homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
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 38 message thread spans 2 pages: 38 ( [1] 2 > >     
MSN search quicker than google to update fresh pages and cache

 8:30 pm on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have noticed that MSN has been a lot quicker in updating fresh pages on my sites. It seems as if google is struggling with up to date content and indexing pages. I have googlebot indexing my site every day but it is very slow to update its cache and index. Is everyone else noticing this trend?



 8:52 pm on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yes, MSNbot has historically been much quicker at better pages from the crawl to being displayed in SERPS much faster, at least ever since the major release.

Google had crawled some new pages (1 week) old, but not yet added them for me - MSN added then within about 24 hours. Yahoo isn't as fast as MSN either!


 9:07 pm on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have noticed that MSN's index has been getting more spam free. May be MSN has figured things out finally while google stumbles around in the dark a bit. Google should take a look into fresh cache's and indexing pages quickly. This is the world of internet and things change quickly daily.


 9:23 pm on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Threads like this are just a subjective waste. MSN may update a few sites faster but so what? They aren't in Google's league in terms of adding new pages, and aren't in the same galaxy in terms of fully indexing sites. One person's experience means nothing. Every site is not liked and treated exactly equally by all the search engines.


 9:40 pm on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have not had an issue with google caching fresh pages in the past. Seems like since September google has really slowed down in its fresh index but MSN has picked up. I have spam free sites, no linking schemes, etc... I am not slamming google but I am wondering if everyone is seeing the same thing across the board.


 9:49 pm on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm noticing the same, even with Google Sitemaps in use. Their indexing of any new content is at best sluggish.

As for this thread being useless, surely this is the point of a forum? Google isn't the only SE, despite being the biggest. Given who owns MSN it is only natural to assume they have the resources to really take on Google over time.

In addition, in light of evident difficulties with Google over the last few months, I find it relevant and useful to make comparisons on the features we can actually observe and measure - especially given that much of the discussion about Google is speculative in nature. They are spectacularly bad at communicating anything, so any actual observations are welcome in my view.


 10:08 pm on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Stop looking at your site(s). Look at any group of pages on a variety of sites. MSN crawls some things decently, but is nowehere in Google's league in terms of freshness, depth of indexing, and quickness in adding new pages linked from regularly crawled pages. You can only discover this by looking at a wide range of sites since with any particular site it's possible that one search engine will like you far more than another and there isn't anything general to be learned from that.


 10:14 pm on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I do not know, a lot of people have been saying things on webmasterworld in the big daddy posts about old caches and old pages. Most of us did not have this issue before September.


 10:35 pm on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

The two things don't have anything to do with eavh other.


 10:39 pm on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

My God

Delete this thread - msn is not even 1% of the quaility of Google, why discuss it?.

Its like comparing a sunday league football team with a division one team!

MSN may well skim a few thin spammy sites quickly but it cant deep crawl a site like google bot can - currently im yet to find a quality authority site rich in content that ranks in msn that has more than 20% of its site content cashed by msn.

msn bot better than googles?, dont make me laugh!

This is a joke discussion thread.



 11:48 pm on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Don't know if I should post this but just wondering how much does it take for Google to crawl pages with high PR that linked back to me? MSN and Yahoo crawled them pretty fast but I ain't getting any good traffic from them...

Google only refreshed two pages that have links pointing back at me..


 12:03 am on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yeah, MSN does much better than google on keeping things fresh, as long as it is a small site.

MSN sucks on my bigger sites. They don't even index everything, much less keep things fresh.


 12:41 am on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Big dave, how would you define a big site? Size, urls?


 1:45 am on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Shouldnt this thread be in the MSN section?


 11:38 am on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Might be MSN's database is too less so they are able to index god number of sites at this point of time.

It might become slower when the database reaches the amount of google or more..

Any Thoughts?


 11:38 am on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Might be MSN's database is too less so they are able to index good number of sites at this point of time.

It might become slower when the database reaches the amount of google or more..

Any Thoughts?


 11:48 am on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

MSN is definately improving, but is nowhere near the size of Googles index.

A smaller dataset is obviously going to be easier to manage.

However, you gotta love that search builder they have...


 2:40 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

The guy compains that Google has a problem indexing his pages, that it is much slower than MSN.

He's told, amongst other things:

Stop looking at your site(s).

Delete this thread.

Shouldnt this thread be in the MSN section?

Boy, those are some gems of wisdom right there.

His complaint is legit and it's happening with larger high PR sites as well.

Comparison to MSN aside, they've asked for sitemaps, we've given them sitemaps and yet the crawling is slower than ever.

Google has a problem and it should be a concern to all here.

Let's all do another cheer for "Big Daddy."


 4:15 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Talk about fast - I am ranking number one on MSN with some pages on a new site which I have not finished or submitted to any search engines!?


 5:03 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

MSN seems to jump around more. A couple of weeks or so ago it was pointing to deep pages that fitted the specific serch terms. Not it points to the homepage for the same terms.

Google seems to do a better job of finding the specific page that gives good content on any given search term.


 10:22 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

"Boy, those are some gems of wisdom right there."

They are, but if you can't understand them, bad for you.

"His complaint is legit and it's happening with larger high PR sites as well."

It's not legit, it's nonsense based on anecdotal look at his own sites.


