| 9:30 am on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Excellent - we are getting some feedback from people hit in February.
Yes, as pointed out Canonical issues are better (for homepages) - but no rankings.
Steveb - I am surprised you dont see any improvements on the test DC as I know you watch Google closely - I agree that supplimentals are a mess on the test DC as much as anywhere.
Will GG and MC post? - I guess so when they have something concrete to post about - more likely to be MC though - GG seems to have forgotten us :( ;)
| 9:48 am on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
dako_uk: for those whose supplementals are getting fixed, but not the rankings, is there any evidence that a PR update would rescue rankings? isn't this one of that things that happen internally before public update?
| 9:50 am on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Dont know - the last public PR update took place before the attempt to fix Canonical urls though.
| 9:52 am on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well it looks like Google really screwed up this time. If it's not in breach of the British Disability Discrimination Act it should be. The nerve of providing a non-functional braille UI. Why can't they get their acts together at the plex and provide the necessary technology to create functional braille on my screen? In addition braille should be functional for both LCD and CRT monitors. I think it's a reasonable request. OK back to the DCs.
| 10:22 am on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I wish they'd hurry up and role this update out everywhere..
| 11:18 am on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think some folks throw canonical out too freely. I see no site having a canonical fix on the test DC. Most still show parallel supplemetals. Some continue to rank ludicrously with "hidden" supplementals lurking in the background.
The test datacenter just has different problems, probably more problems if anything. More of those incorrect (usually index) pages ranking for subpages problems. More tracking URLs instead of genuine canonical pages listed. Lots of www and non-www ranking separately. No help for 302 hijacked sites from February.
But again, that's all rearranging the furniture. Until canonical and supplemental issues are addressed significantly, much ado about not much (although as usual with any update some incorrectly lost sites get found).
| 11:38 am on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I know people are seeing fixes to these canonical issues, but "rankings are not what they were" last Feb.
Who says that your rankings are gonna be what they were last Feb even with this fixes - that's nearly a year ago - other algo factors have changed in that timeframe so it's possible the canonical issues have masked a drop in rank you might have suffered anyway.
Just a thought which i'd throw in - maybe you're all looking for evidence of a "fix" which doesn't exist anymore?
| 11:43 am on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
One other thing..
reseller quoted matt cutts in an earlier post - matt said of the test DC "That data center has some infrastructure that I think in time will work better for canonicalization and redirects."
"in time" - so this test DC isn't just about fixing these issues. So in my opinion this DC is worth talking about and taking seriously.
| 11:44 am on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I understand that - I should have said that the penalty that goes hand in hand with the canonical problem still appears to be in place.
EG. The homepage is not treated as the root for the site in a lot of the cases. (Eg site ordering that MC talked about does not apply to these sites, searching for "www.domain.com" still does not rank the domain for a search for its own domain name etc)
| 11:49 am on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
as a supplementals collectionist :-) my focus is now prevent future problems. As google cannot or delays cleaning its index, my checklist for a web from scratch is:
- avoid canonical: redirect domain.com -> www.domain.com
- avoid unstable urls ( those that will change in the future, based on variables or DB data )
- avoid redirections as long as it is possible; if impossible, avoid redirection (don't do it)
- use absolute paths in links, images, etc
- use only 1 host when linking
- be paranoic, watch your logs, watch the DCs, watch ww watchers
yep, googleplex wants us to make this part of their work
| 11:51 am on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Anybody seen the live Test DC results today? The seem to have gone off the radar...
Perhaps Google is comparing their results or making further changes.
MC did say that the test DC would not be live all the time as they would be "tweaking it under the hood" so to speak.
| 11:55 am on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Its just come back online at google.co.uk.
Still alternating with 22.214.171.124.
| 11:58 am on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
i haven't seen the test serps at all today which is a shame as they're good for me!
| 12:32 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>I understand that - I should have said that the penalty that goes hand in hand with the canonical problem still appears to be in place.
More to add to this.
Some of the other symptons of the Canonical url problem for the homepages are still in place.
Eg. link:domain.com and link:www.domain.com are showing different results for some domains still ........ so although it appears that if you query the domain.com G is returning the www.domain.com - the BL and PR (hard to tell with PR at mo) still seem to be split between the 2 versions of the site.
