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.
|
kamikaze Optimizer
msg:769653 | 7:29 am on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
LOL, I think someone told the Google Board of Directors that Wall St likes big numbers and this is the only response they knew how to give. :)
|
reseller
msg:769654 | 7:37 am on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Just forgot to mention that Google Chief Executive Mr. Eric Schmidt also love those DCs. Mine is larger than yours, you know :-) [webmasterworld.com...]
|
McMohan
msg:769655 | 7:57 am on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
reseller, Good Morning :-) reading your open letter to Eric, I guess those unduplicated pages perhaps are www.domain.com, domain.com, www.domain.com/index.htm, domain.com/index.htm, https:/www.domain.com, https:/domain.com and so on?
|
undoneme
msg:769656 | 8:04 am on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Hi, I am seeing diffferent results at [64.233.187.104...] The results look a little better then the rest. UNDONEME
|
soapystar
msg:769657 | 8:16 am on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
McMohan u forgot %20www.domain.com Google loves 'em!
|
McMohan
msg:769658 | 9:01 am on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| u forgot %20www.domain.com |
|
heh..heh, perhaps domains with trailing slahes too :-)
|
MLHmptn
msg:769659 | 12:02 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
64.233.187.104 & 64.233.187.99 DC serps from the last week or so are spreading to the other DC's now. McDar's now shows 64.233.171.99, 64.233.171.104, 64.233.171.107, 64.233.171.147, 64.233.185.99, 64.233.185.104, 64.233.187.99 and 64.233.187.104 as showing these DIFFERENT serps. Hoorah for Google! Is the sandbox a thing of the past or are my sites finally coming out of the sandbox? :>~
|
RichTC
msg:769660 | 12:24 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
So its official then, google serps is no longer as relevent as it once was. In a dozen or so of the sectors i get involved in the top 5 results of every related search term include two directory sites of one description or another. Well done Google. If your looking for information on something, rather than send the user to the most relevent site send them to another search directory to search elsewhere And to think Google was once the oracle on delivering relevent search results - what a waste!
|
MLHmptn
msg:769661 | 12:34 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Laugh, and not even 30 minutes after I witnessed the DC's updating with those results they have reverted. Google DANCE anyone?!
|
ulysee
msg:769662 | 1:17 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
It's been over three months and non-relevant/spam ridden serps are still active. I don't know where Google is going but the road sure looks dark at this point.
|
netmeg
msg:769663 | 2:21 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I dunno about this. My one client whose 13k pages completely tanked on March 8th has pretty much fully recovered, however another client has had about 3250 of his 4000 pages suddenly go supplemental. (His only consolation is that his two biggest competitors have gone to only ONE page each in the entire index)
|
wheelie34
msg:769664 | 2:34 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
whats confusing me, and maybe others is, I have NO sups but only have 30% of pages listed, my traffic is still ok, if not good, all seems normal, my position in the SERP's is fine too, so far, what will happen when ALL pages are actually listed in a site: search? will traffic increase? pages are coming back, between 2 or 3 a day, is it going to take another 6 months or so before they get back in? I cant believe G can only add 2 or 3 pages back per day
|
lgn1
msg:769665 | 4:01 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
what is so special about 64.233.187.104 regarding SEO This is the only datacenter that I rank top 10 for my keywords, which I haven't done since Florida. Is this a snapshot of the past or the wave of the future? Has anybody seen any search results from this datacenter, in their logs?
|
annej
msg:769666 | 4:14 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Strange, on some searches 64.233.187.104 looks like the results from a month or so ago but then it includes pages newer than that. I'm no expert at data watching though.
|
sonnyk
msg:769667 | 4:32 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
my site is also in the top ten on that DC(64.233.187.104). I get identical results in 2 others as well:
64.233.187.99
64.233.187.107 Ive been watching these 3 now for more than a week and the results have stayed consistent. On several occasions ive noticed other DC's start showing the same results, but then later on would revert back. These 3 DCs however have yet to revert back. I am wondering myself if this is the future or past?
In my results, many of the Titles are being drawn from the listings in the DMOZ.
|
Pico_Train
msg:769668 | 5:17 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
The 64.233.187.104 DC is interesting, a slight improvement is shown for some of my keywords. Others show no improvement. These do seem vaguely familiar so I am going for the past results hypothesis.
|
jo1ene
msg:769669 | 5:54 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| whats confusing me, and maybe others is, I have NO sups but only have 30% of pages listed, my traffic is still ok, if not good, all seems normal, my position in the SERP's is fine too, so far, what will happen when ALL pages are actually listed in a site: search? will traffic increase? pages are coming back, between 2 or 3 a day, is it going to take another 6 months or so before they get back in? I cant believe G can only add 2 or 3 pages back per day |
|
My problem too, and I haven't heard any news regarding this either. I get a handfull of pages back every week or so. Previously, I had a very inflated page count because every emailthispage and addcomment link was being "indexed" for some reason. Is this my punishement? My traffic is down slightly and I am no longer coming up for many relevant terms. Much of my traffic is junk as opposed to being highly relevant. If the sub pages for these terms are missing, is this messing up my "themeing" efforts?
|
bobmark
msg:769670 | 7:55 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Suddenly on my default and several dc's Google thinks I have no directory structure.
