business plan that relies on free SE traffic - are probably better off staying unemployed (or employed if they can find a job). Any new site starting off on the premise that free traffic will sustain it deserves to fail.

So, if you remove the sandbox as a reasonable cause for complaint, and remove most of the other whining, we'd reduce this thread to one page and those that can't even be bothered to read it will get a personal reply from Googleguy because he owes them.

 

cleanup




msg:753308
 7:04 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Its seems my point about the ODP was not very well made.

I realise ODP has its place, although it has not been all that the founders perhaps had hoped for.

My point it that while it may seem a good idea to hand edit the SERPS it is not a new one.

Yahoo! are doing it right now, and ODP of course

Are they on the right track?

Well, I think that the numbers will always be against them, but more worryingly human nature will also come into play as with any kind of voting or voluntary editing system by the puplic and will eventually cause more problems than it solves. IMO.

Google are in control of their SERPS at the moment and their algorithm (however flawed). I don't think they would (or should) hand it over to anyone.

The "outsourcing" idea some say Google are already using would not be a suprise, however, having been on the receiving end of some misguided Yahoo! editor recently I really cannot support the idea at all.

webhound




msg:753309
 7:51 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yup, same ole same ole. Still seeing the same type of back link manipulation thats been a problem for the last year.

When is Google going to have a real update?

steveb




msg:753310
 7:52 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Let's see, we have three search engine whose results run the gamut from abysmal to mediocre.

A monkey hand editing the serps might do nearly as well as MSN.

It is not a big job to have a dozen or so quality inspectors looking over the top 100 results for a handful of the most popular queries in broad niches, and correcting clear problems like hijackings or identifying webs of redirects or duplicate garbage. The engine that goes most strongly in this direction will become the dominate player in the market, if only because algos today are so weak.

Google usually has the best search results of the three engines, but far and away the best results on the Internet are those hand ranked on Yahoo for some few specific terms.

walkman




msg:753311
 7:57 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

"I agree.
Results on 216.239.53.X and 66.102.7.X are much much completed, cleaner, faster, logical etc. "

I agree too but that doesn't make a difference ;). We need a few G engineers to tweak the algo so innocent sites aren't banned (if you don't rank in top 100-500 for your name.com, it's essentially a ban).

natural number




msg:753312
 9:44 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Let me be the first to say: THESE GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS SUCK. Full of SPAM. Not cleaner, not better.
Google is cool,but come on guys! this update is poop.

thepast




msg:753313
 9:46 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

From what I can tell the results on 216.239.53.X and 66.102.7.X are new results without the issue of "not ranking for your own site name".

If G pushed these results live I believe 99% of the issues with this update would be solved. Is everyone else satisfied with the results being displayed on these dc's?

ahanik




msg:753314
 9:51 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

From what I can tell the results on 216.239.53.X and 66.102.7.X are new results without the issue of "not ranking for your own site name".

If G pushed these results live I believe 99% of the issues with this update would be solved. Is everyone else satisfied with the results being displayed on these dc's?

I aggree 100%!

BigUns




msg:753315
 9:56 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

I agree 98.6%
I wrote this Feb 11 msg#248:

"The index I saw about 10 minutes ago at 66.102.7.104 is, I believe, the 'final' index in the process of being built. It is one of 3 different indices I was seeing as early as Tuesday and Wednesday (not counting a 4th much smaller and very elusive index)."

I still like it, not that that means diddly to Google.
But if too many folks like it too much, it will most likely change for the worse...

[edited by: BigUns at 10:08 pm (utc) on Feb. 13, 2005]

illusionist




msg:753316
 10:00 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

66.102.7.104 Well my site which got wiped out by allegra still isnt there :( Also when you search for sitename it brings up dmoz description...whats with that? Also some sites still rank like 10th for their unique name, they should atleast have fixed that...:(

[edited by: illusionist at 10:16 pm (utc) on Feb. 13, 2005]

ahanik




msg:753317
 10:07 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

this index seems to be complete only for some niches, some niches are still missing, that is at least my observation.

Localizer




msg:753318
 11:04 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

OK.....as posted earlier I had 2 indexes, small one and a big one. Since a few hours, all DC's have taken over the big index and SERP's are shuffeling finally for me.

walkman




msg:753319
 11:15 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

" number of zeros: 49
average of nonzeros: 1.0"

I see movement too...for the worst though. Only 6 DCs left.

steveb




msg:753320
 11:19 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Moving the 64.233.189.104 results over certainly would improve things on the lost site front, but many (most, all?) sandboxed sites go back into the sandbox... so perhaps that is the issue here.

