homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.10.100
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]

 

cleanup




msg:773178
 9:32 am on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Just a word about the new BD infrastructure, mainly to Dayo_UK and anyone else with 301/canonical issues.

I have been seeing as others have reported a slight churning and movement, with a few more pages getting corrected.

I have not seen a definate fix yet but maybe a few positive signs like;

One or two of may pages that were picked and and listed with the "301 - this pages has moved..." have been corrected. Not much in itself but a positive sign I suppose.

I see an increasing number of DCs heading in the right direction.

More interestingly.. some of my pages that are being listed - incorrectly - at the moment, with the only content being.. "301 - this pages has moved..." are now ranking again for their terms.. even though the caption text in google is still the "301 - this page has moved..". strange..

Anyway, I suppose the point of this post, after so many negative posts or the past months is to confirm that there *MAY* be some movement now in the right direction.

Lets hope so ;)

[edited by: cleanup at 9:37 am (utc) on Feb. 5, 2006]

reseller




msg:773179
 9:36 am on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

The New Serps on BigDaddy DCs

Good morning Folks

IMO, the most important element in Google Datacenters Watching is to have an open mind and think without restrictions or pre-assumptions about possible and impossible scenarios. This way we would be able to observe changes as they are, analysing as to the best of our knowledge and posting our remarks and hereby speaking our minds. I.e free thoughts, free analysis and freely speaking our minds are essential elements of DCs watching. ALL DONE IN GOOD FAITH.

Accordingly, I have noticed BigDaddy DCs serps have changed, within my testing keyphrases and the sectors I watch, since 3rd. February 2006.

Agreed, the current situation mightbe confusing. On one hand we have Google introducing new infrastructure which was supposed not to affect ranking. But changes in ranking are exactly what some of us see at present on BigDaddy DCs.

We have been told by my hero Matt "Inigo" Cutts that he considers "a switch over to a new piece of infrastructure" as an UPDATE.
Later, the same hero wrote that BigDaddy is a switch over to a new infrastructure, but it shouldn't be regarded as an UPDATE!

Confused? you bet I am :-)

Back to DCs watching. BigDaddy is spreading to several more DCs in addition to what Inigo's has mentioned:

"Bigdaddy continues to roll out and is now available at three data centers. In addition to 66.249.93.104 and 64.233.179.104, Bigdaddy is now up at 216.239.51.104."

However, Inigo wrote also:

"Donít take it as a promise, but Iíd expect a new data center to be converted to BigDaddy roughly every 10 days or so."

Fair enough, Inigo. It could be the DCs are converting to BigDaddy in more speedy manner than you have expected. And I'm buying :-)

I wish you all a great Sunday.

followgreg




msg:773180
 9:52 am on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>"Donít take it as a promise, but Iíd expect a new data center to be converted to BigDaddy roughly every 10 days or so."

Hey BTW, this could take a long time! How many DC do they have again?

aldo




msg:773181
 10:19 am on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

mcdar tool shows at the moment 28 DC's with BD
and 25 DC's with default Google

Ellio




msg:773182
 11:04 am on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>mcdar tool shows at the moment 28 DC's with BD
and 25 DC's with default Google <<,

Just checked myself and there are definately as many Big Daddy DC's as Default DC's now.

Its rolling out quite fast at this rate we will be 100% Big Daddy before the end of February.

Ellio




msg:773183
 11:10 am on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Google.co.uk has been using [72.14.207.104...] as the default DC for over a week.

This DC is not listed by McDar does anybody have any info on the 72.14.207 C-Block?

Markoi




msg:773184
 11:16 am on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

A lot of DC's down?

otech




msg:773185
 11:17 am on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I assume you guys are using the sf giants search to determine BD dc's..

Just a thought, has anyone figured out, or does anyone care to guess why this search would be changed under BD?

They both have the same title, (www.sfgiants.com & giants.mlb.com)

So, has anyone figured out why this BD has this effect on those URLS rankings?

By the way, if it was literaly just a move to 64bit as some people suggest, why would SERPS be any different? MSN network & microsoft in general moved to 64 bit, and it didnt cause any changes... Its a bit too low level for it to have a SERP effect dont you think?

I think must be, at least in part, an 'algorithmic' change to the infrastructure (infrastructure change is a pretty broad term) for it to change rankings of sites, right?

So, does basically what do we KNOW about BD beyond the 'canonicals / redirects' attempted fixes?

paintbox




msg:773186
 11:26 am on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

In order to find out why the search for sf giants is such a good test for BD, I did a search for site:www.giants.mlb.com on BD and non BD. This site has really undergone a major canonical fix! 34 pages listed on non BD, all supplemental, 204 on BD, none supplemental! The site does not appear in serps on non-BD, but is no. 1 on BD, which means the canonical fix has also had a dramatic effect on its serp placement.

