reseller
msg:769622 | 5:06 pm on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Dayo_UK Do you see any canonical improvements on the 2 DCs tedster has just mentioned?
|
Dayo_UK
msg:769623 | 5:10 pm on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Reseller. No improvements in the problems that canonical errors caused as far as ranking, pr and crawling.
|
Whitey
msg:769624 | 11:09 pm on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Does anyone know what 64.233.187.99
64.233.187.104 are being used for as the other DC's are stabilised? I notice Matt Cutt's in his blog on "Grab Bag Q & A's " said these will be "freed up for other things"
|
reseller
msg:769625 | 7:16 am on Apr 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Never Lose Faith In Google! Good morning Folks If Google is only the 3 following DCs sets I would have the same traffic as that prior to Allegra (3rd Feb 2005). On these DCs I see my pages at the top, and what I wonderful feeling I'm happy again ;-) [72.14.203.99...]
[72.14.203.104...] [64.233.171.99...]
[64.233.171.104...] [64.233.185.99...]
[64.233.185.104...] Who knows, maybe things are getting better at the plex after Matt "Inigo" Cutts has left Google to NASA :-)
|
i_am_dhaval
msg:769626 | 8:01 am on Apr 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
When end of this updates.....
|
reseller
msg:769627 | 8:20 am on Apr 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
i_am_dhaval "When end of this updates....." IMO, BigDaddy is a continuious gradual developement project. As such it might end when the next continuious gradual developement project starts ;-)
|
i_am_dhaval
msg:769628 | 8:32 am on Apr 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Curruntly my hits r very low so i m waiting for my original hits when it start again for me....
|
ct2000
msg:769629 | 10:26 am on Apr 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Never Lose Faith In Google!
Good morning Folks If Google is only the 3 following DCs sets I would have the same traffic as that prior to Allegra (3rd Feb 2005). |
|
I seeing this also ... only taken a year but if these DCs filter to the the main results I'll be happy - already seeing a massive increase from Local (.co.uk .it .au etc..) search results ... Somethings are worth waiting for!
|
dethfire
msg:769630 | 2:44 pm on Apr 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
my site is back to supp hell!
|
g1smd
msg:769631 | 3:04 pm on Apr 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
>> Has anyone had any issues with multple domains 301'd to one domain? << No real issues. Google indexes more and more of the "correct" pages within weeks, and takes a few months to drop the incorrect ones. For Supplemental pages they take years to drop out (but don't worry too much about those - hopefully Google will fix that problem one day). . >> I notice Matt Cutt's in his blog on "Grab Bag Q & A's" said these (64.233.187.99 /
64.233.187.104) will be "freed up for other things" << Where did Matt say that? The bit I saw was about http://64.233.185.104/ [64.233.185.104] where they were trying something else out nearly a week ago. Note that they moved that experiment over to [72.14.207.99...] and [72.14.207.99...] a few days ago.
|
bostonseo
msg:769632 | 3:30 pm on Apr 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I have a website that is 2 years old and for the last 5 months has been in and out of the Google index constantly (mostly out...sometimes in for like a day or 2). I know I am not alone :) But this is ridiculous now - in my business industry there are dozens of websites that are BARELY relevant on the first page and I am not even in the index? I am not in either of these datacenters either. What happened to Google? I'm lost faith :(
|
reseller
msg:769633 | 4:09 pm on Apr 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Hi Folks Please welcome this lovely DCs set [216.239.37.99...]
[216.239.37.104...] which has just joined the the following DCs I mentioned this morning
, showing (reseller friendly ;-)) serps [72.14.203.99...]
[72.14.203.104...] [64.233.171.99...]
[64.233.171.104...] [64.233.185.99...]
[64.233.185.104...] However, as you know things are changing all the time on the DCs. But I wish the data of those 4 sets of DCs propogate to both Google, Yahoo and MSN :-)
|
reseller
msg:769634 | 4:14 pm on Apr 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
bostonseo "I am not in either of these datacenters either. What happened to Google? I'm lost faith :( " Just don't give up and don't lose faith in Google, my friend ;-) Things are changing and your site might show up again. Who knows.....
|
g1smd
msg:769635 | 4:15 pm on Apr 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Google are reindexing their own SERPs... try site:216.239.37.99 for example.
|
paperclips
msg:769636 | 1:45 am on Apr 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
It's almost like rooting for your favorite football team that just can't seem to make it to the superbowl.
|
reseller
msg:769637 | 8:03 am on Apr 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Today's Winner DCs.. On Your Default Google! Good morning Folks! This thing is getting serious. I mean the reseller friendly DCs, seems to continue to exist! and I saw tody some of them on my default Google. [64.233.171.99...]
[64.233.171.104...] [64.233.185.99...]
[64.233.185.104...] [66.249.93.99...]
[66.249.93.104...] [72.14.203.99...]
