sore66
msg:750350 | 6:41 am on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
My keyword is #1 on some SERP pages (thank$ google) and not even in the top 50 on other SERP pages... ...crazy!
|
ulysee
msg:750351 | 8:35 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
If a certain sectors results stick where 50-80% of the sites listed 1-1000 are garbage then I will believe M$ is the lessor evil.
Elminating relevancy to make a profit is totally believable since a certain sectors trashy serps haven't changed in 2 months+.
|
jrs_66
msg:750352 | 8:45 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I haven't noticed any decline in the usefulness or relevance in BD SERP's. I think google remains, by far, the king of the hill. If anything, I believe BD is an improvement in user experience.
|
ulysee
msg:750353 | 9:00 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
<< I haven't noticed any decline in the usefulness or relevance in BD SERP's. I think google remains, by far, the king of the hill. If anything, I believe BD is an improvement in user experience. >> We are not talking about the same sector then. I can go to to a pay per click serach engine and find better results that dont give me links to pages that install certain software automatically with almost every other result. I can find better pages on a pay per click serch engine that doesnt give me a pr 1 blog page with a just one keyword phrase on it that has nothing to do with the keyword subject. I can go to a pay per click search engine that doesnt give me 10-15 404's per 100 results. Google let off an atomic web bomb in my sector in December and all that is left are the big guys and non-relevant spammy crap.
|
jdhuk
msg:750354 | 9:09 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Sorry to go off topic a little but I just did a search on 72.14.203.99 and I saw a set of Sponsored Links at the bottom of the results on the left, not seen that before.
|
sore66
msg:750355 | 1:49 am on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0) |
72 gives good results (for me). Why is it only a transition and not (this month's) end goal?
|
sore66
msg:750356 | 2:02 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0) |
bump: How widespread are the current 72.14.207.104 results and to what extent to does the group think they will end up being the "final results" in this "go-round".
|
moTi
msg:750357 | 3:01 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0) |
i normally don't participate in the update threads, but i'm noticing huge differences between the data centers right now. never seen that before in my life, i swear!
so, which one will make it? absolutely frightening and crucial for the next months.
|
doc
msg:750358 | 6:31 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I have just noticed a big improvement in the results for my two main sites. I am seeing similar results on the default dc and 72.14.207.104. I am ranking for main kws that I have not ranked for a long time.
|
watercrazed
msg:750359 | 7:34 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Sorry sore66, That is not a BD center not likely to be related to the final distribution. I wish it was, on that I am top 10 for 1000+ keyword phase in bd centers homepage is all that ranks in the top 1000
|
forzatio
msg:750360 | 7:47 am on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I'm seeing more than usual duplicate titles in the serps.
|
g1smd
msg:750361 | 4:10 pm on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I have some pages that were previously showing cache dates of around Feb 15th to 20th and earlier. The title and meta desciption was changed on these pages, on the site, on February 27th, and just a few days later, Google updatd the cache date to show Feb 26th - in fact a cache that was dated just hours before the changes were made (Grrr). . Yesterday, the Google results at 66.249.93.104 started showing the new title and the snippet shows the new meta description, but the cache still shows the old version of the page, and is still dated Feb 26th. Another feature as to how Google works: The title and snippet for a page as shown in the SERPs are not generated from the cached page that the result links to.
|
colin_h
msg:750362 | 5:26 pm on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I'm definately seeing an update of incoming links. My sites have all had no recorded links showing recently and today I see hundreds.
|
Miop
msg:750363 | 10:35 pm on Mar 9, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Major internal pages of my site are finally being picked up again on (only) one DC 64.233.167.104 I think. First time in 6 months! Backlinks to that page have finally been updated too, so I guess that has something to do with it.
|
Dayo_UK
msg:750364 | 9:18 am on Mar 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Google dont seem to be making any progress at all in the Big Duddy Update. A DC I was sure was Big Daddy has gone back to Non-Big Daddy. We have the supplemental mess, canonical mess, 301/302 mess etc and Big Daddy was supposed to solve this with new infastructure. So where are we at this stage - it seems further than ever away from any fix to these issues.
|
yves1
msg:750365 | 9:35 am on Mar 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| A DC I was sure was Big Daddy has gone back to Non-Big Daddy |
|
It would be logical to me that the spread of big daddy's index has been put on hold until the "supplemental" problem observed on big daddy is fixed.
[webmasterworld.com...]
|
Blade3
msg:750366 | 9:40 am on Mar 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
>> g1msd The title and snippet for a page as shown in the SERPs are not generated from the cached page that the result links to. ----- Is there any possibility that googlebot crawled your site and taking its time to cache?
|
Dayo_UK
msg:750367 | 10:36 am on Mar 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
yves1 I agree that it make sense - but I am very much of the opinion that the reason for the supplementals is because Google is still using parts of the old data to rank and crawl pages on the Big Daddy DC. Google I think are juggling to many balls at the moment by trying to keep both indexes. Today we had a poster who has gone down to 3 pages in Big Daddy, <RK> indicates that the site has a PR7 in Big Daddy (Which looks about right as it has a PR8 inbound)..... In Big Daddy the homepage looks fine - however in non-big daddy this site looks like it has very much been hijacked - eg doing a "www.domain.com" search and you get a "www.differingdomain.com/url/html/125.htm" I just feel that Google has to give up on the old ranking calculations for Big Daddy to progress. BTW - you said you are suffering from Canonical problems - did you go to PR0 - what does the <rk> tool show for you in the Big Daddy and Non-Big Daddy DCs - for my Home Page Canonical problems the <RK> tool looks like PR is returning. Of course this depends on whether <RK> is indeed PR.
|
malasorte
msg:750368 | 1:20 pm on Mar 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Can we expect that the results from the test data center 66.249.93.104 will be the core of the next major Google update?
|
colin_h
msg:750369 | 3:12 pm on Mar 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Hey ... isn't it about time for someone from google to come on here and say "don't panic, it's only flux" ;-) I really miss those reassuring statements ... NOT!
|
Hissingsid
msg:750370 | 9:28 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Try this search on 66.249.93.104 related:66.249.93.104 LOL Sid
|
g1smd
msg:750371 | 10:29 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Hmm, on 72.14.203.104 the second result is www.mattcutts.com/blog/bigdaddy/ - 101k
|
LuckyGuy
msg:750372 | 1:58 pm on Mar 12, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Since December 05 g* does not match the relevance of the keyword to the webside. What i mean is, searching for *Key* brings up a side where *key* is mentioned one or two times but the side has nothing to do with *Key* (e.g Forums ) whereas sides that has *Key* for topic of the whole side - so u find *Key* more than 2 times - while be penalized as Keyword Spam. ( e.g. Shops )
If g* canīt figure out the sector a side belongs to anymore, than there will be more worth to come. Greets LuckyGuy, Germany
|
jrs_66
msg:750373 | 2:08 pm on Mar 12, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Looks like BD has spread further. Now more than 2/3 of datacenters have it.
|
Dayo_UK
msg:750374 | 2:38 pm on Mar 12, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Looks like 4/5 to me. Or 21/25 on a tool I check on ;) Now we are getting close to crunch time - will this new infastructure result in improvements for sites who have suffered hijack and canonical problems?
|
g1smd
msg:750375 | 9:37 pm on Mar 12, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I am going to guess a resounding big "NO!", but I am prepared to accept that maybe we might see an improvement after a further spidering update and PR/links update... (but I really am doubting it).
|
dodger
msg:750376 | 9:40 pm on Mar 12, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Maybe then they will address the spam they say they don't want but are allowing to flourish at present.
|
bobmark
msg:750377 | 12:33 am on Mar 13, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I am seeing extremely old indexes at GMT midnight MAR-13 on most default dc's when checked via a multi-dc "google dance machine" site. Many pages that no longer exist across the web (most supplemental). Pages from one of my sites removed and confirmed removed via Removal Tool up to 3 months ago. Right now .de and .ca seem current, much else is the ancient BD index that existed on BD dc's since last fall.
|
arnarn
msg:750378 | 3:21 am on Mar 13, 2006 (gmt 0) |
sore66: 72.14.207.104 for us has all the old "url only" problem for most of the site:mysite.com results.. on other DC which are BD, much better results. still lots of bounce back/forth .. maybe just the index and not the center?
|
| This 210 message thread spans 7 pages: 210 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 ) > > |
|
|
