| 11:23 pm on Mar 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I find more pages indexed on:
126.96.36.199 than those mentioned earlier.
| 1:31 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Ladies and Gentelmen...Please Welcome The New Google
New Google infrastructure calls for new way of thinking regarding our sites indexing and ranking. I said it before..nothing will be the same on Google from now on. "
So reseller, you mean the New Google is gonna consist of dead pages removed months ago (and also by Removal Tool) and now returning 404's, listed as supplemental in the index and "re-included" in late FEB?
That IS an impressive new infrastructure. I guess the new thinking will be along the lines of "How do I adjust to a severly damaged SE that can no longer even manage updates?"
| 1:41 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
two of my forums are still in supp hell with old caches, not a single change in the last two months
| 1:51 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
No changes here either.
| 4:46 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
very busy googlebot...I guess we'll see the PR update, and hopefully an algo update...nothing too major--as long as my main site goes back on top :)
| 6:13 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Anyone awake now, check google.com for me it's that amazing DC I saw before with all my pages re-indexed, and new SERPs.
| 6:18 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Nick0r, can you please tell which DC is that?
Added: My Google.com is 188.8.131.52
| 6:33 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Hm, just went to find out and *bam* the results have changed back. When you say your google.com is xx.xx, is that from a dns of google.com or another method?
| 6:36 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Hmm, it does return with a few refreshes, how do I determine which IP that DC is?
| 6:37 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Nick0r, it is quite simple. To find out which DC your Google is serving you the results from, just hover your mouse over the "Cached" link in the SERP page. You will see which DC those results are from.
| 7:01 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Good morning McMohaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan :-)
Any signs for update, the sharp eyes of McMohan see on the DCs?
Have a great day.
| 7:02 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It's showing on google.com for me and the cached link shows 184.108.40.206 - although it's not always there on 220.127.116.11.
| 7:04 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Try this one too. Maybe its more stable
| 7:09 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
lol reseller. Good morning to you. Am sure you are fresh after having a cup of piping hot capuccino... the Danish variety :-)
Except for 64.233.187.XX C-class, I see all other DCs just the same.
|Try this one too. Maybe its more stable - 18.104.22.168 |
reseller, I have never seen differences in SERPs within a C-class IP.
| 7:12 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Nick0r, do you think the amazing results you saw on Google.com was similar to what you see on [22.214.171.124?...]
| 7:14 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"lol reseller. Good morning to you. Am sure you are fresh after having a cup of piping hot capuccino... the Danish variety :-)"
Sure my friend. Can't imagine life without the Danish quality Cappuccino :-)
"Except for 64.233.187.XX C-class, I see all other DCs just the same."
Maybe the folks at the plex are waiting to bring all the DCs to specific level before proceeding to the next stage which could as well be a big U :-)
| 8:58 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
There are still considerable inconsistencies in the different DC's.
For example, a search for a keyword phrase on default 72.14.203.*** shows it at position 12 out of 90 million.On DC 54.233.170.*** the same phrase doesn't show up in the first 100 results. There are many other examples.
This leads me to believe that work is being done still on individual DC's, until such a time as that DC provides what Google deems as 'corrected'. This in turn, may lead to adjustments on other DC's.
This infrastructure/ software/ hardware/ SERP's modifications has NOT, in my opinion, reached its climax, and has some way to go before we will see a stable set of results.
| 9:30 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
At the moment there are some DCs not showing supplementals on a site search. (For those with the supplemental problem with only homepage listed you will see just the one page returned).
| 9:36 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Doing a site search plus some text, sometimes pulls up supplementals on that dc.
| 9:41 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have been having different headaches almost everyday since I read these few words of Matt ;-)
“Anyone who knows about Google knows that different data centers get different data at different times, especially during Bigdaddy.”
| 9:43 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Pardon me if this seems offensive, but perhaps actually improving your main site for your users might have more impact than continuing a discussion about what various datacenters are/or are not doing.
Perhaps I'm cranky, since I've been coding till my eyes bleed, but isn't that what's really important?
| 9:50 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>Perhaps I'm cranky
Dont worry - I feel cranky this morning - Lack of sleep.
