| 9:48 am on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I am trying to stay omptomistic too - it does looks like we will have to wait for full roll out before anything significant though.
That 72 set of dcs doesnt get mentioned enough as it is not on a lot of tools.
DCs which are not Big Daddy IMO are:-
Also showing Non Big Daddy results - but sometimes showing XML Big Daddy are :-
I guess they will be next to go Big Daddys way.
| 9:57 am on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Anybody grasped the significance of Mr Cutts' latest posting? 220.127.116.11?"
Oh..I thought you know!
That was the number on the Social Security Card of Mattīs female cat "Spamie" which is around 2 years old. In a latest comment, Matt reported that she in fact is gaining weight because of the Bacon Polenta portions that he presents her with :-)
| 10:15 am on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"DCs which are not Big Daddy IMO are:-
It seems that 66.249.85.* went BigDaddy while you were writing your post ;-)
| 10:20 am on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Ack - Yes my Bad.
On that DC the serps are Big Daddy while the xml version is still showing non-big daddy. So the other way around of 66.102.9.* & 66.102.11.*
| 10:30 am on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think 18.104.22.168 and 22.214.171.124 are still "switching" back and forth between Big Daddy and the old index.
Therefore these cannot be considered Big Daddy - just yet.
| 11:24 am on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
this week the search side:www.myside.de showed my about 11200 pages, witch was about 5000 to much. Tody on 126.96.36.199 the side search gives back 890 pages?! I donīt get it. Anybody the same effect?
| 11:38 am on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The Google user has to be seeing some interesting results. On our local Google, this morning when we searched for our main page, we saw different versions over a period of four hours.
First it was 14 March, then 13 March, then 8 March and now 14 March.
| 3:12 pm on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>Oh..I thought you know! That was the number on the Social Security Card of Mattīs female cat "Spamie" which is around 2 years old. In a latest comment, Matt reported that she in fact is gaining weight because of the Bacon Polenta portions that he presents her with :-)
Why didn't I think of that. Quick somebody pass me more coffee ;-)
| 3:45 pm on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
on 188.8.131.52 which I thought was the bd at one time, our site is switching from 245 pages, 62,400 pages, 242 pages, 244 pages on refreshes at the moment.
I've seen this before and then it ends up at BD 245 after awhile,
The 62,400 has my current indexed pages and I keep hoping these would spread to other dc's. My current dc has 245
| 4:04 pm on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
So to sum it up:-
"Googles currently in a <edited> mess with its serps"
but how long will this roll out take - are things going to get any better soon?
The supplemental issue and the loss of pages from the serps in general has certainly damaged the confidence webmasters now have in Google.
The Florida update was bad enough but you could see what they were trying to achieve back then, this ones worse imo as it provides no improvement as we can see to the serps, all its achieved is damage to a volume of websites and a change of it serps that are now filled with junk and directory related sites, less relevent pages whilst kicking out quality pages and content thats highly relevent.
Did the SERPS need fixing - NO
Are the SERPS better now following this - CERTAINLY NOT
Will google lose webmaster support following this issue - Possibly if they are not seen to be at least trying to fix the issues.
[edited by: tedster at 6:17 pm (utc) on Mar. 19, 2006]
[edit reason] TOS [webmasterworld.com] #14 [/edit]
| 4:09 pm on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>>Did the SERPS need fixing - NO
Of course they did - Canonical url problems needed to be fixed - Google no doubt would have hoped for a smoother rollover to the new index.
More and more sites were getting hit with this problem as time went on.
Personally I dont think it is Big Daddy that has caused this problem but problems with the existing index which is still used (clearly IMO) to rank sites on Big Daddy.
More split PR problems have been caused on the Old DCs which seems to have had a more immediate impact on Big Daddy - but as these urls were split on the old DCs, rankings probably would have been lost in time too on those DCs.
Whether they will come out fixed with the supplemental issue also resolved is the big question though.
| 4:18 pm on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Sorry, sure the Canonical url problems needed to be fixed but that issue alone could have been addressed by google, put right and introduced.
