homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.7.174
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

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]

 

colin_h




msg:773058
 4:23 pm on Feb 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

On the BD serps (my local .co.uk has had this all afternoon with far less fluctuation than usual) I'm seeing a great deal more supplimental pages. I'm guessing that this is the reason for the inflated number of sites to each search phrase.

ORTHOGANAL ... I love that word ;-)

I feel a bit orthogonal to the real word today, just glancing in and reacting and then we both go on our merry way. Does anyone else get TV mixed up with the real world?

All the best

Col :-)

g1smd




msg:773059
 4:29 pm on Feb 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

This puzzles me: the total number of results returned (well the "number" that Google says there is, as we cannot actually SEE more than the first 1000 results) has gone up by 50 to 100% on many searches, yet when I use the site: command to see what is indexed, the number has shrunk BY 70% to 90% on very many of the sites that I look at (especially if they are dynamic sites: forums, eCommerce, etc).

It has been this way for weeks. I just don't get it.

colin_h




msg:773060
 4:38 pm on Feb 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

I've suspected for a while that Google are running a dis-information campaign against seo's. This might be all part of a wider conspiracy ... I've always wanted to say that ;-)

BillyS




msg:773061
 4:43 pm on Feb 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>This puzzles me: the total number of results returned (well the "number" that Google says there is, as we cannot actually SEE more than the first 1000 results) has gone up by 50 to 100% on many searches, yet when I use the site: command to see what is indexed, the number has shrunk BY 70% to 90% on very many of the sites that I look at (especially if they are dynamic sites: forums, eCommerce, etc).

I'm with you on that one g1smd. Couple this with the statement Matt makes on his blog (typo included):

"On average, people will a little more indexing with BigDaddy."

Ellio




msg:773062
 4:46 pm on Feb 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

In case anyone is interested Matt Cutts explains Orthogonal here:

Orthogonal
Orthogonal in math means that two lines (or vectors or whatever) are at right angles. In non-math, it's taken to mean that two things don't affect each other, i.e. they're independent.

I'll use it in a sentence: supplemental results are orthogonal to BigDaddy. That says that the two are different systems, and changes in one won't affect the other.

Tomorrow's word: (let's mine the world of physics this time) hysteresis. :)

By MattCutts at Thu, 2006-02-02 16:12


Powdork




msg:773063
 4:51 pm on Feb 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

the number has shrunk BY 70% to 90% on very many of the sites that I look at (especially if they are dynamic sites: forums, eCommerce, etc
This would make sense as it is the dynamic sites that can easily have a number of possible url's referring to the same content (ie-more canonicalization problems).
300m




msg:773064
 4:53 pm on Feb 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

The following is nothing more than speculation.

Remember when J1 and J2 rolled out, everything was a mess, at least is was where i was looking. Then J3 rolled out and everything kind of went back to normal, at least for me it did.

A lot of people speculated that j3 was a partial rollback on the natural results prior to the first Jagger update.

I see on a lot of the keywords that I am looking at the same results from Jagger 1 and Jagger 2. What is interesting is that the "data refresh" on the 27th (the one that doubled in results)is when this happened. It makes me think that Jagger 1 and 2 were supposed to resolve a lot of issues, but maybe it did not resolve them because they needed this new infastructure "big daddy". So they worked on big daddy internally with jagger results to see how the played together and thought it was looking good, then they did this data refresh on the 27th, which in my opinion is J1 and 2, then pushed out bd to fish out what they could not back in october.

I know that Jagger is long gone and a tired subject, but i really spend a lot of time looking at the results for the keywords i target daily, if not twice a day, so I did not miss that occurence when it happened.

And what is the big mystery about this december 27th data refresh anyway. If people noticed a change in the results on that day, and it has been that way ever since, it need to be looked in to.

Again, this is only speculation,but from where i see things, i see j1 and j2 results blended in with canonical/301's and maybe that is why the results are double, triple what they were about 1 month ago.

Dayo_UK




msg:773065
 4:54 pm on Feb 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Ellio

Where does he say that? - Not on his blog, does he run a dictionary too ;) (No worries I found where - easy guess really)

I still stand by what I said that Big Daddy is a result of largely a crawl and an indexing by Mozilla Googlebot - at some stage the PR/BL etc will get applied from this crawl IMO - But Big Daddy it seems is not about that and the PR and BL updates that will follow are Orthogonal (lol - not sure that works there) to what they are trying to achieve at this time.?