I have nice SERPS for any root page but "site" shows only pages in root directory. However, 64.233.187.104 shows more normal reslts. Gotta love BD :)
|
reseller
msg:769671 | 8:10 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Here Comes The New Google...Maybe :-) Good evening Folks Maybe they are not perfect yet. Maybe you don't like what you see. However, the following DCs have been stable for sometime. At Googleplex, they call them The Reseller Friendly DCs ;-) [64.233.171.99...]
[64.233.171.104...] [64.233.185.99...]
[64.233.185.104...] [72.14.203.99...]
[72.14.203.104...] [216.239.37.99...]
[216.239.37.104...] Enjoy!
|
bobmark
msg:769672 | 8:17 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
dunno reseller. While they DO show something other than pages in my root directory, they have a ton of supplentals, most of which haven't existed for 2-3 months.
|
reseller
msg:769673 | 8:33 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
bobmark "dunno reseller. While they DO show something other than pages in my root directory, they have a ton of supplentals, most of which haven't existed for 2-3 months." Matt "Inigo" Cutts has hinted that canonical issues and supplemental issues shall be dealt with sometime down the road. I.e not right now. Until then, we might find some comfort in "the reseller friendly DCs" ;-)
|
g1smd
msg:769674 | 8:55 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Hmmm, I would like to retract the statement that I made in Post#1 of the BigDaddy thread at [webmasterworld.com...] just a few days ago, as several things have happened since then. Firstly, if you add another keyword to the search terms a whole load of supplemental results appear, more than I ever seen before. The supplemental results don't quite match the search terms and are for pages that have never been seen for those search terms before (not at any time in the last 4 or 5 years that I have looked anyway). The results are the worst Google results that I have ever seen. They are so radically different to anything else that I cannot believe that they could ever be left on a live server for more than a few minutes before someone decided to close it down for reformatting of the hard drive.
|
Swanson
msg:769675 | 9:12 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Google = Altavista If you mess enough sites up then your results loose the depth that you sell your product on. Currently the majority of users might not notice, but keep this going and a.n. other search engine will create a buzz on the back of this - interesting how MSN talked about being in a position to take on Google in 6 months. Timing is everything, release a new search technology with a new Windows, build on webmaster dissatisfaction - provide support for Linux! and then release a new web browser...... Anyway, not an MSN fan - but at the moment if MSN had more traffic I would be (as a webmaster) I could care less about using it myself.
|
Whitey
msg:769676 | 9:53 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
g1smd - re [webmasterworld.com...] i noticed this yesterday and found it more pronounced on regional serps where the volume of results are less. On 2 random searches of a different specific brand names the top 20 or so results were all supplemental. What should happen, is that 1 or 2 legit results should show at the top and be followed by the supps, but it's the other way around. If you want to compare notes please sticky me, since you are probably better at articulating issues than me. I don't know how more folks aren't re acting to this -it's producing a regression of results not seen SE's in 10 years in certain areas.
|
petehall
msg:769677 | 10:03 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
64.233.187.104 is the future*. * In my opinion. ;-)
|
Atomic
msg:769678 | 10:17 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
64.233.187.104? There are some of the most useless pages I have ever seen for common searches I try. One that really caught my eye was totally new and it consisted of nothing more than a login box to some database and the keyword appeared nowhere on the page. I tried some more with similar results. 64.233.187.104 can't last as-is with so much garbage in the SERPs. Privacy policies, pages with hidden text, directories and all the other scum floating in Google's pond.
|
petehall
msg:769679 | 10:47 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I'm entitled to my opinion which holds just as much value as your own. I see newer sites finally starting to lift on that IP which indicates progress as far as I'm concerned. Time will tell...
|
Atomic
msg:769680 | 10:55 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| I'm entitled to my opinion which holds just as much value as your own. |
|
I wouldn't deny you that. Time will, as you say, tell.
|
walkman
msg:769681 | 11:23 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I have seen a new set of backlinks; I'm pretty sure it was not a rollback as new sites that link me were included.
|
Whitey
msg:769682 | 11:42 pm on Apr 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
walkman - are those internal links , external links or both. I think the same is happening with us - wiladv
|
| This 193 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 193 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 ) > > |
|
|
