homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.180.223
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 275 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 275 ( 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >     
Google Datacenters Watch: 2006-01-30
Observations, Analysis and Remarks
johnwards




msg:772938
 3:55 pm on Jan 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

< continued from [webmasterworld.com...] >

This is just odd.

The 64.* DC's return about 300 pages from my site.

The 216.* DC's return about 46,000 pages from my site.

And the 66.* return 69,000 pages from my site.

Currently I have about 65,000 pages.

If I go to google.co.uk I get 46,000 pages. If I go to google.com from my US based server I get the same 46,000 results.

It is all very odd and confusing.

[edited by: tedster at 9:56 pm (utc) on Jan. 30, 2006]

 

Eazygoin




msg:772968
 12:56 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

So, on webmasterfmradio, Matt says there are only 3 'live BD DC's....the original 2 plus 216.239.51.104

He thinks the switchover to all DC's for BD will be mid March....one a week from now on.

He says that redirect and canonical issues will be dealt with over the next few months.

Further feedback will be requested later this week.

g1smd




msg:772969
 12:58 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Thanks. I am going to cut and paste that answer every time someone says "are we there yet?" in the next 6 weeks.

Eazygoin




msg:772970
 1:04 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

As I said the other day "Much better if we stick to the facts" ;-)

annej




msg:772971
 4:05 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Thanks for the report on MCs radio coments. That helps us see the whole picture.

Blade3




msg:772972
 6:31 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hi there,

A bit confused why G DC had changed from 72.14.207.99 to 64.233.179.104?

Moreover, 72.14.207.99 shows redirecting site at first position for the query sf giants. But now the dc had changed to 64.233.179.104 which shows non-redirected site.

Thanks

[edited by: engine at 8:20 am (utc) on Feb. 3, 2006]

cleanup




msg:772973
 6:58 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

"redirect and canonical issues will be dealt with over the next few months"

Months! its been months since Jagger when my problems started and many people have been waiting a lot longer.

What a pathetic admission by Google.

More emtpy promises I fear and excuses for an index that it failing in more and more ways each month....:(

colin_h




msg:772974
 7:07 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

A Fantastic Entry on Matt Cutt's blog on Big Daddy. After the last 2 months on anticipation, excitement and possibly dread for thousands of webmasters ... the following post was left.

--------------------------
Richard Said,
January 30, 2006 @ 6:22 am

What the hell is Big Daddy.
---------------------------

Absolutely great and probably quite poignant ... lol ;-)

All the best for today

Col :-)

followgreg




msg:772975
 7:23 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Breath of fresh air...:)

That was fun and might remind GG's that they keep us waiting for some time now.

reseller




msg:772976
 7:34 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

While We Are Waiting for Allegra-II Update

Good morning Folks

Tough times waiting for us during the few coming days/weeks. And tough times require tough measures. For example purchasing large quantities of the Danish brand Cappuccino :-)

Lets have some facts about where to see BigDaddy at this moment (things are changing all the time) :-)

64.233.171.* (i.e [64.233.171.99...] etc..)

[64.233.179.99...]
[64.233.179.104...]

[64.233.185.99...]
[64.233.185.104...]

Wish you all a great sunny day.

taps




msg:772977
 7:59 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

I wonder if it is really big daddy on my local google.de. Results are almost the same as on the well known BD-DCs.

Results are ok for me there. But I doubt that this is already BD which should spread mid-may according to Matt.

Oh, and good morning reseller ;-) I just had one cup of espresso this morning. Cappuccino will follow soon.

Whish you all a pleasant day. And remember: tomorrow is Allegra's first anniversary.

reseller




msg:772978
 8:30 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

taps

>>Oh, and good morning reseller ;-) I just had one cup of espresso this morning. Cappuccino will follow soon.<<

Good morning to you too, taps. Yes more espresso and Cappuccino..please :-)

>>And remember: tomorrow is Allegra's first anniversary. <<

I know. It was the day where I lost 75% of Google's referrals (:(

Lets hope Allegra-II will be a nice guy and pays back what Allegra-I took away from us.

Dayo_UK




msg:772979
 9:53 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>>>He says that redirect and canonical issues will be dealt with over the next few months.

Heard that before. Hope so :).

The other day someone mentioned the xml query that brings up search results in an XML format with the tag <RK> which by looking on other forums and here is thought of the page rank tag.

It is intresting to know that the <RK> tag shows vastly different values in the BD dcs to the non-BD dcs for some sites.

