| 7:29 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
One of our sites is a site for a Chamber of Commerce where people look for information about products. We always ask how people found us.
I just received some interesting feedback from someone looking for some glass vases. This is what the person said. "hours and hours and ... you guessed it, hours of searching through crap hack web searches"
Sounds like this consumer is not happy with what he is seeing in the search engines.
| 7:33 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"I think that everything they say should be treated with a healthy amount of suspicion."
Including what Matt wrote recently on his blog:
Kiss the person standing next to you :-)
| 7:41 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
" haven't followed this much, but I am seeing the
newest serps on 126.96.36.199 without doubt. "
YUP! My positions improved after sitting still for a couple of weeks.
NOT old results, last cache was 19MAR06. -Larry
| 7:57 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Certainly, someone kissing me and saying Matt Cutts told me to do it ... that wouldn't just make me suspicious, I'd get very nervous ;-)
Have a good day with higher listings
| 8:01 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
188.8.131.52 does seem pretty decent, still have two sites supp though
| 8:33 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
184.108.40.206 is not Big Daddy though.
| 8:44 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Quit not sure about what Google will do on Non-Bigdaddy Datacenter... But for my site it's all clean listing No Canonical issue, No supplemental, No outdated URL, No outdated cache... These's the reason why I'm paying more attention on Non-Bigdaddy Datacenter...
Just IMO... :)
| 9:01 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Looks like they have gone back the to non-big daddy again.
Gimp - had a similar comment aswell - something like "you were the only company that actually provided what I searched for" - mind you dont know whether it came from Google or not.
| 9:24 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing this too Dayo. These 2 DCs had been converted to big daddy yesterday, and are now back to non big daddy.
Strange thing I noticed: yesterday these 2 DCs had become Big daddy, but on the keywords I monitor, they showed pretty different results compared to others BD DCs. Today they're gone back to non big daddy, but the results they showed yesterday now seem to appear on many BD DCs (for example 220.127.116.11, but not 18.104.22.168).
This new set of BD results looks to me like the result of old crawls (I'm not sure about, as I'm not sure we can rely on what the cache shows).
| 9:38 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Be aware that certain DC's "Switch" or alternate between Big Daddy and the old default index. Therefore is pretty impossible to tell whether your seeing BD results or not as the SERPS can change between the two with every search.
| 9:54 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yves1 and Ellio - you both suffer from Canonical problems dont you?
BTW - I have not seen a single site that has the supplemental issue (Eg Homepage only listed) - that is not got Canonical problems. Mentioned this in the supplemental thread and got a number of stickies - every single one has Canonical homepage issues I have seen!
| 10:45 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
These are the default DCs I'm seeing in the UK.
Both are none BD at the moment.
Could other folks in the UK confirm or deny that these are their default DCs and if not what IPs are they getting as default.
Occasionally I see a different BD IP coming through as default and my hits peak. By the way if you want to know what the IP address is of your Google.com default there’s an extension for Firefox that shows you.
| 10:49 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The UK 'default' DC varies depending on ISP and location. Mine is currently 22.214.171.124.
It's also interesting how many people miss or ignore the fact that many DC's are in almost constant flux (as mentioned a few posts above) and have been for months, switching between up to 3 totally different sets of results on a regular basis. However, that said Big Daddy results do seem to be showing more frequently recently.
| 11:09 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
BT Broadband (on my phone bill, not bt openworld)
Every morning I do site: and get true results, this changes to 30% after a few hours, I guess the 30% is BD? currently pinging .co.uk and .com I get the following IP's
google.co.uk - 126.96.36.199 low reuslts for site:
google.com - 188.8.131.52 low results for site:
next time I get true results for site: I will note the IP
| 11:21 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Yves1 and Ellio - you both suffer from Canonical problems dont you? |
Yes we have had canonical problems that were sorted out when Big Daddy was first introduced.
For the first month we had a perfect indexing with pages in dam near perfect order. Then suddenly POP goes the index and we are struggling again.
At present we are homepage only plus 60 supplementals most of which are genuine supplementals but not all.
MC has promised me a fix at next crawl but we get crawled every day and have seen little change other than the number of supplementals increasing slightly.
| 11:28 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
1: canonical problems=penalty
there is not canonical problem with pages that haven't got a penalty.
| 11:50 am on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yep - might aswell be a penalty - although Google will never say it is if you contact them with the issue.
Messes up PR calculation IMO - and therefore crawling and ranking.
| 12:05 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
One thing that I have noticed is that on BD data centres, the number of results for my site is dropping from 67,400 on Sunday, to 57000 yesterday, and 50,000 today.
Because there is a category index on every page, with internal links, I believe the inflated page count is being filtered, and although BD initially counted every internal link from every page, it is now filtering out those 'excess to requirements' pages.
Google visitors to the site have increased steadily, but have increased dramatically these last few days. Strange thing is, that viewers from MSN and Yahoo have also increased dramatically over the same period.
So, I guess, from this, that BD is having positive effects in certain cases.
| 12:50 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
1: canonical problems=penalty
Just goes to show the wisdom of the google engineers. This should be all a google fix and not a webmaster 301 fix. Funny how I have no canonical issues with msn.... Only google....
| 2:44 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
[184.108.40.206...] this data center is showing newer cashes even on supp hell sites like me.
I saw data like this recently but it went real quick. Could this be the intial stages of a recovery?
NAH dont b silly
| 2:29 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
A site of mine is changing daily in total indexed pages. The total number has been hanging around the 900+ number for a while, but yesterday jumped to 10,000+. The odd thing is that its always an number even to the 10s position, i.e) 10,210, 10,120, etc.
When I use the google datacenter saturation tool (you can find it) all of the BD have the number above 10k while the 4 remaining non-bd have a lower number 700+.
Too me a 10 fold increase while great sounds a bit improbably, is there a bug in BD that shows 1000 pages as 10,000?
Traffic hasn't really been effected at all still about 500 uniques a day from all search engines (if you want to count the random 20 or so from MSN and Yahoo)so it's possible that all of these pages are indexed and just on page 100.
The site is dynamically created so there are that many pages, but if I were the robot making the decision I'd only index 1000 pages or so as the rest are just individual product pages.
[edited by: tedster at 6:54 pm (utc) on Mar. 21, 2006]
[edit reason] member request [/edit]
| 4:14 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>Too me a 10 fold increase while great sounds a bit improbably, is there a bug in BD that shows 1000 pages as 10,000?
This has been discussed before: [webmasterworld.com...]
I'm showing 835 pages on BD and over 10,000 on non-BD centers. The website only has 1,100 pages. There are some tricks (negative terms) I use to figure out the actual number of pages when the count is inflated.
| 4:50 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Thanks BillyS that was a good read, as with all things google, I guess there is no explanation and nothing to do but wait and see what happens.
| 5:21 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The One and Only DC
The count down to BigDaddy Google has just started and there is only one set of the "old" DCs left
Maybe we are only one day or so away from the TOTAL BigDaddy DCs.
To those of you who are busy watching their grass grow :-)
Hurry and start watching Google DCs. Nothing will be the same on Google serps after tomorrow, maybe.
| 5:28 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
[220.127.116.11...] looks like a non-BD as well.
| 6:02 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| 7:48 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
And to frustrate you even further several DC's are just fluctuating that used to be all supp for me.
This one changes every other refresh for me.
| 8:19 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"http://18.104.22.168 looks like a non-BD as well."
Have just checked, and it is a BigDaddy :-)
| 8:22 pm on Mar 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You are correct. Not a BigDaddy DC at the moment.
| This 184 message thread spans 7 pages: 184 (  2 3 4 5 6 7 ) > > |