They didnt need to <edited> the serps up by rolling out this mess.
I dont and cant see any possible improvement to the serps other than making them less relevent in the hope they can increase adwords revenue by hoping that the new serps are a)so weak that more users will click on sponsored adverts and b) drop enough quality pages from authority sites in the hope those authority sites buy more adwords - maybe this is the real game plan here!
[edited by: tedster at 6:20 pm (utc) on Mar. 19, 2006]
[edit reason] TOS [webmasterworld.com] #14 [/edit]
| 4:31 pm on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>>Sorry, sure the Canonical url problems needed to be fixed but that issue alone could have been addressed by google, put right and introduced.
I think that is what they are trying to do. Lol - cant believe I have been defending Google recently after a year I have had with them :(
>>>>They didnt need to <edited> the serps up by rolling out this mess.
Indeed. I am not sure why all of this was not done behind the scenes like most changes.
<theory mode>My theory that Google is still using old ranking on BD was maybe to try and make this less painfull until fully rolled out when the new ranking structure may take over - but as the old ranking was flawed and updated during the BD rollout then maybe this is where it went wrong for some sites</theory mode>
[edited by: tedster at 6:19 pm (utc) on Mar. 19, 2006]
[edit reason] TOS [webmasterworld.com] #14 [/edit]
| 4:41 pm on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
theory mode - you may have something with that thought - they wanted to move towards trust rank so maybe you thoughts on this close to the situation.
What ever the case its a complete f@ck up - to say webmasters are frustrated with it all is an understatement!
| 4:45 pm on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>Indeed. I am not sure why all of this was not done behind the scenes like most changes.
The way the whole thing proceeded made me think this was hardware related. The long timeline and the index differences. This was more than just moving data from one center to another. It was the replacement of an entire infrastructure.
If it was a simple algo change, they could have pushed a new binary in days/weeks - not months.
We are also seeing mistakes and changes in BD because they are trying to replicate the SERPS (within reason) in the old centers while utilizing the capabilities of the new 64 bit CPUs and O/S.
That's another reason no one's promising anything more than an "under the hood" change. I do believe Google is going to address other problems - such as canonicals - that is going to happen down the road. They need to make sure BD is "working as intended" first. It has to be stable as a production system before changing anything.
I think Google was faced with a big problem here. The hardware was rolling in as was the team that was working on the servers. They probably thought more of the BD bugs would have been worked out by now. So they keep updating DCs in the hopes that the bugs would eventually be closed.
| 4:57 pm on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I dont think it is trustrank - just a different/new calculation of Page Rank.
Mozilla Googlebot is responsible for crawling most of the Big Daddy data while Normal Googlebot was crawling the old data.
There is going to be two different calculations of PR there one done by Mozilla Googlebot and one by Normal Googlebot - if Google are still relying on using the Normal Googlebot Page Rank on the Mozilla Googlebot index problems could arise between the two.
For a large part it may make sense to use the Normal Googlebot ranking until the roll out is complete - so I can see the logic of Google doing this - but issues would arise esp. as the Normal Googlebot can not do things which Moz Bot can do etc.
| 5:09 pm on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>So they keep updating DCs in the hopes that the bugs would eventually be closed. <<
so every time they fix a problem, they create a new one and do a roll back. About three weeks ago, there have been very good serps. Most of the scrapers and dup content have been vanished. But instead of building up this index they abolished the index and made a roll back. If there is an quality search team iīd like to know what the measures of good serps are they are trying to create?
Matt Cutts shows up some of Dup Content sides on his blog but i can easiely show u hundreds of Dup Cont sides withc show up on top ten. And every time they tuning their algo this sides get a little more push up in the serps.
| 9:10 pm on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Heavy Reshuffling on The DCs
For a moment I'm gonna forget all about Matt and his BigDaddy, and just judge the DCs of whats happening and of what it might look like.
Yes.. very vigorous reshuffling is what I see through out the DCs. Are we heading to an ...... ;-)
| 9:18 pm on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
A lot of unanswered questions above..
Danny Sullivan, 'Things I hate about Google' item #10: Give us paid web search support: Folks are still obsessing about being listed in Google. They worry they've been banned and any number of other problems. Give them a guaranteed support mechanism. Poor Matt Cutts -- his blog is going to collapse under the comments of Cuttlets flocking there in lieu of other alternatives.
Matt Cutts:the criticisms that Danny gives should be addressed, even if the issue is mostly perception.
... So where's Googleguy, and why isn't Matt Cutts talking about it? Funny how, when there's a shambles, everyone goes quiet.
| 10:35 pm on Mar 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You can't rollout new infrastructure "behind the scenes". Eventually you just have to introduce it and accept the changes that occur.
The recent changes are no more interesting and are much less widespread than those that have plagued Google for three years. The hope though, either reasonable or pollyanna-ish, is that new infrastructure will enable them to this year fix most of their innumerable problems. Previously all they were doing is rearranging the deck chairs. We appear to have a new boat now. No eveidence of it being a better boat yet, but it is a different one.
| 12:17 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Its a different boat alright - HMS Titanic!
They need to sort things out PDQ to prevent them going the same way as Altavista imo - Market leader, hero to zero in a matter of months
This COULD happen to Google - Only time will tell if they can sort these issues out but they need to move fast - the serps are currently just awfull, many authority sites have been hit with one issue or another and the clocks ticking.
P.S I cant think of anything to be "Glad" about with this roll out so far.
| 12:30 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have to assume that all is in hand and Google will once again show us why they are the leader.
The clock is ticking though.
The spam in there now makes me shudder, I have to look at the heading to make sure I'm not actally in MSN
| 2:15 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The serps are plain awful
A popular search just now uk provides me with (top 20 SERPS:-
1. Spam page with 11 links and no real content
2. Authority site in the sector but not for the keyword - reasonable try if it was msn!
3. Directory Site
4. Site contains info on the keyword but not this page
5. Authority site (should be 1)
6. Directory Site
7. Not even relevent
8. Directory site
9. Another directory site
10. Junk - contains some content on the search term but how it got rank 10 is anyones guess
11. duplicate of 2
12. Authority site that should be in top 3( page selected not the most relevent to the keyword for this site)
13. Not relevent - spam
14. Not relevent - spam
15. Another directory
16. Not Relevent
17. Wow - on topic site - reasonable
19. Not relevent
20. Pure Spam
Conclusion based on these results
30% Directory sites
25% Not Relevent
15% Shouldnt even be listed
If anyone can convince me these results from google are now an improvement i will eat my hat!
I cant believe its taken Google eight years to get to this standard - amazing, currently they have just dropped the ball big style!
P.S i dont think Page Rank counts for anything now either. You can have good relevent links from authority sites pointing to a page and google will select lower quality pages from that site that dont have many external links to them and rank them further back - lost the plot imo
| 2:35 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"They need to sort things out PDQ to prevent them going the same way as Altavista imo - Market leader, hero to zero in a matter of months
This COULD happen to Google - Only time will tell if they can sort these issues out but they need to move fast - the serps are currently just awfull, many authority sites have been hit with one issue or another and the clocks ticking. "
I don't think Google could be wiped out in the way Altavista was (though they likely deserve it). They're the first real mega search giant with far more revenue and power than alta ever had. They're much more solid financially.
But the BD rollout is incredibly ill executed. They had a decent, current index in mid-FEB - now its destroyed by merging in the ancient cr@p they were using since August to test BD which has in turn led to the supplemetal problem. I removed a ton of pages between Oct and Feb via the "removal tool" and got confirmation they were gone and they were as of mid FEB. They're all back now, all supplemental and cluttering the index.
Whatever they thought they were gonna be able to do, they were wrong and the fact they tried to do it (and still are) live rather than in the background has hurt them bad (as well as many of us).
