| 4:12 am on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Greatest Google update ever.
Please go live!
| 5:09 am on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Is there a way to check which data center Google is using as their home page? On my destop I have been getting consistent great results for my main keywords but it is only on my desktop, not my notebook or my Mac. I have checked the usual data centers and can't find the results that I am getting on my PC.
| 6:20 am on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Check the IP address on the "cached" link.
| 7:03 am on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The cached IP address is: 184.108.40.206 Using this address displays different results than when I do the kw search on Google.com. I'm really not sure why I continue to get the consistant results only on my PC searching Google.com
| 9:34 am on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hmmmz - no visible changes since the last time the test DC was here.
Homepages that have had the canonical correctly identified from a long time wrong - still dont rank. With internal pages still outranking them (unless I filter those out with pages within the last 3 months or something and then at least the homepage can appear top from the site for the search on the company name....)
[edited by: Dayo_UK at 9:40 am (utc) on Dec. 30, 2005]
| 9:38 am on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
On test DC, some keywords holding steady, some gone below the top 50 (after which the nonsense urls take over anyway...).
One of my newer URLs is ranking higher on the test DC for a profitable keyword---while the current high ranking URL of mine disappears.
Thus it appears to me that creating many new URLs and sites is the only way to maintain rank.
| 9:49 am on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Does anyone know how far down the update pecking order google.be is? Does it normally update with the main DCs?
| 9:57 am on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>Does anyone know how far down the update pecking order google.be is? Does it normally update with the main DCs?<<
google.be is one of the DCs, maybe with a "be" flavour. As such I don't think that there is a special update pecking order.
| 10:20 am on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think Google can save memory space if they only gave us some idea and update on what they are doing. That is, the more we don't know what exactly is happening, the longer this thread becomes, the more memory they have to use to cached these pages. :-)
| 10:32 am on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For those who saw Test DC results live earlier, are they still there? From what country do you connect?
| 11:02 am on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It must be a quarterly update ,G has fixed canonical problems with some sites ,other sites that have been hit at 22/11 are back ,some sites have been hit.If you remember a week or 2 was a BL update and partly a PR update ,as usual those BL PR updates result a new reindexing or an "update".
As about my site ,has been canonicalised :ie site:www.mysite.com the index comes first.As a result I have recover ,that does not means that I have worked hard the last 3 months ,reading the very usefull posts here and at Matt Cutts blog ,paching and redisighning my site.I am 90% back and in some cases higher then before.
It takes hard work to find bugs not in Google but in our sites.Funny though some people never learned from penalties ,some guys got hit by Jagger wipeout extreme spam they launch the same sites that was washed out from the index with other domains!
Matt Cutts needs some feedback.
Finaly I believe a unique site made for the long term can survive.Wishes for a Happy new year for the world.
| 11:05 am on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"that does not means that I have worked"
sorry the sentence is
that does not means that I have not worked hard.I have really worked hard to recover my site.
| 11:53 am on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
220.127.116.11 --> I see homepages disapearing for selected keywords like back a few weeks ago on some site....no great update if any! :)
18.104.22.168 --> huge total index, all missing pages fixed, fresh cache of new sites
| 12:06 pm on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>>22.214.171.124 --> huge total index, all missing pages fixed, fresh cache of new sites
Yep, just wonder what it will take for the sites that have been effected for a long time to come back now the Homepage Canonical problems seem to be in better shape.
Perhaps a PR update.....
| 1:18 pm on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Your site is back. I am happy for you.
Perhaps you can share with us some of the changes you believe turned your site around?
or tell us in the "dealing with jagger consequences"" thread.
After all this is a forum for sharing information is it not. :)
| 2:10 pm on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm back back! No old pages, all pages indexed & back to 84% queries from UK. Very Cool.
Unfortunately, I've just decided to sell up and leave Norwich and feel the industry is too shaky for me to base a business on. I off in a few months.
I hope you're back again and best wishes for the new year. Have a Ubootiful New Year ... if you know what I mean ;-)
| 2:16 pm on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Why the missing homepages? Has anyone figured this out? Mine is one of those sites and it would be very helpfull to know what is causing it.
My homepage has been missing since March. It was back in December, but now missing again. In April, I found a conical and other duplicate content problems which were all fixed by September.
| 3:01 pm on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> As about my site ,has been canonicalised :ie site:www.mysite.com the index comes first. <<
Be clear, the canonical problem is actually all about whether your whole site is listed under www.domain.com or under domain.com, or whether it is a mixture of both (the mixture is the problem!) not whether your main index page comes first in any of the listings.
| 4:47 pm on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm not a fan of these update threads but I thought I would contribute my experience in the hopes of helping someone...
One of my main money making sites lost it's positions somewhere around march. Some of the interior pages still had decent positions but the homepages of my subdomains all took a dive. I had survived all previous updates without a scratch.
My positions in the other search engines were fine and so I decided it was a problem with google and not my website. So I ignored google and concentrated on working on my site and creating new ones. I did not make any site structure changes or spend my days hunting down hijackers and theives. I just kept working on my site, making it better for visitors, not google. Once again, no structure changes or www redirects.
My biggest money making site no longer needs google traffic but a few days ago it reappeared to it's former excellent positions, maybe even better.
I am so thankfull I did not waste a bunch of time reading forums and trying to fix my site for google. Because I used my time to continue building new sites, while still regularly maintaining my old ones I am in a much better situation now. The fact that my google traffic has reappeared for my main money making site is just icing on the cake.