Hmmmmz - cant see how the Canonical/Redirect fix will work until that has been applied - at least from a ranking point of view.

Steph_R




msg:773066
 5:30 pm on Feb 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Does anyone see BD in their default google today? I did yesterday but now it is gone.

ulysee




msg:773067
 5:37 pm on Feb 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

300m:
And what is the big mystery about this december 27th data refresh anyway. If people noticed a change in the results on that day, and it has been that way ever since, it need to be looked in to.

Yeah my homepage dropped down dramatically in the serps on dec 27th. Many of my inner pages remained in the same positions for keywords, but still a 80% loss in traffic.

dakman




msg:773068
 7:04 pm on Feb 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Big daddy appears to have wipped many pages especially dynamic sites even if there is no dup content... now all the sudden my pages are slowly coming back but i dont think google needs to delete their results why cant they just update the quality of the SERPs without having to hit my site 1,000000000 times a day only to remove 90% of my pages . They remove 90% of the pages then start adding them back again slowly on big daddy's dc's...doesn't make any sense....

they should understand spam control doesnt mean having to delete and reindex sites..... Many white hats use dynamic content for legitamate purposes and can serve more users with fresh unique content.

CainIV




msg:773069
 8:33 pm on Feb 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

But Big Daddy it seems is not about that and the PR and BL updates that will follow are Orthogonal (lol - not sure that works there) to what they are trying to achieve at this time.?

My bet is that you are pretty spot on here, and that is a behind the scenes infrastructure or base platform change in terms of the way Google indexes and collects data.

I would suggest that Google may be tweaking the BD results to improve the conditions of cannonical / 302 errors indirectly (by improving the above part of collecting / comparing and interpreting data). Once Google can properly determine what is the correct root for any given site, then it can accurately process the data you are referring to Dayo. Without knowing which page is the fundamental starting point, BL and internal pr is simply not accurate.

steveb




msg:773070
 10:51 pm on Feb 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

"It is funny that Supplemental Googlebot had never come up in previous postings either here or elsewhere."

I believe it has not run since the oldest current cache for a supplemental page, which I think makes it about 23 months since it ran.

Some significant updates in the BD results today. Interesting how a tiny number of domains have resurrected in the results, while individual pages effected by canonical problems seem to be hurt significantly. I'm way past the point of thinking they have any idea of how to fix the mess they have made, but it seems the prognosis for this year is either total stagnation with arbitrary/bizarre results in terms of at least 10% of the sites out there, or they will eventually do SOMETHING with this new infastructure. With absolute zero fundamental canonical improvements in any way (except slightly with 302s) for two years there appears to be no reason to be optimistic. Even the puny number of sites have been partly healed on Big daddy seem to be so utterly random that they are actually more a part of the problem than a fix. (If fifty sites have the exact same problem and one gets fixed that is a symptom of how cancerous the problem is, not an encouraging sign.)

Pete_J




msg:773071
 10:51 pm on Feb 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

I don't really understand why `orthogonal' is
used in some of the above contributions. Perhaps
`independent' is the word that should be used?

g1smd




msg:773072
 10:56 pm on Feb 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

In riddles, they like to speak. They do this to make you think.

I have no idea what most of it means. It probably isn't what it seems.

RandomOne




msg:773073
 11:29 pm on Feb 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm liking BD a lot.

[edited by: RandomOne at 11:39 pm (utc) on Feb. 2, 2006]

Eazygoin




msg:773074
 11:30 pm on Feb 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

I don't really understand why `orthogonal' is
used in some of the above contributions.

Pretty simple answer really. It's because it was used to explain the relationship between PR and BD, by MC.

Pete_J




msg:773075
 11:51 pm on Feb 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

>Pretty simple answer really. It's because it was >used to explain the relationship between PR and BD, >by MC.

Yes - but it doesn't mean the word is being used correctly. I think `independent' would be more correct (and less confusing). Anyway, as Homer Simpson may have said ... let's not argue about semantics ...

phish




msg:773076
 4:47 am on Feb 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

steveb > i agree..
BD has not even touched the surface of what google faces as far as solving some of the serious issues it has.

CainIV




msg:773077
 6:02 am on Feb 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Even the puny number of sites have been partly healed on Big daddy seem to be so utterly random that they are actually more a part of the problem than a fix.

Agreed. I also see that it is the sites I have created within the last two years that have suffered this the most.

Newest sites for me are fine, as are sites older than 1 1/2 -2 years.

...

colin_h




msg:773078
 6:39 am on Feb 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hi Pete_J,

I agree with you ... the time that DayoUK & I spent discussing the term 'Orthogonal' was probably a waste of our energy ;-)

All the Best

Col :-)

reseller




msg:773079
 8:15 am on Feb 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Whats Happening on These DCs?

Good morning Folks

Quick post after the second Cappuccino this morning...

Never underestimate any DC... if you are a good Google Datacenter Watcher :-)

These DCs are acting "strange" and show few changes on top 10 sites within the sector I watch

[66.102.9.99...]
[66.102.9.104...]

[66.102.11.99...]
[66.102.11.104...]

Thoughts?

Optimus




msg:773080
 8:39 am on Feb 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

No way can google and MC claim that BD has sorted out canonicals and other problems. A search on BD for site:mysite shows 31000 results, with home page at position 9, while site:www.mysite shows 29 600 results and home page at 8. Worse is the link command, with 5 showing for link:my site and 354 showing for link:www.mysite. Non BD google shows 513 backlinks for both non www and www commands.

Since Jagger, my site's home page fell on my primary search terms from position 3 to 22 and now hovers around 8, while BD shows it at 11.

My point is that sites like mine where the home page does not show at position 1 for a site search, seem to be the sites most affected by Jagger and BD, and until google can get their system to correctly recognize the default index page as the main gateway to a site, we will continue to be plagued by bad results.

And I don't believe MC and google when they say that the position of a home page on site search doesn't affect its position in the serps.

In my field, there is only one site which deserves to be in a position better than mine - that leaves 9 trashy, pathetic sites usurping my rightful place at position 2 or 3. When my home page shows at #1 on a site command search, I guarantee I will see it back at position #3 and that will indicate that google has finally fixed the canonical problem.

foolsgold




msg:773081
 9:24 am on Feb 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

reseller

Looks to me like these 'strange' results are older results, or at least they have a very similar pattern to those about 2 months ago. I have also seen some movment in the top 30 SERPs overnight on eth keywords I watch on the three DC identified by MC as now 'live'.

Dayo_UK




msg:773082
 9:31 am on Feb 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Optimus

I pretty much agree with what you are saying...

However, I have seen sites which have a canonical problem then show the homepage at number 1 but rankings have not improved.

So it may be the start of a fix - but rankings dont just snap back into position - might depend on how long the problem has been in place though.

CainIV

Whoohoo - someone understands and agrees with me :)

That theory is the only hope that I have that Google can sort this problem out at the moment. If not then BD seems to have achieved very very little.

aldo




msg:773083
 10:13 am on Feb 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

reseler
[66.102.9.99...]
[66.102.9.104...]

[66.102.11.99...]
[66.102.11.104...]
those are not BD DC's
BD at the moment is here
64.233.171.104
64.233.179.104

64.233.185.104
66.249.93.104

aldo




msg:773084
 10:21 am on Feb 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

according mcdar tool I see at the moment 18 DC's with BD on.

Ellio




msg:773085
 10:26 am on Feb 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

according mcdar tool I see at the moment 18 DC's with BD on.

Agreed, according to McDar the following are Big Daddy:

64.233.171.99
64.233.171.104
64.233.171.105
64.233.171.147

64.233.179.99
64.233.179.104

64.233.185.99
64.233.185.104

216.239.57.98
216.239.57.99
216.239.57.105

66.102.7.99
66.102.7.104

216.239.57.104
216.239.57.147

216.239.57.98

216.239.51.99
216.239.51.104

Thats 18 sites and 8 "C" Blocks.

Its worth pointing out that Big Daddy is "Intermittent" on some of these sites as revolving with default results.

Definately spreading though, maybe faster than predicted by MC...

Eazygoin




msg:773086
 10:36 am on Feb 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

So, MC syas that BD is on THREE DC's and you guys see it on 18....uhmmmm, who is right here, you or him?

fatpeter




msg:773087
 10:38 am on Feb 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

we are

Dayo_UK




msg:773088
 10:39 am on Feb 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yes, we/they are.

MC is probably talking about C-classes so 3 vs 8.

I would have thought that MC is talking about DCs which maybe are more consitently showing BD - but there is no doubt that there are more than the three he named at this time.

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