| 11:56 pm on Mar 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Its worse for me as well. I was almost all the way back 2 days ago on almost all DC's then it completely reversed itself.
| 12:10 am on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Not good on either of them. The site has a fraction more pages indexed on the first set.
MSN is becoming more and more important to my traffic base...It's been so much more steady than G()()gle or Y@h**.
| 1:00 am on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
getting worse here as well :(
| 4:41 am on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Page count continuing to climb. 22,000 now. Up from my previous postings.
| 4:44 am on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It would be great If you could post Datacenter you mentioned...
| 6:41 am on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Good morning Folks!
Cold and still much of snow covering the grass outside. And we are talking about March 2006. Any of you know exactly where to find a spring or something ;-)
Ok. Lets put more words in the term "BigDaddy is worse for me too". Are we talking here about your ranking? about number of indexed pages? about supplementals? about canonicals? about......?
Lets talk BigDaddy again :-)
Wish you all a great day.
| 6:50 am on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
For me on BD DCs I have 112,000, 148,000 depend on which BD DC I'm looking... All the same thing I'm seeing is ALL Supplemental except Homepage...
In NON BD DCs The results are acceptable for me 12,000 Indexed Pages in the index with our new URL and Fresh Cache.. Hope these will eventually migrate to ALL DCs...
Any Suggestion are welcome!
| 7:02 am on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have one particular non-profit making project site that has been hit very hard by this latest occurance. It is approximately 6 years old and uses very little seo (i.e. just meta tags). It has had a PR 5 for years and still shows that ranking. However, over the past 8 days it has lost the majority of its Google hits due to the pages suddenly losing their top spots for keyphrases.
I've noticed that there is a difference between the performance of each page, some losing all perceived relevance and a few keeping as popular as ever. Over the past couple of days a few pages have began to show some upward movement, now competing when queried with a "uk" bias. Unfortunately these pages used to compete in the 30 000 000's, so a long way to come home.
These results are pretty much across all of the DC's, BD or otherwise. The site only has a few supplemental pages in cache and the cache dates range from Feb 3rd to March 8th. So my main hope is pinned on Google not having calculated historic PR yet in this set of Serps.
All the Best
| 8:59 am on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
yes this morning i found a little pice of spring on the way to work. ;-)
It seems that BD has killed some of the Black Hat pages. But still there are many Duplicate Content on Top positions. Maybe they fix it when BD goes to its final completion. Hope so, soon.
There are more than one sets of serps anyway on BD but IMO the 22.214.171.124 and 126.96.36.199 are not the best out of it. Other BDs seems better sorted with more relevance to the search topic and with less scrapers.
Meanwhile my own side goes up and down on the serps like a bunny in spring temper.
| 10:05 am on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
to me everything looks so identical to oct/nov/early dec/ serps that it would appear we are seeing the affect of data shifts and lack of end product filters rather than new bd rankings.
| 10:09 am on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>>to me everything looks so identical to oct/nov/early dec/ serps that it would appear we are seeing the affect of data shifts and lack of end product filters rather than new bd rankings.
Yep, got to really hope an update is around the corner for Big Daddy Serps.
Come on Google one final push to get all DCs on Big Daddy and then we can move forwards?
| 11:45 am on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Yep, got to really hope an update is around the corner for Big Daddy Serps"
I don't know how to say it in a way that doesn't sound funny ;-)
It seems that Google has adopted new strategy on BigDaddy DCs:
Gradual Continuous Updating
| 11:58 am on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>Gradual Continuous Updating
I dont know.
I am wondering if there has been any ranking/algo change on the Big Daddy DCs since launch in November time.
OK, we have had the changes on December 27th and March 8th that has effected all DCs - some knobs G are fiddling with perhaps ;)
But some of MCs early comments on Big Daddy were:-
|Most of the changes are under the hood, enough so that an average user might not even notice any difference in this iteration. |
|most of the changes is new infrastructure. Then there's a few new algorithms to handle the underlying changes. But there shouldn't be much algo changes as far as spam, relevance, ranking, etc. |
There has to be a time when all this infastructure results in ranking changes IMO.
With only these DCs showing Non-Big Daddy:-
We must be getting close to full roll out - and then surely Google would want a ranking refresh to bring in the infastructure changes they have introduced.
