| 11:01 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
before you give your, "Changed It Again" Google update?
| 11:17 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
According to the sf giants test I have found another live Big Daddy DC at 18.104.22.168
Big Daddy is also live at 22.214.171.124
But not at:
I wonder if the new BD DC is significant?
| 12:02 am on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Interesting... it appears that many sites which are based on forums are the worst effected. Try doing a site: search on the large forum websites, and then again for the likes of the BBC and Microsoft.
The forum sites are have massive reductions in page counts, whereas many other sites have gigantic page increases. I've tested this on many sites and found the same thing (over 10 examples).
| 12:15 am on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I've found a 'mini-bigdaddy'!
11,730,000,000 pages currently on 126.96.36.199
this is fun but now it may be time to update the public PR and go live no?
| 12:37 am on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
On reseller's DC's my index page is showing up at #3 for site: search, on Big Daddy 188.8.131.52, it was always second.
The interesting thing is that on reseller's DC's, my site map page is ranking fairly well for the site name and index page is indented right after it. It appears that Google still doesn't want to entirely recognize my index page as the "head" of my site. Of course, it's progress. :-)
| 9:30 am on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>>> Identifying a correct page as canonical is just a small, even tiny, part of canonical problems.
Yes, I agree with that - fair enough.
But for me Google is correctly identifity the correct page as the canonical (well from what is visible on the test dcs)....when my site has been in the dark so long I was encouraged by this and therefore optomistic.
I would be lying IMO if I said that is not an improvement. And as MC was talking about infastructure and groundwork I assumed this is the type of thing we should be looking for at this stage rather than ranking changes.
However, as my pages dont rank then my homepage still suffer as a result of the canonical problem and perhap my optomisim is mis-placed.
| 9:51 am on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Sorry for being totally off message but I bet the US Government will be shocked at how many people search for the "sf giants" when they finally get hold of Google's search data ...
All the Best
| 12:42 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Here's one for the paranoid. Matt gave us the phrase "sf giants" so Google could track our other search phrases.
| 2:18 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"I've found a 'mini-bigdaddy'!"
That's got to be worth something ;)
| 2:33 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have not posted in this forum for around a month or so. The reason being is that to many people are posting garbage that is off topic..If you want to talk about a broadcast that is on TV or anything else create a thread for it..It get's reall annoying clicking on a thread that is labeled Google data Center watch and having to sort through so much garbage. The same thing happened with the jagger thread and many others.
| 3:09 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
A "mini-Bigdaddy" sounds like a "Jumbo Shrimp" :)
| 3:36 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I don't know about the rest of you but I am a little dissappointed that google guy or Matt Cutts can't pop in with a comment at all on big daddy and what is going on in the data centers.
Even a we are still working on it, we are reading your posts and taking notes, we are making progress, it is taking longer than expected, well just about anything would be nice.
| 4:05 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Now we're making progress (for me at least)! This is the highest page count I've had in a BigDaddy DC to date. Up from 585 yesterday to 860 today (that's up from a low of around 300 less than a week ago - I still show 985 on non-BigDaddy centers). I've been hit by Googlebot and Mozilla Googlebot hard for the last two days.
I was also showing from 80 - 100 supplementals in that count. None of the 860 are showing as supplemental. No ranking adjustments yet for me.
| 4:41 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Seiing as you haven't posted for over a month, your contribution is hardly of any merit, when the one time you do post, it's to criticise others.
Sometimes slightly off topic comments can be helpful, especially for those strenuously watching Google's every move, and posting on the more popular threads gets the word around more quickly.
But I do respect your comments, so please respect others, as we are all here to help one another.
| 4:54 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I would agree with you, this DC is the only one just about which is finally able to index some of my internal pages and one homepage across several sites. No improvment in rankings however, I'm hoping that will follow.
| 6:18 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>>>I don't know about the rest of you but I am a little dissappointed that google guy or Matt Cutts can't pop in with a comment at all on big daddy and what is going on in the data centers.
I agree - people are seeing some homepages being crawled again etc although these are not ranking.
Personally for sites that have had over a year now (or thereabouts) of canonical problems it would be nice to know if this is expected behaviour at this stage and what is liklely in the coming months.
At the moment it just seems like G are teasing site owners with canonical problems rather than helping/solving etc.
These site owners have had it pretty hard from G anyway without this extra teasing :( - little bit of info on what to expect would be nice.
| 7:14 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
To be fair - On January 4 MC said the testing would last for 1 - 2 months.
At this point the testing has been going on for no more than 2 1/2 weeks.
During this time the BD centres have been active off and on, and each time they are activated there has been something new for us to analyse and report back on.
If lots of errors are reported, I'm sure the Google people will take this into account (why else would they have asked for our feed back?), so let's just go on investigating and reporting what we find. The better and the more informative our reports, the more valuable they will be to Google, and the better the chance of a satisfactory end result. Anyway, it's far too early to panic!
| 7:33 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
...what you say is true - in that case they should simply update the visible PR so we have something else to talk about :)
| 8:36 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Set-II (reseller's DCs :-))
These results stink.
They show quantity but not quality.
For example, blog-feed urls instead of the actual blogs.
Torrent and crack sites instead of review, fan and forum sites.
| 8:44 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"But for me Google is correctly identifity the correct page as the canonical (well from what is visible on the test dcs)...."
You haven't shown even that. Listing your homepage first is nothing.
Is ONLY the page you want to be seen as canonical listed? (... only www.example.com, no example.com or example.com/index.php or...)
Are no other versions of the content on the page able to be found via obscure searches (for example, text that used to be on the page but no longer is)?
And that doesn't even address ranking.
A canonical page is not identified as long as other versions of the page/content exist, regardless of how they are ordered in results or whether the "correct" page outranks "non-correct" versions of the page in the results.
In other words, does each page of content correspond with only one URL in the results?
| 8:48 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
That is true, but If I remember correctly Matt also said some problems were going to be addressed last update too concerning the same problems that big daddy is now suppose to be taking care of, and that didn't happen. I am sure Matt thought they were going to be and I am not knocking him a bit. I appreciate all that he shares with us.
We just want a little reassurance is all. A lot of us were really excited a month or two ago and we don't want to be disappointed again.
Don't get me wrong we are thrilled that google is trying to fix this problem but if it is going to be 3 or 4 months instead of a month or two so be it. We would just like to know. With some of the changes we are seeing to our sites it is hard not to get your hopes up.
| 8:51 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
What a mess. Supplementals of URLs that never had content on them from two years ago resurrected. Any page with any sort of canonical issue depressed in the results.
You gotta wonder when Google is actually going to take a step forward dealing with its core problems, rather than band aid after band aid and step back after step back.
| 9:12 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well, I now see some supplemental stuff fixed again in the last 24 hours, on 184.108.40.206, but at a time when BD results are NOT showing....
| 9:17 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The Smoke and Mirrors of BigDaddy
Good evening Folks
And so we read frustrations and disappointments, which are natural human reactions on the current situation on some of Google DCs.
Life of webmasters would have been much easier without watching and posting comments about BigDaddy which we really we don't know much about other than its an attempt of building a new infrastructure of Google index.
Our problems and frustrations started the moment our good friend at the plex, Matt "Inigo" Cutts asked for feedback about this and that. Sending signals which motivated some fellow members to expect a remedy for their sites disparate situations.
Don't get me wrong. I'm an Inigo fanboy and I'm not questioning his motives for calling for feedback. I'm just saying that Inigo should have been more careful when he wrote that famous call.
In the absence of feedback from GG or Matt, we are left to deal with the situation depending upon our own resources. And we do have great resources here in this great WebmasterWorld community.
We need to forget what Matt wrote in his call for feedback and move on assuming that BigDaddy is ONLY about new infrastructure.
IMO we should keep our focus on the two DCs which I mentioned in a previous post
Set-II (reseller's DCs :-))
Maybe they don't look great for some of you. However, that might as well be the new infrastructure for deploying the next update on sometime during February.
And who knows what the next update gonna bring all of us of surprises, good and bad news and more frustrations :-)
| 9:33 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
There are still canonical problems with these BD results. Both centres show that I have one www home page with a cache date of Jan. 6 and another non www home page with a cache date from Jan. 12. Same serp position in both, though.
| 10:00 pm on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
All those datacenters are intended to apply canonical fixes "in time". Nothing going on yet on any consistent scale, aside from the above average ranking changes.
| 12:51 am on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>All those datacenters are intended to apply canonical fixes "in time".
I'm currently seeing a reversal of the forward progress. I don't beleive this can be not attributed to those Big Daddy DCs that are now not showing older cache results.
Are we in agreement or not disagreement?
| 4:11 am on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
So this new "Big Daddy" database has over 25 billion pages indexed and this is why it is taking them so long to update everything?
Or are they converting all their data centers to hold the bigger database which takes a while to do which is why it is taking so long for this new Big Daddy to spread across all the data centers?
| 4:54 am on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>> So this new "Big Daddy" database has over 25 billion pages indexed and this is why it is taking them so long to update everything?
I doubt it. More like they don't feel it's where it shoudl be quality wise. Google would not collect all that data if they couldn't handle it in a timely fashion, especially this type of data.
| 8:11 am on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The Art of Google Datacenters Watch
Good morning Folks
It isn't only a passion but also discipline to observe, analyze and posting remarks about the DCs in general or specific DCs in particular. And patience and focus is the name of the game.
Mostly we are seeking predictions about how tomorrow serps might look like.
And as you might have noticed, watching Google datacenters is a very educating process. Take a look at some posts on this thread and you shall see important topics as canonical issues, supplemental issues, 301 redirect etc. explained in details.
In fact this thread reflects the huge high quality resources this great WebmasterWorld community has.
Keep those great observations, analysis and remarks coming ;-)
| 9:20 am on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm a newbie on the forum, and I find this topic fascinating because of all the new insights it gives. To most people watching data centers probably sounds like a rather stupid occupation (a bit like watching grass grow), but in fact, comparing results and following the testing progress (and sometimes regress) has already given lots of new clues about the Google algorithm, and some of the reasons behind the sometimes not quite logical serp results.
So let's keep watching and reporting. Remember, Google needs us to do this (at least according to MC).
| This 209 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 209 ( 1 2 3 4 5  7 ) > > |