>>> perhaps actually improving your main site for your users might have more impact
As far as Google is concerned the indexing situation needs to be fix for the site otherwise those changes to the benefit of users (or SEs) wont be picked up.
Yes, sometimes supplementals can be pulled up in a site search by adding a keyword - but it seems to depend on the site - some sites I cant get supplementals to appear.
Could be an intresting development on this DC (although knowing Google they will probably flood it again with supps)
ie mode still shows supplementals for those checking on a popular dc watch tool - you need to go direct to the DCs.
| 10:17 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I've been up, and I've been down in SERPs. When you run a dinosaur, extinction is always an issue. Every few years, I'll attempt to bring things somewhat up to speed, which means re-writing a lot of old pages, plus updating links and references.
I really do not understand the datacenter watch concept. If you provide what users want, they'll come to your site. If they like your content, they'll come back. Search engine placement reflects a lot of user behavior.
Am I missing something, or am I just not used to dealing with the competitiveness of phentermine, viagra, casino type projects?
| 10:29 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>I really do not understand the datacenter watch concept.
He he - it only takes 5 seconds to run a query (I do work on other things aswell.)
>>>If you provide what users want, they'll come to your site.
How? If Google can not correctly index the site and you can not be found for any phrases.
Even if you have a 100% unique page with a phrase "Red Widgets Techniques for Homeowners in Lincoln, Lincolnshire UK" - if you suffer from one of the Bugs Google has at the moment you will not rank for that phrase.
It is not really an issue of being up and down in the serps if you suffer from a Google indexing problem (eg non-www, www, hijack etc) - if you have this problem you are basically gone from the serps - even for your unique company name you will be in position 900+ of 800 results ;)
What a lot of us are basically looking for is a fix to a Google indexing problem. Big Daddy update is supposed to lay the foundations for the fix - so that is supposed to follow next.
>>>Am I missing something
You probably have not been hit with a Canonical problem/Hijack situation which basically removes (as good as) sites from the index. Positions dont go down 10,20 - 30 places as in a change of some ranking knob at Google - positions go down 400-500+ places.
| 10:40 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Many thanks for the link to that DC. It's very interesting, as it shows a ste search for my site, with only 93 listings, but zero supplemental!
I have some 4 or 5 thousand pages currently, and many other DC's show 50,000, 62,000, and 67,000, but all but the first 25 or so, as supplemental. My homepage however, has always been listed at number one both on the site search and the domain name search.
edit >> I tried a link search onthe same DC and it returned the pre Jagger link number!
| 10:44 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
<<<Pardon me if this seems offensive, but perhaps actually improving your main site for your users might have more impact than continuing a discussion about what various datacenters are/or are not doing.>>>
It kind of annoys me that you feel that us discussing DC activity is any more boring than you discussing us discussing DC activity.
All the Best
| 10:52 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Nice one Colin!
I find it kind of relaxing and stimulating seeing what the guys have to say on here. Life is about sharing, and if we can all benefit from shared experiences on here, so much the better!
....hey, ho, I'm off to a birthday party :-)
| 11:00 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It appears we deal with differrent issues. My main site has disappeared from Google results, I didn't sweat it, I had confidence it would be back. It was, maybe 5-7 days.
I do not rely on one keyword/phrase, doing that is asking for an issue. I prefer roughly 10 high traffic industry-specific keywords/phrases, mixed and matched over many pages to provide a balance for any S/E that prefers one presentation over the other.
If any page gets whacked by any S/E, I still have roughly 20k unique pages to fill the void.
So, we sort of come back to the concept, "Why do people watch the datacenters?" Position 1 is good for a preferred keyword set, but IMHO, it's not the be all/end all of website importance.
| 11:13 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I concur for the moment that this datacenter has finally cleaned up the acient non www supplementals that are 301 to the www version. For the first time since the Jagger, when I do a site:mysite.com -www, no pages are found which is correct
| 11:15 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I believe my posts were not saying the discussion was boring, just aimless from the "bleeding eye" coder perspective.
| 11:30 am on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>> Nick0r, do you think the amazing results you saw on Google.com was similar to what you see on [126.96.36.199?...]
That datacentre is definitely different to some others, but it's nothing like what I saw.
| This 184 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 184 ( 1 2 3 4  6 7 ) > > |