If this is tag does show page rank - it does look like PR has been or is being recalculated for canonical/hijack problem sites but it does not look like the PR value has been applied to the serps (eg as mentioned no significant ranking update so far).

As it stands I dont think there is much to see until those internally recalculated values are applied to the serps.

For those that say PR does not mean anything - well often it means very little - but it does mean something when you are showing a PR0.

>>>Further feedback will be requested later this week.

Wonder if there will be further developments that require further feedback - as it is there is little more to say in feedback etc than there was at the last call.

reseller




msg:772980
 10:10 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Dayo_UK

>>For those that say PR does not mean anything - well often it means very little - but it does mean something when you are showing a PR0. <<

Agreed.

PR0 = problems

or

a new page/site

Soooooo. It could be that your old caninical-site has suddenly returned back to the index with a PR0 and as brand new and young as ever. Lucky you Dayo_UK :-)

Wish the same is possible for old people. You give them a Google PR0 and they retur back young and "productive" again :-)

Ellio




msg:772981
 10:38 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Reseller & Others,

As reported by me yesterday and contrary to Matts radio broadcast there are actually twelve Big Daddy DC,s live that have been showing big daddy reesults for over 24 hours:

[64.233.171.147...]
[64.233.171.105...]
[64.233.171.104...]
[64.233.171.99...]
[64.233.179.104...]
[64.233.179.99...]
[64.233.185.104...]
[64.233.185.99...]
[64.249.93.104...]
[66.249.93.99...]
[216.239.51.104...]
[216.239.51.99...]

All of the above return giants.mlb.com/ in a sf giants search and are therefore definately Big Daddy.

I hope that more are now added on a daily basis.

.

Dayo_UK




msg:772982
 10:44 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Ellio

Yes, BD is on more DC than MC says.

However, MC probably refers to DC by C-Class so :-

[64.233.171.147...]
[64.233.171.105...]
[64.233.171.104...]
[64.233.171.99...]

are just one DC C-Class.

Reseller

You can rank with a PR0 on a new site - but not on an old - totally different kettle of fish. However on the BD DCs using the XML Query PR is back on some PR0 I have monitored.

Ellio




msg:772983
 10:46 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

I a have also noticed that cache dates on 66.249.93.104 (original BD DC) are different (newer and same as default)to all the other 11 BD DC's that have slightly older cache dates.

No idea why.

Ellio




msg:772984
 10:48 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Dayo Said:

Ellio
Yes, BD is on more DC than MC says.

However, MC probably refers to DC by C-Class so :-

[64.233.171.147...]
[64.233.171.105...]
[64.233.171.104...]
[64.233.171.99...]

are just one DC C-Class.

Agreed but that still 5 DC's by C block rather than 3!

.

[edited by: Ellio at 10:49 am (utc) on Feb. 1, 2006]

Dayo_UK




msg:772985
 10:49 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yep and [66.249.93.104...] is not consitently BD - I think the cache dates you are seeing are not BD cache dates - do they match the other non-BD caches?

johnwards




msg:772986
 10:51 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

The current live DC on google.co.uk is fresher for my site than the bigdaddy sites.

Would google put the fresher data into bigdaddy before doing a full roll out?

Ellio




msg:772987
 10:53 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yep and [66.249.93.104...] is not consitently BD - I think the cache dates you are seeing are not BD cache dates - do they match the other non-BD caches?

Dayo, the cache i am seeing on 66.249.93.104 as its part of a result for a page of our site that only shows up on Big Daddy - so I am certain this Cache is in the big daddy index. Same search on other BD DC's returns the page in exactly the same place but with an older cache 15.12.06 instead of 28.12.06.

Ellio




msg:772988
 10:58 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

The current live DC on google.co.uk is fresher for my site than the bigdaddy sites.

That's the point I was making but 66.249.93.104 is returning big Daddy results AND newer caches.

This is interesting in my opinion.

Dayo_UK




msg:772989
 11:02 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Ellio

I am definetly see non-BD cache dates on that DC.

Go to a non-BD dc and type cache:yourpage.com/ngkerkg.html - do you get the same cache date as that DC?

reseller




msg:772990
 11:16 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

This non-BD baby displays a very fresh cache of my homepage; 29 Jan 2006 17:11:00 GMT.

[72.14.207.104...]

exactly the same fresh cache as on BD datacenter

[66.249.93.104...]

[edited by: reseller at 11:20 am (utc) on Feb. 1, 2006]

Ellio




msg:772991
 11:17 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Dayo,

Let me try to re-explain.