Marval




msg:773187
 11:28 am on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

noted one canonical issue that doesnt seem to have been addressed so far in my watching. It concerns the use of a country domain that allows the use of dot com as a part of the subdirectory structure. An example would be when I do a site:mysite.com I still see pages that are assigned to my domain of the following structure:
www.someotherdomain.tk.mydomain.com/page.html
BD is not handling those as other domains, although because they are dupe pages they do assign supplemental status to them and leave the real page as an "original" page.
I submitted them as a spam report some time back but have resubmitted them with Matts recommended added phrase as of yesterday.
The rest of the canonical issues Ive looked at that Ive had in the past do seem to be handled correctly now although I am still testing the ServerName tag in Apache to see if the problem that existed with the relative path directories has been fixed.

Ellio




msg:773188
 11:33 am on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>>I assume you guys are using the sf giants search to determine BD dc's..
Just a thought, has anyone figured out, or does anyone care to guess why this search would be changed under BD?

They both have the same title, (www.sfgiants.com & giants.mlb.com)

So, has anyone figured out why this BD has this effect on those URLS rankings? <<<<

This is fully explained by Matt on his Blog in an early Big Dady post - The new infrastructure has used its cannonicalization improvement to find the best homepage.

paintbox




msg:773189
 12:10 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Sorry, my site: search was on the wrong page...
site:giants:mlb.com on non-BD gives 24.300 pages and on BD it gives 147.000 pages. Quite a big difference! Could this alone explain the difference in serp placement?

otech




msg:773190
 1:05 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

semantics aside Ellio, what i was trying to say was whether anyone had specifically analysed the sf giants results to determine why this one was the reliable example Matt Cutts said it was.

Paintbox, thats what i am talking about, nice one - so you reckon it got there from a canonical fix?

Do you think the indexed pages total is perhaps because once the canonical issue was fixed its pagerank was restored already - maybe thats why more pages got in there.

But that would mean PR updates on sites with repaired canonical problems are near instant?
Maybe thats why we are seeing different rankings too - as the PR is getting shuffled a bit when sites are repaired?

I was under the impression this would take a re-crawl to clear up rather than an instant PR boost..?

Ellio




msg:773191
 1:09 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>But that would mean PR updates on sites with repaired canonical problems are near instant?
Maybe thats why we are seeing different rankings too - as the PR is getting shuffled a bit when sites are repaired? <<<<

I believe this may be the case.

Eazygoin




msg:773192
 1:17 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Reseller >> Nice post :-) You explained things very clearly.

My main site was showing about 850 pages prior to BD being made public. It now shows over 60,000, which is nothing to do with canonical issues, as I didn't have any. However, my belief is that it could be to do with filters being levied, which show every internal link, and all extended URL's.

Now maybe Google is allowing all possible URL's to show for a site, and will later place another filter to omit the results that are not considered important. My default URL by the way, where I checked, is one of the BD Ip's.

paintbox




msg:773193
 1:44 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

But that would mean PR updates on sites with repaired canonical problems are near instant?
Maybe thats why we are seeing different rankings too - as the PR is getting shuffled a bit when sites are repaired?

Yes, I believe this could very well be the case. In which case this would also confirm what many people have said for a long time: PR is updated continuously, whereas toolbar PR gets updated only occasionally.

Also: better serps rankings would of course not follow automatically when sites are fixed, but only if the "restored" pages help improve the PR (I suppose the opposite could happen in some cases).

reseller




msg:773194
 3:01 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Eazygoin

>>Reseller >> Nice post :-) You explained things very clearly.<<

Thanks for the kind words, my friend ;-)

otech

>>Maybe thats why we are seeing different rankings too - as the PR is getting shuffled a bit when sites are repaired? <<

However, we should also consider other options in explaining the difference in ranking we see. Including the possibility that algorithm update is taking place on BigDaddy as Matt signaled on his latest BigDaddy post.

"Remember that Bigdaddy involves new infrastructure and is not just a data push or algorithm update."!

Those of us who are used to "decode" GoogleGuy's and Matt's posts know that our two kind friends at the plex also indicate important things between the lines :-)

BillyS




msg:773195
 3:52 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>The New Serps on BigDaddy DCs

I don't get you reseller. First off, you're a day and a half off with this annoucement. The "big" SERP change actually occurred before 6:30 p.m. EST on Friday. One pattern to that change seems to be for those affected on September 22nd.

Second, on Saturday, you're announcing an update and spreading of BigDaddy - well that isn't happening either.

For someone that stresses how important it is to be accurate in statements, you should follow your own advice. Others reading this thread often look at what your saying as authoritiative, but to me it seems more like wishful thinking.

Matt claims that BD is only on three DCs. I tend to believe him. Perhaps we are merely seeing BD-like results on other data centers, but under the hood they are not BigDaddy.

colin_h




msg:773196
 4:23 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hi BillyS,

>>>>For someone that stresses how important it is to be accurate in statements, you should follow your own advice.<<<<

I'd be surprised if anyone could be anythong other than theoretical about what is happening at the moment. This saga has had a great deal of ups & downs, and I have seen a great deal of people declare an update over the past 2 months.

IMHO Reseller gives information when he sees it and always bases his theories on clear evidence. He definately doesn't deserve the dis-respectful tone that you are taking with him.