Yes, there may have been some changes in ranking of some sites as the infastructure change may have been enough for improvements - for others the infastructure needs to be in place for the next step.
All IMO of course.
| 12:00 pm on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Again I am seeing the canonical problem over BD DC today.
If I see through site: command 2 index page is in index one as www. mydomain. com/ and another is www. mydomain. com/index.asp rest of the pages are showing as supplemental.
Is anyone finding the same?
| 12:07 pm on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I've been seeing fluctuating results all morning so I decided to start pinging Google uk every 20 minutes or so. I have since seen 4 different IP addresses. Is this normal activity for updates?
| 12:18 pm on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
this is the second time i recognized it.
My sidemap had an error. After g* downloaded the sidemap and couldn process the sidemap my side went straight down the serps. I fixed the sidemap and two days later the side went up the serps. Could that be. Its only in BD index.
| 12:42 pm on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Do you think its possible when there was a recent splurge of comments regarding a PR update, that only NEW pages were updated [I realise theres constant updating], and put forward to the toolbar? i.e. only new pages were given visible PR update.
| 1:03 pm on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
any got there PR back after the 302 bug, hijacking non www issue on BD, the only real change I see is that www. version is now ok, but els there is the supplemental all over and non PR, from before PR6.
| 1:12 pm on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I agree with Dayo_UK, c'mon Google one last big push. Send BigDaddy kicking and screaming into the world. And then give it a slap on the ass for misbehaving up until now.
It's amazing, a few months ago when in the midst of Jagger I thought to myself "this can't get any worse". And quite unbelieveably it did. Hope this stress will turn out to be a growing pain for Google and nothing more.
After BigDaddy is out and about we need a BIGMOMMA update methinks.
| 1:57 pm on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think the PR update was based on the normal Googlebot crawl. It updated old and new pages as far as I can see found by the normal Googlebot.
But the Old Googlebot crawl was/is no good for the new infastructure.
That the big thing - No Ranking changes despite improvements in infastructure - as you mentioned before if you use the live pr tool then your site has a return in Page Rank - but has this been applied to the serp rankings - No - IMO.
I see the same thing for my main site.
We may need to teach Google breathing exercises for this big final push. Come on G - deep breaths :)
| 3:45 pm on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"There has to be a time when all this infastructure results in ranking changes IMO."
IMO, its already happening, but of course we can't say for sure what's the main reason behind ranking fluctuations/changes.
Personally, I think its the gradual continuous updating process on some of BigDaddy DCs which has been taking place for some time.
| 4:03 pm on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
im with you m8. To me its alomost obviuos that BD does not include the changes of December 27th. Its reasonable to assume that BD is the infrastucture that allows for promised and hoped fixes the start of which predates december 27. I dont see how this would be implemented until Bd is finnished spreading to every DC. BD started independent of Sep/Dec algo changes and i would think it reasonable that things would get very comlicated if it was then merged in terms of the original datasets it used with that pre/dec 27th while the whole infrastucture switch was still ongoing.
Over to you reseller.
| 4:31 pm on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Over to you reseller."
I wish to write few lines about how I see BigDaddy experiment.
Lets keep in mind the "Google Beta Mentality" in releasing products as they are leaving to the end users to act as free testers reporting back bugs to the folks at the plex.
BigDaddy isn't different in anyway than the rest of Google's Beta-products.
Now its easy to see what happened and whats going on as far as BigDaddy is concerned.
First they implemented BigDaddy on very few DCs. Matt "Inigo" Cutts called then for more than one feedback, If I recall correctly. We "The Free Testers" reported back to Inigo both on his blog and on WebmasterWorld of course.
In fact we have been reporting "bugs" of Bigdaddy all the time. Read different BigDaddy related threads on WebmasterWorld, and see for yourself.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is; we shouldn't look at BigDaddy as a finished perfect product, rather as a Beta-Product which is subjected to continuous developements, improvements, tweaking etc...