Search for our keyword non big daddy DC = Knowhere
Search for our keyword on any big daddy DC = No.6

No6 Result on BD 66.249.93.104 = cache date 28.1.06
No.6 Result on BD other 11 DCs = cache date 15.1.06

Cache date for this page for other terms on default non BD = cache date 28.1.06

I cannot be clearer than that!

The Big Daddy result on 66.249.93.104 definately shows a different cache date than the other Big Daddy DC's. This has been the same for 48 hours now 66.249.93.104 updated the cache but the other did not.

My point was that the cache date on 66.249.93.104 is the same as default (28.1.06)WHEN delivery Big Daddy results. While the other BD DC.,s have the 15.1.06 cache date.

You will have to trust me that I understand Big Daddy, DC's and their workings and am really not getting confused.

Dayo_UK




msg:772992
 11:27 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Sorry did not mean to imply you were getting confused.

It is just that the serp results and cache results are not matching on all DCs.

EG on the DC in question you are seeing Big Daddy/Mozilla Googlebot crawl results without the cache from Mozilla Googlebot - it is just using the default cache.

Mozilla Googlebot crawl in general = Big Daddy Results.

Normal Googlebot crawl = Other results.

You are just seeing the normal Googlebot crawls cache on that DC - but the serps are still showing Mozilla Googlebot results. In some circumstances it results in no cache being displayed as the page has not been crawled by normal Googlebot.

That DC has acted this way before and other DCs are acting the other way around - eg Cache is from Mozilla Googlebot, results seem to be from normal Googlebot crawl - it resulted in a spate of posts of wrong cache, missing cache etc a while back.

Dayo_UK




msg:772993
 11:33 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Ellio

Yes, as my above post.

66.249.93.104 is not using cache from Mozilla Googlebot. But the serps are still as at Mozilla Googlebot crawl.

Ellio




msg:772994
 11:34 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

EG on the DC in question you are seeing Big Daddy/Mozilla Googlebot crawl results without the cache from Mozilla Googlebot - it is just using the default cache.

If am interested in how you know this is the case and not simply a seperate caching by that Big Daddy index alone?

If the answer is obvious I apologise in advance.

Dayo_UK




msg:772995
 11:36 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

By watching the Mozilla Googlebot/Normal Googlebot crawls.

I have a whole site only cached by Mozilla Googlebot - the serps have not changed for this site on the DC - but as normal Googlebot has not crawled this site all the cache links go to a non cache found page.

As I know these pages have only been crawled by Mozilla Googlebot I know exactly which DCs are using Mozilla Googlebot crawl as cache - I posted this a few days back.

Although they are using Mozilla Googlebot crawl data as cache not all of them are showing BD results yet.

It seems the serps data and the cache data dont have to match with each other.

Ellio




msg:772996
 11:45 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

OK so we no that Big Daddy cache pages have different dates to the default index because they use a different crawl.

Do the individual BD DC's cache pages with a seperate crawl or do they use a common Mozilla Googlebot crawl to cache pages for all Big Daddy index DC's?

If the answer is common then I understand your previous answer - thanks.

Ellio




msg:772997
 11:48 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

It seems the serps data and the cache data dont have to match with each other.

This is odd as our serps normally change when the cache is updated.

We assumed new links and text changes were calculated at this point and used in the new serps? (MSN even claim that results are based on cached pages)

[edited by: Ellio at 11:49 am (utc) on Feb. 1, 2006]

Dayo_UK




msg:772998
 11:49 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>>Do the individual BD DC's cache pages with a seperate crawl or do they use a common Mozilla Googlebot crawl to cache pages for all Big Daddy index DC's?

Yes, pretty sure on that.

Obviously they can get updated and they may spread to some DCs before the other - although that process is normally quick.

As that DC has the exact cache (even to the nearest minute/second) as the non-BD dc then it is not showing an update Mozilla Googlebot cache IMO but a Normal Googlebot cache.

Of course as time goes on things change and we may see a merge or something.

>>>We assumed new links and text changes were calculated at this point and used in the new serps?

Well to a degree in the past this was true - however there has always been underlying indexes etc - which means you can rank on words that no longer appear on the newly cached page etc. G1smd has a frustrating experience in this area.

BD is obviously a bit different - MC is saying no ranking changes for one - so it would not surprise me if the ranking structure of said pages is based on different data to what the Mozilla Googlebot/Big Daddy crawl has gathered aswell. EG Perhaps ranks are based on Normal Googlebot crawl.

Of course this is speculating a bit now.

[edited by: Dayo_UK at 11:54 am (utc) on Feb. 1, 2006]

This 275 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 275 ( 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved