| 3:45 pm on Feb 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think I've found a more up to date BD result at [gppgle.com...] or [22.214.171.124...] . The cache seems more up to date than the others I have looked at, plus results seem more sensible somehow also.
All the Best
Paranoid Col :-)
| 4:11 pm on Feb 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The datacenter 126.96.36.199 is currently my local google.co.uk and the results are ok for me on it - my pages exist. However, for me it fails the 'sf giants' test so is it really a Big Daddy datacenter?
| 4:16 pm on Feb 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
No - they/it is not a Big Daddy DC.
Hmmz - I guess we only have 3-4 weeks to go now :o
| 4:59 pm on Feb 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You'll have to take my word for it that the "sf giants" worked earlier and the serps were incredibly different from the other regular "sf giants" results. I agree that now the serps are showing regular listings though ... but for a minute there I was impressed by the results.
| 5:06 pm on Feb 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I lost my internal pages positions in Big Daddy as well as Little Daddy.
Does it imply that they have penalized some specific sectional pages of my website?
Whatever results that are showing in Big Daddy or Little Daddy, is it the final result?
| 7:36 pm on Feb 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|You'll have to take my word for it that the "sf giants" worked earlier and the serps were incredibly different from the other regular "sf giants" results. |
That happened to me also. It changed over a 5 minute period. My indexed pages go up and down every day. It's like watching waves at the beech. Fascinating and kind of spell binding, but a waste of time. Will someone please stop me.:)
| 7:51 pm on Feb 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
When i see <a spoof site> on #1 and the real Matt on #2 there is something wrong!
[edited by: tedster at 8:14 pm (utc) on Feb. 27, 2006]
| 8:04 pm on Feb 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I wish [188.8.131.52...] was Big Daddy. It has much better results.
| 8:12 pm on Feb 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You will definitely see BD results at:
| 11:56 pm on Feb 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The DC's have now dropped so many of my pages that it is impossible to tell if positions are improving or what, so I'm giving up for a while and get on with something more productive! :)
| 3:40 am on Feb 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have now managed to find two versions of BD serps on two different IP's ("sf giants" - giants.mlb.com) + a set of regular serps. There is definately an update of cache on the new version, but still some supplimentals and to my eye the search results look really stripped of spam sites. It's pointless me telling you the IP's I have used, as they are changing quite rapidly but using search phrases in mcdar.net does show me these versions every now and then. I think there is a change coming and the results look better than usual, though not perfect yet.
Additional note: My earlier comment that gppgle.com and 184.108.40.206 were the same is wrong, they are slightly different and yet both pull cache from 220.127.116.11. (i.e. site counts differ 10'000 here and there and the odd search, say for my name, gives one or two differences)
| 11:30 am on Feb 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Just keep hitting "reload" on the same IP and you will see three different sets of results with 90 seconds of looking.......
| 12:16 pm on Feb 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing a slight rise in page count for my domain (212 urls indexed 2 days ago, 517 this morning) at 18.104.22.168, but when I look at the actual listing, a large percentage of the urls are hidden from the results (only 196 urls displayed). With &filter=0, 233 pages are displayed, none of them supplemental. The rest of the hidden pages are supplemental, with cache dates reverting back to Aug 10, 2005 (I fished them out by running site:domain.com/directory/).
Basically, number of urls for my domain with fresh cache is stagnant and the increase in page count is due to the addition of hidden supplementals with ancient cache.
| 12:22 pm on Feb 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>> hidden supplementals with ancient cache <<
That has been a major problem for the last 18 months or more, but it seems that Google is completely uninterested in fixing it.
The replies that we have had back from the Google Helpdesk show that they have no understanding of what the problem is, even when we provided a list of search queries and direct links to real pages and links to the Google cache of those pages.
| 12:29 pm on Feb 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>>Just keep hitting "reload" on the same IP and you will see three different sets of results with 90 seconds of looking.......
Lol, Any of them good?
>>>>The replies that we have had back from the Google Helpdesk show that they have no understanding of what the problem is
I get a similar impression that they dont understand what damage Canonical problems do to a site. Of course they probably do know but have to keep it under there hat.
A couple of days ago I said Big Daddy looked like it was hitting about 18 out of 25 C-classes that I was monitoring with a tool - this has gone down to 11.
At current rate of progress Mid March target does not look like it will be made IMO.
| 12:54 pm on Feb 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>> A couple of days ago I said Big Daddy looked like it was hitting about 18 out of 25 C-classes that I was monitoring with a tool - this has gone down to 11.
