| 10:05 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Just wondering how it is looking for everyone else. (220.127.116.11)
Seems our site's 301's and canonicalization problems are being resolved. Still concerned that when doing site search index page shows up number 2 and a recently crawled article shows up number one.
Looks like only about 1/2 our pages are in there, but the main ones are there and they are all indexed correctly. First time since Feb of 2005.
I am hoping since our pagerank tanked with the whole mess that we see that go back to where it was soon. Wondering if this needs to go live and then have another pagerank update for us to be competitive again. I sure hope it doesn't take to long, it has been a rough year.
It would be awful to end up in a sandbox with this fix.
| 10:54 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
For me at least the test datacenters are showing normal google results now. I hope they revert back soon so everyone can leave their feedback on the proper results.
| 11:01 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Here's where we're at on test and live DC's:
On November 6, we implemented a sitewide http:// to [www...] 301. The sitewide 301 was implemented correctly and various other checks carried out per the advices from various WebmasterWorld members who are familiar with related issues.
Since that time..
- Google traffic plummeted since the day after implementing the 301 (Nov. 6/7) - around 75%. Site had been very stable for years, never a fluctuation like this.
- PR remains static (6 for home page)
- link:site.com then showed 0 up until Dec. 20; after that date showed the same as link:www.site.com
- site:www.site.com doesn't bring up the home page first any more (buried at around 100)
Yahoo and MSN don't display the same problem - home page is always first.
It's as though our home page has still lost it's "oomph" - majorly, the effects of which is being passed on to the rest of the site in terms of rankings on various queries, which were basically rock-solid before - some for years.
Some pages have held up better than others, mainly those that have many external links pointing to them, but the overall dampening effect is definitely across the board; for some pages, quite extreme.
Our Google directory listing has even gained a couple of notches during this time.
I can still find the home page at the top of the SERPs by querying:
Other queries do bring the page up, just well down. There's no uniformity to the drops on various queries in relation to the home page.
A search for articles I publish that are reproduced on other sites usually brings up other sites first, and in many cases these are very low to no pagerank sites; even in cases where the article was first published on our site over 4 years ago.
Googlebot still on the site basically 24/7 and the home page is being regularly crawled. Fresh tags appearing on home page every couple of days per normal.
| 11:25 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The two test servers (18.104.22.168 and 22.214.171.124) seem to come and go in terms of being updated. Search results are looking good though. I don't see much of a difference for site: searches, but one my newer sites is no longer sandboxed, which is nice. Not too much of a reshuffle in SERPS, but generally good stuff.
| 11:29 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
First of all can I remind everybody to ensure they are definately looking at Big Daddy results at one of the two data centres before sending feedback.
Our high profile UK site has suffered severe canonical problems since October last year. Prior to that we ranked top ten for most of our keywords.
The major problems were the homepage non-www and www getting indexed seperately, half our 425 static pages URL only listings and a few supplementals. SERPS went from excellent accross the board to non existent. PR on homepage fell to 0 from 6 but most internal pages with links to them retained PR.
Having just done a site:www.mysite.co.uk on the big daddy index ALL these problems have been fixed without exception.
1.Homepage listed 1st
2.All 425 pages properly index with snipet
4.Non-www redirecting via (windows) 301 correctly
5.SERPs - most results now back to pre canonical problem status
For me this is an excellent example of just how well the new infrastructure on Big Daddy is dealing with the known problems in the current index.
Just need the index to go live on default google and a PR update based on Big Daddy links/indexed pages and problem solved 100%.
Well done Google and well done Matt for some excellent blogging this evening.
Be critical if you like but you cannot argue that Big Daddy had already addressed some major problems, as above, and it looks like feedback will improve it even further.
| 11:37 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|First of all can I remind everybody to ensure they are definately looking at Big Daddy results at one of the two data centres before sending feedback. |
Yes, the feedback for BigDaddy applied only to these two data centers when they're on.
[126.96.36.199...] and [188.8.131.52...]
Other DC's are not applied.
| 11:53 pm on Jan 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
On [184.108.40.206...] to inform matt our who ever on google is watching at 6:48PM that the supplemental results are gone, www.mydomain.com is back, all pages in the index and the hijackers/302 link caches are gone on those sites that had those pointing to the main site, so everything seems great, ok the ranking and PR6 are gone, but I guess it will come with the update soon.
| 12:01 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Yes, the feedback for BigDaddy applied only to these two data centers when they're on. |
[220.127.116.11...] and [18.104.22.168...]
Other DC's are not applied.
Thanks - I would also like to clear up some obvious confusion from recent posts.
The two Big Daddy data centres quoted above are live 100% of the time. Testing should be done by entering the IP into the browser or following the links below.
Do not rely on Google.co.uk or Google.com serving up the test results as they are only using the Big Daddy results in "Rotation" with the other DC's.
Tests will be confused as the DC's commonly switch between results page 1 & 2 etc.
So for all tests go to [22.214.171.124 ] or [126.96.36.199 ] and save the DC to your desktop.
| 12:25 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
My two cents on BigDaddy:
still get a lot of supplementals and ranking seems a bit like pre-jagger: some spammy sites which disappeared with jagger seem to be back at the top of the serps
from outside it looks like the increase in results (2-3x more results) are helping to bring back some spam which I thought had vanished for good after jagger
| 12:36 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I get two different sets of results on each of the Bigdaddy servers. Not sure which one is live.
Currently [188.8.131.52...] looks the same as my default Google DC and [184.108.40.206...] looks like the test DC results.
| 12:38 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|from outside it looks like the increase in results (2-3x more results) are helping to bring back some spam which I thought had vanished for good after jagger |
any spam sites re-appearing are probably the result of canonical fixes rather than filter issues. If a spam site had canonical issues it is just a likely to get fixed as any other.