IMO unless you have employees doing your work for you, you should probably spend more time working on your sites than reading forums and riding the SERPS roller coasters, or at least find a balance.
| 5:22 pm on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>Unfortunately, I've just decided to sell up and leave Norwich and feel the industry is too shaky for me to base a business on. I off in a few months
sorry to hear your trowing in the towel Colin, but I can understand why its stress stress & more stress playing this G game - for me a good bottle of wine normally helps the day go by, problem is right now I'm opening it at breakfast time LOL better make that 2 bottles
Good luck with whatever you do
| 6:08 pm on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The key site and keyword I'm tracking goes from #1 to off the edge of the earth. Why is it all or nothing with Google? Logically, placement should only adjust a few places.
How could a site go from being 100% relevant to 0% relevant?
| 6:33 pm on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> you should probably spend more time working on your sites than reading forums and riding the SERPS roller coasters
That's a pretty judgemental statement. I use this forum as down time from my writing or other work on my site. In 2005, that amounted to over 350 new pages of hand written content.
| 7:41 pm on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thanks Tigger, It's good having the benefit of your wisdom over the past 5 - 6 months. If the truth be known ... it's probably the amount of wine that's made my mind up ;-)
All the best mate
| 7:41 pm on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|So I ignored google and concentrated on working on my site and creating new ones. I did not make any site structure changes or spend my days hunting down hijackers and theives. I just kept working on my site, making it better for visitors, not google. |
SincerelySandy, in general this is very good advice, although there are some issues that you should always have resolved before following your advice, rewrites to www/ or non-www for example, make sure site has good search engine friendly urls, basic seo stuff that is. Fixing www/non-www is too easy to not do, it only takes about 2 minutes, so why not?
You can get back in serps sometimes if your site had errors and you fix them, but overall, I am coming to agree more and more with your position, spend the time adding content, making sites, and all that stuff.
That's where I'm headed, and any client I'll be keeping will need to be headed in the same direction. I'm tired of the chase google game.
Once you know enough to have avoided all types of technical errors, worrying about why update x or y messes up your site is a waste of time, I agree. But most people don't know enough, so these threads are really helpful, for example, in the bourbon threads, what was called sloppy webmastering was one major cause of drops, once those types of errors were fixed, site came back.
The fewer seo games I play the happier I am. Plus, if you consistently follow this advice, make more content, one day you'll wake up and find your site may have become an authority site, which is the other way to not worry about updates etc.
By the way, in the new test data center, I'm finally ranking for a very competitive keyword I've been weakly trying off and on to rank for for a few years. Didn't do anything to try to rank, just normal working on site, just so happened google has now decided that the site can rank for that phrase.
Anyway, nice common sense posting, thanks. I'm starting to do this stuff more and more, or not do it, as the case may be.
[edited by: 2by4 at 7:43 pm (utc) on Dec. 30, 2005]
| 7:42 pm on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good luck - shame that it ends this way - I am sure that Google has been the death (and making no doubt) of many business this year.
I am on to the boxes of wine now!
BTW - Test DC not showing test results again.
| 7:54 pm on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google is not the death of any business. Businesses fail fail because of poor planning and that is because of poor management.
Business is a matter of taking risks. If one takes the risk of relying on one source of business, then one should plan to fail if something prevents delivery from that source.
As much as I do not like the games that Google plays, my problems are my problems and not problems created by Google.
Every one of us should have a business plan and that should have an exit strategy. That strategy should inslude one for the unexpected that we should all expect.
So though I feel for those who did not plan, I reject any insuation that it is in any way Google's fault.
| 7:56 pm on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Sorry to hear you being forced to give up I was very close at one stage this year myself and only through the support and love from wife ( and her wages as a nurse ) and children was I able to keep going
Many on here and other boards think it will only happen to the other guy but as many of us know
We are all at risk in this type of business and has been shown late this year even those whose model is based on PPC are not immune to collateral damage ( adwords changes )
best of luck with whatever new opportunity you take on in 2006
| 7:59 pm on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Perhaps my wording was not great.
I did not say it was the fault of Google though if business did die as a result of there changes.
It is just the nature of the business (for some of us) - and problems Google has can result in businesses closing.
It is just the way it is among some big business - lots of little business can feed off them. So yes Google can be a death of business - I did not say that it is a great plan to rely on Google traffic solely - just accepting the fact the Google have such a huge amount of traffic that there changes can result in business closure.
If an aeroplane parts manufacturer opens near an Aeroplane Production factory then it is not poor planning that closes them down if the Aeroplane Factory closes down - just the nature of the business.
Anyway - lets get back to talking about the update and the update to come :).
| 8:14 pm on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
colin_h - my best wishes for your future developments to come
Regarding the update - I'm still seeing no movement on the main DCs here wrt the test indexes. Got an ever growing list of new sites in the test index though.
From what I can see, what we used to call 'freshbot' is only feeding the test index.
| 8:22 pm on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
From my own stats not from specific Data Centers this new test data is being seen by more actual surfers on a daily basis can't track DC's that are changed but have never had heavy traffic to a specific money page from Google but over last 3 - 4 days have started seeing significant traffic to that page with G referrer .
Only place I have seen the page with good serps positioning is on test server
So unsure why or how but not complaining
| 8:37 pm on Dec 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Its a funy thing, I thought the game was over since al my sites disapeared from the serps last may. Until November I was working on them a lot but seeing no results I started moving in other directions. And now all twelve sites are back in the serps again.
Its a good wakeup call and allthough my web future looks good now depending on G as a business is just to shaky.
| This 251 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 251 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  9 ) > > |