That would be a good trend if that turns out to be true, IMO. There are several complaints including myself that Big Daddy drop out huge number of pages from various sites, so it looks like there are big flaws in BD mechanism, if any. If propagation of BD were to be continued right now, it would be devastating to those sites that suffer...
| 1:04 pm on Feb 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>>so it looks like there are big flaws in BD mechanism
Personally would not like to comment until after deployment and then a full crawl and index cycle.
>>>>If propagation of BD were to be continued right now, it would be devastating to those sites that suffer...
In the short term at least I would agree.
Although it has gone down to 11 I would not read to much into it - Google updates always wax and wane over the DCs.
| 5:10 pm on Feb 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It is likely very premature to make any reliable observations, but one thing I have noticed on many searches on the BD datacenters is that where there used to be 2 results from the same site, now there is only one.
This is particularly true for popular searches with several million results such as city names.
There may be nothing to it, but then again ...
Just an observation. :)
| 11:52 pm on Feb 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
<<- BD index is still clogged full of scrapers, doorways and 404s. Meanwhile the sites sticking by the guidelines are getting trounced.
Google puzzle me.>>
Absolutely correct, if this goes on much longer the good sites (white hat) and Googles reputation will be in serious decline.
| 1:30 am on Mar 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
At the moment it looks like Google's priorities are not with the quality of the index but rather with making the transition to new infrastructure smoothly. It's going to be interesting to note the time it takes for a stabilization of the index to take place once BigDaddy is on all datacenters.
| 10:25 am on Mar 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Sure seems to be that Bd has taken a turn for the worse it has been looking good, supplementals are all back. We have a site that has 773 pages on 22.214.171.124 do that on the bd dc's we have 1780 pages some have caches that are 2years old. Are they foating the crap to the top?
| 12:16 pm on Mar 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
BD is currently back on AOL UK :)
| 12:29 pm on Mar 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
A site of mine came out of obscurity and ranked 6th after big daddy for it's main term. It was previously buried deep due to canonical problems. It has now disappeared off the map again. Anyone else seeing this?
I got used to the front page traffic.
| 12:37 pm on Mar 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Intresting AOL does not show supplimentals for me etc in a site search - might always have been that way of course.
Not sure if we are making any progress - With MC reported as saying another 6 weeks to go - this is what he said 4 weeks ago just about.
| 1:34 pm on Mar 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
maybe the drop in googles share prices today may be due to the lack of quality of search results. This has just taken to long the whole idea of Big Daddy was to fix canonical issues and 302.Along with clearing out spam/ blackhat sites. I see no evidence of these being fixed. Infact on big daddy dc's the sites with 1000's of non relevant backlinks are ranking at the top of the SERPS.
| 1:55 pm on Mar 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yeah locoblade, I do agree with you. I too see more sites with non-relevant and reciprocal linked ranking high.
Dayo_UK, today I noticed on BD that maximum of my site pages shows supplemental when I check with site command.
|King of all Sales|
| 4:40 pm on Mar 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Something big is happening. Didn't think it was possible for the serps to get any worse. Overnight, even more garbage has found it's way to the top. OUCH!
Google stock dropped yesterday because the CFO gave a speech in which he said that Google's only revenue comes from advertising and they will not be able to grow that by anything they do internally. They will only achieve growth as the overall online advertising market grows.
| 8:19 pm on Mar 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Hey i have it sussed make the natural results so bad all the real websites drop out and then those owners have no other option but too buy lots of adwords.
Seriously 2 days ago google dropped 160 pages of my site completely out of the serps on the bigg daddy dc's, the other 450 older pages are still there and we are still getting no1 for a 328million results returned search. I cannot see any reason for it at all its like a rollback but why roll back an update.
BD dc's cannot get any worse.
| 8:45 pm on Mar 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
On the BD dc's my sites page count has dropped from circa 250 to only 45 pages now indexed - those all have a crawl date of 27/02/2006
Do it have a penalty on the BD dc's or are others seeing the same?
| 12:15 am on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Never before have I seen so much crap as now.
If this is "fixing" things then I would hate to see what it looked like if it was ever "broken".
... and the responses from Google Helpdesk get ever further from reality. Just what are they smoking over there?
| 12:23 am on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Is it common to lose alot of pages during these updates?
I went from over 2000 pages down to 204.
I am positive there is nothing wrong with these pages.
Can anybody tell me does this happen from time to time and do you get them back as quickly as they left?
What is going on?
| This 192 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 192 ( 1 2  4 5 6 7 ) > > |