This is not an update just an infrastructure change to improve canonicals - no major algo changes over jagger to remove spam claimed.
I suggest you do as Matt says and report spam sites in the correct manner quoting "Big Daddy" in the spam report.
It looks like they may be prepared to take action to get rid of spam with this new cleaner index. (canonically cleaner that is)
| 12:44 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
[220.127.116.11...] is definately live and appears to have been since 1.1.06.
[18.104.22.168...] should be test DC as well according to Matt and was earlier but is definately not at present.
I suggest that [22.214.171.124 ] is used for tests as this is consistantly referring big daddy results.
| 12:50 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Background: Before Jagger, ranked #6 for 6 months on two very competitive keywords, no spam, lotsa ORIGINAL related content(8 times more than our best competitor), no spam, part of a family of sites, PR6, 2k backward links(none bought), 30k static pages with little dynamic content, 4 languages, big ORIGINAL multimedia gallery, lotsa ORIGINAL content. Jagger sandboxed us to #681(and SOME sister sites only). Then we got back to #150 and then to #81. Visits are now 15% of what they were before.
Feedback at 19:35pm today:
At 126.96.36.199 we're #68. A regional site with no other related text to that search than a link to us is ranking #58. Not good at all.
At 188.8.131.52 we're #12. Much better, but still low PR pages with almost no content(sales oriented) and less than 100 Backward links rank better than us.
Hoping to get back on the road...
| 1:05 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Some types of supplemental duplicate content, and some types of ancient supplemental pages are being dropped from the Test DC. Some other types are not affected, as yet.
I see two sets of results at 184.108.40.206. If I refresh I get one set, and if I refresh again I get a much smaller results set with some problems fixed as detailed above.
Google must have deleted (or at least hidden) the data for tens of millions of supplemental results. There are very many more that still need the fix applied though.
| 1:09 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
All I can so is “wow”, they really are doing battle with the evil supplemental’s. As far as the results are concerned I wouldn’t pay any attention to that as that’s not what this is about, and I doubt the SERP’s being displayed on these test data centers are a preview of what’s to come. In fact, I see whole sites that no longer exist being displayed, fresh cache dates on some, but mixed in with a lot of really old stuff.
Search allinurl:www.domain.com here; [220.127.116.11...]
And do the same, for example, here; [18.104.22.168...]
And there is a very significant difference relative to supplemental results for your site. I’m sure they have a long way to go on fixing this whole issue, but it really looks promising.
| 1:20 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Hmm, MC says this is the main one: 22.214.171.124
I see no fixes for canonical or supplemental stuff there.
| 1:25 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
[126.96.36.199...] is the only one to pay attention to. The other one still fluctuates.
Don't be fooled by the hiding of supplementals. There have always been two sets, with 188.8.131.52 being part of the "15%" group I mentioned in another thread. That group has laways displayed a minority report of sorts in terms of supplementals... not necessarily better, just different.
The changed results are quite significant now since no meaningful fix has been implemented, and this is the biggest shakeup in core results in quite some time. The ranking of incorrect pages (meaning a semi-relevant page instead of the properly relevant one) is still the most disturbing aspect, since that has canonical-ish implications.
| 1:29 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
This is the biggest and best change I have ever seen as far as duplicate content and canonical issues. I'd go as far to say if these results spread, my daily income would at least double overnight.
I had minor issues with duplicate content which were my own fault, and now they are remedied. I have a site thats 5 years old that I gave up on after it dropped from page 1 to nowhere for the past 4 years. Well it's back on page 1 again.
I think a lot of the little problems Google had have been finally fixed.
|West of Willamette|
| 1:34 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Matt, thanks for giving us a preview of the next update. Hopefully, this is the beginning of a trend...
| 1:37 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|http://184.108.40.206/ is the only one to pay attention to. The other one still fluctuates. |
MC confirmed that 220.127.116.11 has been taken down for testing.
| 1:40 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>> Don't be fooled by the hiding of supplementals <<
For one keyword search I do, Google returns 17 or 19 supplemental results. The test DC has been showing 21 results, but briefly showed only 8 results at 18.104.22.168 and today is the first time I have seen the number go that low. Several other searches revealed far lower number than I have ever seen.
| 1:55 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
big daddy is very good the only downside is it will take 1-2 months to implement across google..
| 2:19 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Looks worse then ever, Google is brainwashing you guys.
More dirctories, more spam, less revelant sites, less sites on the first ten pages of results many repeated with subpages.
Should help getting google more $$ for adwords.
| 3:09 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Bigdaddy is much better for several keyword phrases in my market. No supplemental results. Good work Google!
| 3:17 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing major errors with weight being given to UK and CA hosted domains/URL's out performing the normal USA hosted .com URL's, all other things being equal.
| 3:38 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
From Rocky thanks for the confirmation on the one test data center being down for testing. I was starting to wonder if all the good changes to my site were going to disappear.
| 4:31 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
well I am seeing less spam.. and more quality sites. Two problems though, more sub pages as you say taking up valuable space in the top 10..and some older sites that havent been updated in years (5 or more) being ranked high.
| 5:34 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The main difference that I see in my results is the reduction of spammy sites that are credited as an incoming link to my main site. Pre 2005 my site had a huge range of top 10 listings and because of this I had 1000's of spammy site incoming links. Now when I search "link:http://www.mysite" there is just a few hundred quality site links.
To me, this update feels a lot less shaky than before. I say go for it ... you're never going to be perfect, but I'd settle for this improvement.
All the best
| 5:48 am on Jan 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The bigdaddy datacenter shows me old cache pages, while the normal serps are updated as should?
| This 276 message thread spans 10 pages: 276 (  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 10 ) > > |