Over to you soapystar :-)
| 4:54 pm on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
To me its alomost obviuos that BD does not include the changes of December 27th. Its reasonable to assume that BD is the infrastucture that allows for promised and hoped fixes the start of which predates december 27
My homepage fell down and allinanchor was turned off or totally dismantled in many areas in bigdaddy and regular serps on Dec 27th. I think the changes on Dec 27th took place in regular and big daddy serps simultaneously.
| 5:09 pm on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yes, that data refresh did effect all DCs and MC has confirmed it was not a Big Daddy effect - to me that shows that the old ranking/bl/anchor text etc was and probably still is effecting the serps on Big Daddy - which seems to me that Google are yet to fully implement the Big Daddy improvements.
The purpose of Big Daddy was to lay the groundwork for future improvements.
I dont think that any of those future improvements have even gradually started to hit the serps yet. It seems it has to reach all DCs before these improvements are implemented - well hopefully they will be implemented otherwise G has missed the Goal (again).
Yes, of course there are changes on a daily basis as pages are added after crawling etc - but the improvements that this infastructure layed the ground work for - nothing in the serps as yet that was not there in November/December time IMO.
| 5:24 pm on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
My PR6 site has been varying between PR6 and PR5 over the past week or so across the Google data centers. Do you folk believe that Big Daddy indications - and his best friend (188.8.131.52 & 184.108.40.206) - are the best indicators of final stability? I seem stable at PR6 on these.
| 5:36 pm on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"I dont think that any of those future improvements have even gradually started to hit the serps yet."
Well it depends upon how we as publishers and Inigo & Co understand "improvements" and which priorities are given to such "improvements".
For a publisher whos site suffer of canonical or supplemental issues, improvements means resolving the said issues.
While for GG and Inigo; search quality "relevancy", fighting spam and maybe "mine is larger than yours" are high priorities.
Maybe because GG & Inigo think; who cares whether Dayo_UK or steveb sites suffer of canonicals and supplementals issues?
Maybe they think; 99.99% of searchers wouldn't hear or know about the said two issues which are of importance to Dayo_UK and steveb ;-)
| 5:43 pm on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Lol - I am sure they dont care what I think.
But Big Daddy very much had an aim to solve those problems (well not supplemental probs - dont think they said much about that in BD) - and I am not going to say that it will not - as I personally believe that we have not reached that stage yet.
But it seems you are of the opinion that Big Daddy has done what it has intended to do and the serps are showing these changes - just dont agree that the serps are reflecting the changes Google are introducing yet - that is all. ;)
And also with MC indicating that most users will not see changes in this interation and that most of the improvements are down the road - I dont think that we should expect to at this stage..... but your point was that you are already seeing changes in this area?
| 7:16 pm on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
but....even if dc's showed post dec 27 chnages at some point....what datasets are they now using and is this a fully algo/filter implemented serps?..im saying no its not...its a reflection of sep-dec serps....
| 7:43 pm on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
One thing I have noticed with the December 27 refresh is our old "www" vs "non www" issue has come back.
Back in May/June we went down in Google from #6 to around 800+ and found out it had been indexing our "non www's". Well, we fixed that up by putting in our 301's and we saw a clean up occur with what Google had indexed for our site and we bounced back.
Now, December 27 rolls around and BAM, our "non www's" have come back again! About 3,700 of them to be exact. Where did they come from when they had been cleaned out!?!?
If we do a site search on "site:www.mysite.com" our main page is lost in the mess. Yet if we do a search on "site:mysite.com -www" the index page is the first page that shows up. Same thing that happened to us back in May/June. We accidentally hijacked ourselves or something by being stupid and not having 301's.
My curiosity now is how do we clean it up again? This is probably very dense of me but if our site has 301's redirecting to the "www's", if we put "disallows" on the "non www" version of our site, won't it interpret that and see that it goes to the "www" and then obliterate the main "www" site as well? Am I over thinking this? I am too afraid to put a disallow on "mysite.com" only to see "www.mysite.com" stop being followed as well.
Please tell me I am over thinking this because this December 27 refresh has put us right back where we were in May/June.
Any ideas are greatly appreciated. We realize that having the "www's" and "non www's" was a stupid error on our part but we cleaned it up as soon as we realized and googlebot seemed to see that as well. But now this? Brings them back from where? Er? *scratches head*
| 7:51 pm on Mar 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I lost faith in google and I think a lot of people are getting very frustrated
| This 210 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 210 ( 1 2  4 5 6 7 ) > > |