| 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).
| 10:02 am on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
With Google's love of updates on public holidays (IMO) ... does anyone else suspect that Groundhog Day might be a pertinent day for a total switch over to Big Daddy?
Have a rich sunday cappuccino on me ;-)
All the Best
| 10:25 am on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>>>In other words, does each page of content correspond with only one URL in the results?
That is what I have been saying - I can not find other versions of my homepage with obscure searches.
I have never said that my homepage is listed first for my main site - I dont know where you got that impression from.
But I have said that I am no longer able to pull up the non-www homepage which is exactly what you are talking about. I have not had the www.domain.com/index.html or www.domain.com/default.php problem just www versus non-www - I can no longer pull up the non-www.
I have followed this up with rankings are not improving and assuming/hoping that this is the infastructure that lays the groundwork for improvements.
| 12:26 pm on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Does'nt any of you guys got sick yet from that cat mouse game?
I strongly believe 1,or Google has problems ,2 ,or the droped pages have penalties.
Why pages that rank and survive every update have not those problems you analyse here?
Google has no problems ,Sites that have penalties will have there problems resolved when ,if ever the penalty finish ( I don't think though it will ever finish ,maybe you can have your page back for a few months on a future update and then back again to prison)
Does anyone watched the BBC2 "the world according Google"?
A Googler said that what have you done on the net is like in life ie what is been done can not be undone.
Same applies for websites ,if a web site had problems in the past will have forevere according to
Google world theory.
So my advise ,put your eggs at MSN or Yahoo and don't expect that Big Daddy will fix your problems.
| 4:01 pm on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Your theory would hold water if my site hadn't completely recovered. I spent 6 months banned and then December 27th ... back again as if I hadn't been away.
I don't need to watch Google anymore, but I do because it's fascinating. IMHO it's not as simple as you think.
All the Best
| 4:44 pm on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
if your page recovered then why you post here
joined:June 11, 2005
msg #:145 9:31 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (utc 0)
It's only a search engine!
We are the ones that have elevated it to such an important part of our lives. I have a SOLD board outside of my house and my business this week, just 1 week after hanging up my internet spurs & I love the feeling of freedom it gives me.
Anyone who thinks that google is really the driving force on the Internet today is misguided ... google is your main competitor, not your friend or partner.
Show some spirit! "
| 6:26 pm on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
More wierdness. Starting last night, on 126.96.36.199 some pages of the site are showing Fresh Dates but the cache is anything from 2 to 35 days old, as is the cache date.
On normal google.com I still see some supplemental fixes (old entries representing old content no longer on the page are gone), the number of results shown is lower, but the total count is different: e.g. count was "1 to 20 of 20" and is now "1 to 14 of about 45". I don't know if this is a miscount, or wrong estimate, or whether some more of the older data has been re-imported and is being used "behind the scenes" but still being filtered from the visible results.
| 6:32 pm on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think it's fascinating ...
If you read back through my posts you will see that I have waited for most of 2005 with a great deal of others to get relisted on Google. My New Years resolution was to sell up and move abroad. 3 days after putting my biz & building up for sale I got a buyer and am just waiting for contracts to be signed before looking at a new life.
With all the others on these pages I've been through the ringer and I'm still interested in watching Big Daddy pan out. It is still, however, just a search engine and my advice is to sell up (if you've still got a business) and move on rather than sitting around waiting for google to change. There is a big world out there where real things still happen and sometimes over the past year I began to forget that.
People who have been here a bit longer than you are probably fed up with me going on ... to them I apologise ;-)
All the Best
| 6:54 pm on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>People who have been here a bit longer than you are probably fed up with me going on ... to them I apologise ;-)
I've been following along and I'm certainly not fed up.
| 6:59 pm on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I am personally a big fan of the "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" plan.
It is the one plan I decided on back in 2002 when my one site got banned from google and I lost my shirt. I decided then, I was going to build many different websites about all kinds of different things and that has kept me afloat for a long while now.