And I have no clue why g1smd keeps calling this "big index" as it returns far less results for anything I check...

webmaster 131 to 126
webhost 1.35 to .696
widgets 2430 to 1620
furniture 71.2 to 41.2
www 4680 to 4470

64.233.189.104 is a smaller index.

g1smd




msg:753321
 11:31 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

The "big index" (I had to call it something, and I did relate it to the IPs that I was seeing it on at the time so you can compare results) has 64 million results for one search term, for example, against only 41 million elsewhere and in google.com and I see that sort of ratio on most searches.

That search term has been 41 million on google.com for at least several weeks. Only 6 months ago it was something like only 12 million and has just grown and grown. It added 50% a few days before Google announced they had now indexed 8 billion pages, and has expanded in big jumps at least twice more since then.

I also use &num=100&filter=0 on most searches. Note that the reported numbers can vary quite a bit depending on whether you add this or leave it off.

g1smd




msg:753322
 11:40 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> 64.233.189.104 is a smaller index << #*$!

I don't see that IP at the scroogle's scraper3 site. That IP has the larger results set, for me.

At scroogle the results have changed. The "big index" is spreading to more IPs, and there are two slightly different versions of it.

Scarecrow




msg:753323
 11:41 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

" number of zeros: 49
average of nonzeros: 1.0"
I see movement too...for the worst though. Only 6 DCs left.

Tee hee. No movement. I just found 4 new IPs and added them: 64.233.187.104, 64.233.187.106, 64.233.187.107, 64.233.187.99

Total is now 59 IPs on that tool. I don't use 64.233.189.104, and I can't use 64.233.161.104 because something is blocking it upstream of my server. That's all the IPs I know about.

[edited by: ciml at 11:04 am (utc) on Feb. 14, 2005]
[edit reason] See StickyMail [/edit]

newwebster




msg:753324
 2:27 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

[search.netscape.com ]
[mysearch.myway.com ]

Google is feeding these with the bigger index
This was not happening yesterday. Wishful thinking that maybe they are going to go live in the next few days with the better SERPS

Scarecrow




msg:753325
 3:18 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Ditto with search.aol.com and a9.com.

And it looks like 216.239.53.X is going over to the dark side intermittently. That leaves only 66.102.7.X, which isn't much to hang your hat on.

BigUns




msg:753326
 3:20 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

I seem to be seeing three different indices again instead of 2. I'm #1, #5 and #10 on one search for MyDomainName; with directories and an empty no content page ranked higher on the latter two.

Maybe tomorrow Google will finally get a clean index with the 12 billion pages I suspect they are trying to roll out.
Maybe tomorrow an asteroid will strike the Earth making all this irrelevant.

Person A: Remember, it's always darkest before dawn.
Person B: What does that have to do with the Google Allegra update?
Person A: Absolutely Nothing.

Scarecrow




msg:753327
 3:52 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm #1, #5 and #10 on one search for MyDomainName; with directories and an empty no content page ranked higher on the latter two.

I think you need to find a search that shows a massive difference -- such as number 1 on one index and not in the top 100 on the other index. The variations you mention are too subtle to qualify definitively as three different indexes. There are variations within a single index across the IP addresses, and these will no doubt continue, although they may also settle down a bit. I've been using about four different searches, each with massive variation, to determine what's what with this update process.

I like your joke.

walkman




msg:753328
 4:06 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

"And it looks like 216.239.53.X is going over to the dark side intermittently. That leaves only 66.102.7.X, which isn't much to hang your hat on."

and Google is probably thinking that they fixed the probelms.

BigUns




msg:753329
 4:18 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Scarecrow:

Yes, I agree, but I've already noted massive index differences in previous posts in recent days. I only wanted to make note that some indices show me in the same wierd situation as many others - directories that link to me are ranked higher.
One thing I'm hoping for when this update is resolved is for most of the spam / fake directories, link farms, and other Black Hat scum pages to be wiped out. As someone who is 99.99% searcher, I'd rather have a 4 billion clean index than a dirty 8,9,10...index.
I just have a feeling that Google is trying for a minimum 10 billion index - twice the 5 billion* that MSN Search claims.