 11:03 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Sorry, but I agree with trinorthlighting. Msn has been doing much better. And I look at a wide range of sites in three different type sectors. Google is indexing new content way behind the other se's and is missing some content completely in some cases. I think google is chasing it's own tail. And the spam is getting worse.
I just spotted (today) a major hole in it's algorthym and I guess i am not the first to spot it. But I put it together from seeing it being exploited by three different seo's. They are blatantly exploiting it. One is doing it so bad it is bound to be spotted sooner or later. I know google has to be aware of it as they banned one seo using the practice but evidently they can't rewrite the algo to stop it.
MSN and Y have neither one been fooled by this particular process. I think it's funny.
Google has done nothing but chase it's tail for a while now.


 11:26 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

I've been preferring MSN and Yahoo for most of my recreational searching lately.

In my case some of my sites do well, others not so well in G, but for the several outdoors pastimes I enjoy (but don't have sites related to), I've found the quality of Google results has gone downhill over the past 2 years.

I don't really care how deeply MSN crawls some huge sites - they list the index pages of relevant sites on pages 1-3 of SERPs the way G used to, without too much auto-generated spam clutter. The MSN results seem familiar to me, and I get my info quickly. The G results have been frustrating lately (also familiar - from the bad days of Altavista or Lycos).

For some key phrases it's almost like they traded algos, as I remember MSN being the one susceptible to networks of spam and throwaway domains, now it seems like a Google thing.


 11:42 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)


Its not about how my site ranks. I will state some facts here.

1. Both googlebot and msnbot visit my homepage twice a day.
2. If I add new content to my homepage it does get spidered twice a day.
3. MSN updates it cache about 48 hours with the new information.
4. Google updates its cache 15 days later.

What I am saying, its not spam, etc... The bots are coming along to visit at least twice a day. What I am saying is why send a bot by if you are not going to update a cache? Make sense?

To add to this thread, I have no issue with serps, I rank top 10 for keywords in my niche idustry on MSN, Yahoo and yes I am going to say this GOOGLE as well. This thread is not about how sites rank, its about how fresh the data is.

BTW, Steveb... You mentioned to look at my site, please do. The site I put up December 2005, it did not hit the infamous "sandbox" and it is ranking top 10 in keywords. To add to it check the data centers for google and see its already getting page rank. I must be doing something right...


 12:05 am on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

agree 100% texasville.

I actually think google created a monster with PR and, if you were brought in to evaluate their sustem, the first thing you might ask is what do you need this thing for?

The PR system as it is implemented is inherently prone to spamming/manipulation. Whatever holes google plugs, people find new ones (not surprising as there are a lot more indepedent webmasters out there than googleplex has techs).

So at any given time, google PR and hence serps are being heavily manipulated by practices designed to exploit holes.

My suspicion is Google devotes a ridiclous amount of resources to - as you say - chasing their tails: trying to keep the PR system from being totally overwhelmed by spammers. And there are signs the situation is getting worse.

As other pointed out, Google is handling spam WORSE, not better than MSN or Inktomi fed engines. MSN deal with problems, especially dup content and content theft, with no apparent fuss. Sites get PR0'd in google due to content theft, etc. and go down the tubes in Google serps. MSN seems to handle this with no problem, identifying and not listing most of the thieves.

I think Google senior management thinks their much promoted PR system is too important to scrap - not because it actually works, just because its a Google "trademark" - part of their product image. But I got to think some of them must realize it is ludicrously inneffective in doing what it is supposed to do: provide better search results.


 12:26 am on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Once again trinorthlighting, stop looking at your site. It means nothing at all how Google compares to MSN at indexing any one site. Of course MSN indexs some sites faster, and of course Google indexs some sites faster. Specific sites are liked more by one engine than another.

Instead look at a wide variety of sites. MSN virtually never fully indexs anything over 50 pages, while Google will do so very often, but that really isn't the point. Just stop drawing conclusions about the Internet based on one website.


 12:37 am on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Ok, lets look at a big site that changes a bit quciker. Compare some cache's

msn- March 2nd
google Feb 26th
(4 days difference)

msn- March 6th
google- Feb 26th
(8 day difference)

msn- March 4th
google- March 2nd
(2 day difference)

Its not just my site per say, it is a lot of sites. Even big sites


 1:43 am on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Wanna know a secret?

For the vast majority of searches, it does not matter one bit to the *searcher* if the search engine only updated the index once a year.

I can only think of one search that I have done in the last 2 weeks where truly fresh mattered.

Just for kicks, I checked some pages that matter on some of my sites.

Personal website home page
Google Mar 5
MSN Feb 22

Large review site "new reviews" page:
Google Mar 5
MSN Mar 4

Small site devoted to specialty food item, home page:
Google Feb 2
MSN Feb 19

I think steveb is right here, it really depends on your site. Google REALLY like the review site, and the new reviews page is rarelky more than a day or so old. On my personal homepage, I think it was probably just the luck of the draw that Google won. Google has just crawled it more recently.


 1:55 am on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Bigdave and steveb,

I do agree that some content never or rarely changes on some pages and should just be checked. That I totally agree on.

The point I am making is that googlebot is coming by and looking at the new content. It does spider it and it does cache it. It is just a lot slower of a process.


 2:07 am on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Uh, I just gave examples where the cache is less than a day old.

You also seem to be concentrating on the default page. One reason that google might hit your home page, and other pages that change fairly frequently is to look for new links instead of just having the goal of updating the index.

For google to update their cache, they need to work the page into the index, and then ship all their changes out to all the datacenters. If your page is changing constantly, then what it the point in doing that work when the cache is going to be out of date anyway.

If you do a litte research, you might also notice that the index and the cache do not always match. Many times the index will show a result for a search before that term shows up on the cached page.

This 38 message thread spans 2 pages: 38 ( [1] 2 > >
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