I think they knew there would be some disruption and didn't much care if a mere few thousand of us got wiped out but hard to believe they anticipated the absolute catostrophe to their vaunted "relevance."
| 2:49 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
In my area I have seen worse serps than that since the Dec Data Refresh.
I have seen many serps in my area have 10 spam sites 5 non relevant and 5 relevant site from 1-20 out of 14 million results.
I have seen serps with 16 spam sites and 2 non relevant and 2 relevant from 1-20 out of 7 million results.
I guess the storm has just spread to all areas recently.
| 3:03 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|but they need to move fast - the serps are currently just awfull, many authority sites have been hit with one issue or another and the clocks ticking. |
I really don't think the clock is ticking or that Google is likely to be wiped out, they're a major technology player now on par with Microsoft. That their SERPs aren't great and are full of bugs is nothing new. They've been hitting authority sites for years and people have been complaining for years. The SERPS of all engines are full of spam. Everytime some old spam gets hit, good sites go down with it... and new spam starts rising to the top.
The surest reason however that Google is not in imminent danger is that Yahoo's SERPs are worse and unlikely to improve much anytime soon while people still don't think of MSN when they think of search (and they have a long way to go to make good on their sky-high promises... a very long way).
| 7:39 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
BigDaddy New Infrastructure ... Must Do List
Good morning Folks
Today is our youngest daughter 18 years birthday ...Hurrra. No more kids in family, more grandkids hopefully. reseller willl have more time to do Google Datacenters Watch, when other projects allow :-)
BigDaddy is moving fast and soon we will only do DCs watching on the new Google infrastructure. Wish Google a bright successful future and best wishes to our good friends at the plex.
No.. I'm not gonna talk about PR and backlinks update. No..I'm not gonna talk about algo update. All that can wait.
What can't wait and need urgent actions from Matt "Inigo" Cutts & Co is to resolve two things asap
- Canonical issues
- Supplemental issues
Without resolving above two issues, Google wouldn't be called "The Mother of All Search Engines" and I wouldn't be singing anymore "Oh Google.. You Are Simply The Best..." ..
Wish you all a great day and God bless.
| 7:49 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I just read an interesting comment posted by Matt today on his blog. In his reply to questions by fellow webmaster regarding BigDaddy, here is what Inigo wrote:
"Harith, I cant promise what well do in the future, but things like a PR update seem doable after Bigdaddy is done. And all of the things you mentioned are things that I would like us to tackle down the road."
Maaaaaaaaaaatt.. we love ya :-)
| 7:54 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm sorry Reseller, but the days of me gaining reassurance from another of Matt Cutt's cryptic posts are long gone. I'm assuming that you're using the term "We love Ya" very loosely ;-)
| 8:09 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Good morning colin_h
"I'm assuming that you're using the term "We love Ya" very loosely ;-)"
No I mean it. As a Googleguyologist and now Mattologist :-)
specialized in decoding the two friends posts, I can tell you that Matt said much between the lines. He was replying to these questions:
I see BigDaddy roll out very fast and there are only few non-BigDaddy DCs left . What should we expect to see after BigDaddy is deployed on all the DCs?
- PR/Back link update?
- Algos update?
- attempt to resolving canonical issues?
- attempt to resolving supplemental issues?
| 9:17 am on Mar 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>You can't rollout new infrastructure "behind the scenes".
Yet this seems to be - and from MC comments - sounds to be what they are trying to do.
>>>Eventually you just have to introduce it and accept the changes that occur.
Eventually they will - this could be a reason for extra mess that has occured.
Strange - a PR update was doable (although badly) before/during Big Daddy roll out too :)
Personally would have hoped for a more encouraging statement on Canonicals in MC post as this is supposed to be one of the reasons for this update - hmmmmz - letting us down slowly again like he and GG did Re:Canoninial issues in Jagger? Then again cant read to much in to a brief reply like that.
Had a few more sticky conversations and have still not found a site that had this supplemental problem of just the homepage being listed that was not due to Canonical issues.
Now look just about fully Big Daddy.
| This 210 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 210 ( 1 2 3 4 5  7 ) > > |