| 3:08 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Ball of confusion
That is what the world is today
Please give me back all my page one results...I love you!
| 3:57 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Is it my imagination, or does BD get harder and harder to spot?
It used to be that when we started out with a couple of DC, I could tell what was what. Right now I see different results across the board where it looks like there's on-going updates of the non-BD as well as the BD, in addition to the roll-out of BD.
I'm still hoping the BD is the one where we can forget about the word canonical. Doesn't look like any progress on supplementals (have we forgotten about THEM?).
| 5:21 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Reseller, where are you?
| 6:23 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I keep seeing complaints about BD not fully indexing large site. Not indexing 1000's of pages of some sites. I have noticed they don't even fully index small sites. 31 page sites. 16 page sites. Just can't seem to do it.
My observation is that if it so incomplete, how are they going to resolve any issues.
What is even more curious is how are they now doubling and even tripling the serps results. In some sectors I watch the returns have gone from 2 million+ to 4 million+ and even 6 million+.
How is this happening with so many pages non-indexed?
I also notice on one site, the original return on a site:mysite search it returns 38 pages but when delving thru them it shrinks to 28. Are they masking that many pages. Why?
| 7:55 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If you are using Google toolbar v4.x
Go to SETTINGs > Options > "Search box settings"
Change the "use google site:" to UK (for example)
You will see a different pagerank!
| 8:38 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have new pages indexed on BD for the first time since it appeared. Googlebot's been hitting my sites hard recently, too. Coincidence?
| 9:50 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Re supplementals still showing up in results:
I redesigned a website with all pages finished by 1-19-06. Most of the pages were tagged with Supplementals because the previous designer had copied text off other sites. I tested every line in those pages in Google and rewrote any lines that had been used elsewhere. Now with this update all those pages are no longer supplemental.
My local G is : 188.8.131.52 (mentioned in the list above)
| 9:54 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
can someone please explain what is supplemental and what is cannonical.
| 10:27 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>> Now with this update all those pages are no longer supplemental. <<
Look again. Those pages will be returned as normal results only when you search for content that is on the page now, but will still show up as a "Supplemental Result" when you search for words that used to be on the page but are no longer so.
The cache shown for the normal result will be a modern cache from the last few weeks. For a supplemental result (for the same URL) it will be interesting to see if the cache is shown as the modern one, or whether it links to one from many months ago that still shows the OLD content.
Either scenario can occur.
Erku: see [google.com...]
Additionally: [webmasterworld.com...] and the threads that are linked from there.
| 6:53 am on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Today I saw huge rollback of supplemental results in BD, especially the index.html pages which had been 301 redirected to / since November 05, thus resulting in disappearing of relevant pages. Has anyone noticed this?
| 7:29 am on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
We have also noticed many of our pages changed over to very old listings.
| 7:34 am on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Totally weird, site: seems lighter than ever, never seen such little pages indexed for one site. One of the major (and most linked to) pages seemed to have disappeared from site: & the serps totally.
| 8:04 am on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Supplemental results will never go away. If the dimwit's removed them they would not be able to boast the highly inflated "pages indexed" cr*p. Why cant they just remove a damn page if its gone. I have supplementals showing that were on my old server for christ sake, never switched em over. But no, five years and counting, even with the removal tool..their back. Get used to em
<edit> typo </edit>
| 9:22 am on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
rock on, rock on, brother... rock on
| 10:30 am on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Google UK has rolled back to something. My new site uploaded 2 weeks ago was number 1 for the 2 keywords I am pushing and has now disappeared from the index completely. Newest cache date is 18/02/06 so it looks like a 3 or 4 day rollback.
| 4:44 pm on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Looks like a busy "spam report" day at Google USA and UK. They already banned one of my sites and now they're busy browsing on others. It's sad to see Google filtering sites that are built according to the webmaster guidelines and there's no way of contacting them to discuss if something on my sites should be changed.
| 9:29 pm on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
How do you know that you were "banned" and not simply that Google has reverted to using old data that predates the spidering of your site?
That can, and does, happen.
| 3:31 am on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I simply think that they have been working on the Big Daddy database so long that it still has old pages indexed and it will until it finishes spreading over to all data centers and they will finally get to update it with fresh content.
| 9:00 am on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
5 scraper sites ahead of mine in the SERPs.
No crawl since 2-10-06
| 10:38 am on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
That is my thoughts too.
I just wish things would move along a bit quicker.
Hmmmz mid March was the last timescale we were given - so in a Months time we should know a lot more.
| 10:41 am on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Toolbar PR has updated in the UK. My newest site now has PR.
Isn't this normally an indication of an update near completion?
| 10:44 am on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
That PR update has nothing to do with Big Daddy though. I guess they just exported new PR to the toolbar as they thought it was time/overdue.
| 10:50 am on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Fair enough Dayo.
I don't usually follow the updates but this time I have built a site for a friend and I'm sort of interested to see how my SEO works in a niche alien to me. I hope the SERPs hold out as they are as for the first time in ages I got the number 1 spot for the 2 keywords I'm pushing and the site has only been up for 3 weeks.
Woohoo for me.
(shame I cant do it as well with my aff sites)
| 11:37 am on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Congrats on being #1, I hope it sticks for you, it didn`t for me with one of my new sites. I had first page rankings in a highly competitive phrase for about 3 weeks than poof, I dropped to about page 50.
Now for back to the topic. I live in Pennsylvania and the past two days I noticed my site which was new and had PR0 has been showing PR4 when I first check it around 6:00am but by 6:30am it goes back to PR0? Here are my results. Is this normal?
The number behind the IP is my reported PR on InLock.
| 12:45 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You're better off putting the PR figure first in the list, it makes it a LOT easier to read down the list.
| 4:21 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Looks like Google is doing away with adult sites.
I see nothing but mostly spam in the adult sector ie: dialers, malware, same redirected page shown over thirty times for a 100 search result page, keyword spam, 404 error pages ranking high, pages with no links at all ranking high, pages with no relavency,
Way to go Google your improving search results (hands clapping), looks absolutely terrific! /sarcasm /rolling eyes.
| 2:47 am on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Where is Reseller? I miss his daily updates.
| 8:15 am on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Has BD rolled to more datacentres this past 1-2 weeks?
Anyone know how many dc's it is on now?
| 8:26 am on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It seems like google is on vacation this week? I haven't noticed much change this week.
| This 192 message thread spans 7 pages: 192 (  2 3 4 5 6 7 ) > > |