All the Best

Col :-)

reseller




msg:773197
 4:24 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

BillyS

And I thought that you are still watching your grass grow :-)

Have a great Sunday.

colin_h

Thanks, my friend. Much appreciated.

otech




msg:773198
 5:05 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

It is true that Matt has mentioned only 3 datacenters have BD, but there are many other DC's showing the same results on the sf giants search and differ from the other set which which for my site also display differently.

ie:
64.233.179.99
64.233.179.104
64.233.185.99
64.233.185.104
64.233.187.99
64.233.187.104
64.233.171.99
64.233.171.104
64.233.171.105
64.233.171.147

all show the same results (around 40%-50% of the DC's I just quickley tested) - which are the same as the BD DC's mentioned by Matt.

And, I found several DC's to be offline at the moment also.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck.. you know what i mean : call it a duck (scary, i think i remember that quote from judge judy!)

Pico_Train




msg:773199
 5:35 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Ah ha! Now I see some changes. Vewy Intewesting...I'm gonna get that wabbit! And finally!

Keep 'em coming Matt, I like where this is going.

2by4




msg:773200
 5:56 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Otech, you got those right, reseller too is right I think on this one. I have another test phrase that shows bc easily, all I did was locate it in the bd serps, then I just cut and paste in the dc ips otech just listed, the theorized ones, and sure enough, hit enter, and it didn't move in the serps. Replace ips with google.com and it vanished.

Of course, and needless to say: we all have our google cookies blocked, right? Too many google update thread people don't do that and keep seeing their cusomized, personalized results and then say no update is happening. Sigh... seo 101, block google cookies. I see this happen all the time here. If blocking a specific site's cookies is not easy, try firefox.

Now if google could just decide whether that site is #19 or #22 for that result... it's been bouncing back and forth during the whole big daddy test period.

Also keep in mind the DC facts, they can direct some traffic to the bd infrastructure in a dc, then direct it to the non bd stuff, so the same ip can show then not show bd results.

sjgreatdeals




msg:773201
 6:25 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I am still seeing huge swings using site: command on the test datacenters. I sure hope this doesn continue and starts to settle down, seeing page fluxuations on 10,000 or more more up and down day today for sites.

BillyS




msg:773202
 7:56 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>Please welcome Update BigDaddy... What you are looking at today is the update underway in the shape of BigDaddy migrating to the rest of DCs.

So on what basis was that statement reseller made in message 173?

>>And I thought that you are still watching your grass grow :-)

I am ;)

>>Q: Is there an easy way to test if a datacenter is running Bigdaddy?
A: Thereís not a definitive way outside of Google. But the [sf giants] example that I mentioned in my pre-Bigdaddy 302 post remains a pretty good test. If the query [sf giants] returns giants.mlb.com, the odds are pretty good that youíre hitting Bigdaddy.

Quack - It might not be a duck...

It's nice that some folks will come to your defense, but my message to others is just to be aware and try to separate fact (it wasn't spreading on February 3rd) from fiction.

A blessed day to you too Reseller.

jd01




msg:773203
 9:06 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Just wanted to say thanks to all of you regulars (Reseller, BillyS, 2by4 DayoUK) who are watching and sharing, so those of us who do not have time can have an idea of where things are...

I can usually skim through your posts and know what to look for. Thanks All.

Justin

CainIV




msg:773204
 9:53 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Matt claims that BD is only on three DCs. I tend to believe him.

From what I see the resultset and serps modeling BD are on way more than simply 3 DC's, and do appear to be spreading.

A check through your logs may show increased Google traffic IF your site was incorrectly filtered on Sept 22 or earlier. I am definitely seeing a change in referrals directly from searches done through improved rankings at the BD modeled DC's. Without a doubt.

It also seems to me to be more of a return to pre Jagger semantics / relations.

Any thoughts?

Eazygoin




msg:773205
 10:05 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Logic does imply that if Big Daddy will spread on one DC every 10 days, and will be finished by mid March[ie: across all DC's by then], we have six weeks to go, or 42 days.

The sums say 3 BD DC's already active + 42/10 = 4.2 which is a total of 7.2 DC's by mid March. So, on that basis, it has to be DC clusters every 10 days, OR more than one DC every 10 days, OR groups of DC's every 10 days.....otherwise it would take years for every DC to change over, at one every 10 days.

Now theres something to attack from all sides....lol!

nicidivine




msg:773206
 10:15 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm still only seeing nothing more than a return to september 22 rseults.

I am monitoring 30 sites. Some are up. Some are down. Its jsut depends on whether they were above or below rankings a week ago, of their sep22 results.

Can all those hypothesing(inlcuding reseller) please check 5 or so sites they were managing at the end of september, and see whether rankings now more or less are the same now, as then?

This does not seem to be an update, it seems to be a rollback

reseller




msg:773207
 10:17 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

BillyS

>>So on what basis was that statement reseller made in message 173? <<

Its all there on that same message, previous messages and the messages thereafter.

And hereby I rest my case ;-)

soapystar




msg:773208
 10:24 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

the only time youll catch me resting my case is if its too heavy to go as hand luggage.....

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