EG - The problems that Canonical urls causes for homepages are not fixed at all (BL and PR split) for some sites at the moment.
But MC said "In time"...........pffft - we will see.
|indias next no1|
| 12:35 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
will there be any BL update and Tool bar PR change in the near future, because last year jan 2nd my Page rank changed .
any idea my friends
| 1:06 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Some dial or knob is seriously getting turned up or down - on the test dc one of my sites which currently ranks in the 400s for its main term is #7.
I'll take it.
| 1:09 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
indias next no1
I would be amazed if there is not a BL/PR update once Google have sorted out the correct Homepage Canonical urls - looking at BLs accross the DC and comparing the non-www to the www accross the DCs - then Google are either in a mess or working on it.
| 1:44 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
is anyone else still seeing the results changing between the old and test serps? I haven't see this happening today?!?
| 3:06 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|is anyone else still seeing the results changing between the old and test serps? |
My visitors are predominantly from USA and UK, and my primary site acts like an indicator for DCs' current status: #2 when regular SERPs are served, and #nowhere when test SERPs are served! That is to say, my site starts receiving a couple of visitors per hour from regular DC's, and receives no visitors at all from test DCs.
Based on this observation, I can say that right now, test DC is the default page for both UK and USA that switched on and off for a couple of times within the last 24 hours!
| 3:10 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yes, Test DC has definetly been serving results to Google.com for me too.
| 3:16 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Based on this observation, I can say that right now, test DC is the default page for both UK and USA that switched on and off for a couple of times within the last 24 hours! |
Default page for US? Is anyone seeing this?
| 3:38 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think everybody better just accept that the test DC is being served on an intermitent basis to both .com and .co.uk
Its switched on and off completely throughout the day and alternates with main index when live.
No point in getting excited until Google confirm they are going with the new (better IMHO) index.
| 4:17 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Results on the test center are the best I've ever seen.
Almost time to flip the switch, or as Bela Lugosi once said (over stock footage of buffalo) in Tim Burton's "Ed Wood":
"Google - PULL THE STRING!"
| 4:25 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
foxtunes - couldn't agree with you more! ok, i am slightly biased in the fact that on the test DC, my rankings are bk to how they were (roughly) before jagger.
the fact that the serps keep showing on the main google and then going again is so frustrating! it's like google are out to tease me :-)
it would be nice to hear from gg / mc to find out if they do actually plan to stick with the new test dc serps or not - at least then i can stop checking the results every 2 minutes - it's starting to take over my life
| 4:39 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well one of my site has legit 100000 pages all of which are in present index, in fact my present site:domain.com is 450 000 but in new update though I am gaining for few top queries the number of pages indexed is 50 000 only.
My traffic wont sufer but from googles opinion pages of a PR 6 home page and PR 5 subpages should have been indexed fully with no page more than 3 clicks from home page.
Anyways I will be niether happy nor sad if the update comes on or not since my traffic would be the same.
| 4:41 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|my rankings are bk to how they were (roughly) before jagger |
Isn't this what the test DC is >>pre-Jagger results? which are trying to create a better index, by trial and error, to see what the tweaking of filters are doing. The test DC will show changes, on that basis, but whether they are permanent or not is anyones guess!
It seems unlikely that there will be new SERP's so soon after a massive update, such as Jagger....a BL update maybe, later this month.
| 4:46 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It could turn into an update... It has been about a quarter since the last one. I wouldn't rule it out.
| 4:49 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Of course it is going to turn into an update - this test DC has specific aims to correct Canonical and 301 issues as outlined by MC.
It does not really look like it is ready to go live yet based on those aims though.......
Whether it resembles anything like it does now when it is finally rolled out is anyones guess.
| 5:28 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
if matt is still not asking for feedback, uhm, the update is far...
when matt says we shouldn't worry about supplementals, ok, maybe i am mixing up things, but aren't duplicated pages marked as supplementals? then, shouldn't we worry about duplication?
| 5:46 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
A distinct change from this mornings test dc. My supplimentals have gone, replaced by my old fully page ranked (now missing) pages. IMO these results are not based on todays listings, just a test set of sites from a previous database backup. It could be for comparrison purposes to judge how old problems would come out under the new conditions. This might mean that we're maybe getting close to release.
| 6:23 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
has the old index now :-(
| This 162 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 162 ( 1 2 3 4  6 ) > > |