[72.14.203.104...] Do you also see any of above DCs on your default Google today? Thanks! Wish you all a great successful Googling-Week :-)
|
Whitey
msg:769638 | 10:23 am on Apr 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Reseller - I'm only half convinced. Most of our pages are in the DC's indexes , but because some of the pages have not yet received their backlinks and/or are new we don't rank real well, at least yet. But why i need convincing is that on the regional AU site i observed with a particular brand name, all of the results being supplemental giving the user a bad content experience. Either they will fiddle about and go to the non regional selection or move to MSN or Yahoo for a better experience in this case. - I don't believe this is isolated. Hopefully Google is moving fast to strap this up - I'm sure if it widespread they'll be a lot of noise being made.
|
bobmark
msg:769639 | 8:04 pm on Apr 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I was so pleased to see on the default dc that I have ZERO supplementals. Course "site" only shows 60 pages (a mere few thousand lost) but hey! can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, huh? Keep up the good work, Google!
|
jrs_66
msg:769640 | 8:29 pm on Apr 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
--- But why i need convincing is that on the regional AU site i observed with a particular brand name, all of the results being supplemental giving the user a bad content experience. Why would supplemental results give a bad user experience? I don't think the average googler knows, nor cares, about supplemental results in the results. I think Google's model of - give them all we think might be useful and if that doesn't do it... we'll throw them some margininal stuff - works. At least they're making an attempt to let the user know, in advance, the content which is probably a waste of time (unless you're digging deep). Granted, there me be some issues with this labeling... but at least they're trying. Just yesterday, while searching for some arcane tax rules, I had to delve into the supp world. I found what I was looking for... but I also agree the pages I looked at should be supp's.
|
bobmark
msg:769641 | 8:34 pm on Apr 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
"Why would supplemental results give a bad user experience? ...
I think Google's model of - give them all we think might be useful and if that doesn't do it... we'll throw them some margininal stuff - works. At least they're making an attempt to let the user know, in advance, the content which is probably a waste of time (unless you're digging deep)." Didn't you answer your own question (unless you think defining pages as "marginal" and "probably a waste of time" contributes to a good user experience)? "Welcome to widgets.com. Most of our pages are marginal and a waste of time!" The issue is not pages that should be supplental, its legit pages that were fine a few weeks ago suddenly listed as supplemntal.
|
soapystar
msg:769642 | 8:37 pm on Apr 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Why would supplemental results give a bad user experience? ... er cause half the time the page is not the page Google thinks its serving or it doesnt even exsist at all. Also because their supplemental because they are judged poor quality. So what does that say if the serps are made up of urls already considered low quality by google itself.
|
jrs_66
msg:769643 | 8:43 pm on Apr 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
--- So what does that say if the serps are made up of urls already considered low quality by google itself. Er, as I pointed out with a real world example. Some pages are nice to have around for cases of desperation. Your search may be looking for something very obscure... something that only some low quality page out in neverland touches. In this case it's nice to keep the supp's lingering.
|
soapystar
msg:769644 | 9:45 pm on Apr 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
er....... yeah ok.....so for some obscure search only low quality pages will do..well..even if that point is conceded (which it isnt), theres still the small matter of huge numbers of supplementals no longer being the page google decdided to keep from months and year ago or even exsist! So what % of people are likely to think yeah great my obscure search has yeilded a spot on result to the number who think #*$!?
|
Whitey
msg:769645 | 9:50 pm on Apr 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I don't have a problem with Google's initiative of using the supplementary index if it works. The problem that I'm seeing is that on the example that i saw it isn't. It's a "widget name" and one of 10,000's thousands of "widget names". If legit "widget names", live and updated, are sitting under "dead widgets" that are "out of date" on non functioning websites, it can't be good. But as I'm saying hopefully Google will fix this - but it hadn't happened as of yesterday. I'll research it some more today and post an update.
|
Whitey
msg:769646 | 10:40 pm on Apr 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
On the DC's today I'm seeing a roll back of pages indicated as being held on the index. Down from 258k to 240k [ nice round no! ] - the actual pages are estimated to be up around 310k. Is anyone else experiencing roll backs of pages listed?
|
reseller
msg:769647 | 5:04 am on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Good morning Whitey In my case, these 2 DCs show a high number of indexed pages [72.14.203.99...]
[72.14.203.104...] You may wish to give them a test drive ;-)
|
steveb
msg:769648 | 5:48 am on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Those two are among those showing ridiculously inflated numbers.
|
reseller
msg:769649 | 5:55 am on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
steveb "Those two are among those showing ridiculously inflated numbers." Just don't talk like that about reseller friendly DC, steveb :-)
|
kamikaze Optimizer
msg:769650 | 6:00 am on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I am with you Steve. 200 million for a keyword of mine, was 100 million a week ago with Y showing a respectable 7 million.
|
reseller
msg:769651 | 7:02 am on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
kamikaze Optimizer "I am with you Steve. 200 million for a keyword of mine, was 100 million a week ago with Y showing a respectable 7 million." In fact DCs with inflated numbers aren't that bad. Usually clients love them and such DCs are very popular among SEO specialists (and Optimizers) :-)
|
steveb
msg:769652 | 7:27 am on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Or not. The inflated datacenters generally have the worst problems, and regardless of the algo mix the results are polluted with such false data that they aren't anything to pay much attention to, other than to see the extent of problems.
|
| This 193 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 193 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ) > > |
|
|