I have over 20 different sites now, some content, some are services etc... But I have many baskets now with many eggs so now I worry alot less. The more baskets I have, the more money I make in the end.
| 7:12 pm on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
agree with you I do the same.
| 7:14 pm on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It would appear that the issue with .ca and .co.uk URL's having too much weight in the bigdaddy DC has been corrected.
| 7:17 pm on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Bigdaddy only brought so far: old page titles and slow index updates.. well for my niche.
| 10:00 pm on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Good evening Folks
A Google Datacenters Watch weather report ;-)
As to this moment, Set-I doesn't display BigDaddy results.
If you are looking for BigDaddy, you may wish to look it up on Set-II
Set-II (reseller's DCs :-))
As to the rest of DCs, I see at least 4 sets of serps as far as my testing keyphrases are concerened. Maybe its still the reshuffling or everflux.
| 10:23 pm on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
On a single IP if I keep hitting refresh, I get a different result every time.
On each IP, I see at least two, sometimes as many as five, different results, just on that IP alone.
| 10:45 pm on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>On a single IP if I keep hitting refresh, I get a different result every time.
On each IP, I see at least two, sometimes as many as five, different results, just on that IP alone. <<
Very interesting indeed!
Any qualified guess for why thats happening?
| 11:03 pm on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It could be that some machines in some datacentres do not have the full index (whether on purpose or by accident will never be known), or have a slightly different algo or filtering, compared to other machines in the same datacentre, or it could be some experiment that Google is doing on SEOs - they know full well that only SEOs are hitting that datacentre directly, and can immediately identify an "SEO query" simply by whether they do the "sf giants" search just before or after their main queries.
| 11:11 pm on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for feedback, g1smd. Much appreciated.
| 11:33 pm on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I noticed that on Yahoo, but I didn't see it on google. My guess, and in my opinion, is that if a set of X results have the same "weight" or "relative importance" in the search results, then the fairest way to order them is randomly. That would make the probability that any of them show at any position equal. If those results are more than a page long then one would see a different set of results for each refresh. I will keep a close eye and try on the test DCs more often to see if I can catch this happening.
| 11:43 pm on Jan 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It is a different number of results that is returned. I have one search that usually returns 25 results, and 23 of those should not be there (canonical, supplemental, whatever, problems)... when I search now I get 18 or 20 or 21, changing with each refresh (and with me staying directly on a single IP).
I get a different number of results on other IPs, but most of those results return a static number for that IP, even after multiple refreshes.
| 12:21 am on Jan 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>On a single IP if I keep hitting refresh, I get a different result every time.
I was seeing 2 sets of results on a DC before, every third or fourth refresh (actually as I was paging through results) I would get a different page count.
| 1:54 am on Jan 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Did Google reshuffle results today? My company's site is showing up for every "City" + "white Page" Google search now.
I have had to restart CF and the server every 30 minutes. I think we are getting slammed with new traffic.
Anyone help explain this?
| 2:17 am on Jan 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
<I think we are getting slammed with new traffic>
I thought we were earlier actually but it turned out to be a horrid new bandwidth draining bot (Teleport Pro/1.29.1590).
| 2:52 am on Jan 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
My site has just come back from the dead. It was killed at J3 and now we're back!
Now I can go back to watching the rankings all day instead of actually doing real work. ;-)
| 3:03 am on Jan 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>> Anyone help explain this?
around the 20-23rd Google does an update. Expect a new one feb 2nd or so. It's like clockwork :)
| 3:08 am on Jan 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|MC says these are subtle changes and rankings changes are not likely in this interation - or along those lines. |
Then nothing is really fixed.
| 3:13 am on Jan 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
<My site has just come back from the dead>
Mine appears to have got up and wiped the blood from its nose, and is now staggering about wondering where it is and what is going to happen next. :)
| 4:31 am on Jan 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>> MC says these are subtle changes and rankings changes are not likely in this interation - or along those lines.
>>Then nothing is really fixed.
My guess is that mini-penalties expire durign these little updates, and once no-where-to-be-found sites pop back up
| 6:53 am on Jan 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| This 209 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 209 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6  ) |