* Rumor has it that the MSN Search 5 billion figure is actually 1 billion external web documents + 4 billion spam emails Bill Gates has received in recent years ...

max_mm




msg:753330
 5:25 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

LOL, found this snipet on another forum:

$GOG_results = $Latest_Allegra_update ;
if ($GOG_results == true && $Allegra == $final)
{
print "Error - Google is broken. Go Yahoo!";
&exit; # crapy G SERPs give the user a notice and exit quick
}

walkman




msg:753331
 6:02 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm offically stumped. The SERPS changed even for the few DCs that still have my site. On the [66.102.7.*...] ones, I moved up to #2 on a very competitve keyword. I was #3 yesterday and the number of pages increased by about 8-9,000 (still about 70,000 less than Google.com though).

[66.102.7.104...] 1 (for mydomain.com)
[66.102.7.105...] 1
[66.102.7.106...] 1
[66.102.7.107...] 1
[66.102.7.147...] 1
[66.102.7.99...] 1

On the other ones I'm not found.

BigUns




msg:753332
 6:24 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

One final note for today. The [a Google mirror] site is showing 66.102.7.104 for cached results, even though that is not the IP address given by whois lookup. Good, clean results, a little larger than pre-allegra. I don't know how 'big' overall the google.com I see is by comparison; as I noted previously, some searches are much larger; some much smaller; on one set of search terms, where 66.102.7.104 gives about 500,000 pages, google.com gives about 250,000. Quarter of a million pages missing in google.com for several days now on that particular search alone.

[edited by: ciml at 11:06 am (utc) on Feb. 14, 2005]
[edit reason] Examplified [/edit]

steveb




msg:753333
 6:54 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

It's pointless comparing the two. The numbers keep changing and there are huge disparities, like 66.102.7.104 having 30 MILLION less results for "furniture".

Size doesn't matter here, since if one has more hijacking/scraper sites while the other has a similar amount of hijacked/disappeared sites the number comparison is irrelevant to the difference in index quality.

fiu88




msg:753334
 7:07 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google is a necessary evil.... you gotta pay,or learn to appease the gbot...it's a never ending process

We should pool our resources and promote a new search engine....

G has us by the short and curlies...I dont like it, but it is what it is...

These new results ..suck...I'm better off creating articles and spamming G with phony content than improving my actual site,,

G,
you're a joke

valeyard




msg:753335
 7:57 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

These new results ..suck...I'm better off creating articles and spamming G with phony content than improving my actual site

Yeah, that' what really hurts.

My shiny new black hat arrived last week. I haven't taken it out of the box yet but I have read the instruction manual and it's getting very tempting... just to quickly try it on... try on the preciousss...

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:753336
 9:50 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

The "outsourcing" idea some say Google are already using would not be a suprise, however, having been on the receiving end of some misguided Yahoo! editor recently I really cannot support the idea at all.

Are you completely sure that he or she was "misguided"?

We have to be honest here and I wonder what percentage of collateral damage is caused by Yahoo's manual editors compared to Google's algo?

I recently created a non profit site in for a club that was formed as a tribute to a poet. It featured for about three or four weeks then Allegra placed it in its black hole. This would not have happened to a perfectly innocent and useful site with a manual editor.

JuniorOptimizer




msg:753337
 1:27 pm on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

I can definitely say I don't feel like "making quality pages" today.

cleanup




msg:753338
 1:48 pm on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

BDW,
If the collateral damage happens to be your five year old unique content site, then it is difficult to be entirely objective.

Not wishing to Yahoo! bash in the Google forum, but the editing is arbitrary and the index is almost static.

Thats great if you are in (and I am very nicely for an unrelated site) but not good if you have been black listed rightly or wrongly by an editor. The problem is there is no practical way back into an index when this happens (I have started a new site just for Yahoo! but so far have not seen more than two pages in the index).

I just think the idea is great in theory but does not work in practice.

and.. I say again, if human intervention is such a good thing then why is it that all the hand edited directories including the original Y! all take back seats to the alorithm aproach.

Anyway I wish Google luck with improving the current algo and guess we will just have to accept that we have different opinions about web "editors".

This 610 message thread spans 21 pages: < < 610 ( 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
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