homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.47.170
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 193 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 193 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 > >     
Google Datacenters Watch 2006-03-28
g1smd




msg:769532
 10:14 pm on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

< continued from [webmasterworld.com...] >

In other BD indexes (like [66.249.93.104...] etc) I now see that some old Supplemental Results for pages and sites that no longer exist are disappearing from the search results.

I have waited years for this moment. We already had several false starts on this over the last few months. The pages were dropped, and then reappeared a day or two later.

Be gone for good this time!

[edited by: tedster at 5:27 am (utc) on Mar. 28, 2006]
[edit reason] split thread to create a new one [/edit]

 

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

Whitey




msg:769683
 12:38 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I hate to say this - but 2 of our 3 same brand sites [ .com & .co.uk ] have just slipped into the supplementals in the last few hours on :

[66.249.93.104...]
[64.233.179.104...]

the one we focused on has not slipped [ although it was previously in the supplementary index until last week ]

as at this time - none of our sites are in the supps on the follwoing DC

[72.14.207.104...]

What's happening!

Whitey




msg:769684
 1:42 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

This serious problem has just surfaced in Australia on the [smh.com.au...] website involving compromises to anti terrorism security and persons connected to it. although it's a potential blunder on behalf of the Australian Police - it may yet prove to be linked to the storing equally of old data records by Google through the supplementary results.

A NSW Police blunder has seen a database of email passwords - including those belonging to the anti-terrorism commander and hundreds of journalists - published on the internet.

The names, email addresses and passwords of as many as 800 people who signed up to receive NSW Police media releases are listed on the database.

Among the exposed passwords is that of Detective Chief Superintendent Mark Jenkins, the man responsible for the state's Counter Terrorist Co-ordination Command unit

and

NSW Police could contact Google to ask for the cache of compromising details to be taken off its site, as smh.com.au does when it has to remove archived stories off its website for legal reasons.

The exposure of the email addresses also gives spammers access to private accounts.

Comment is being awaited from NSW Police


hu12




msg:769685
 3:58 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

seeing new backlinks, and new internal page ranks on 72.14.203.104

kamikaze Optimizer




msg:769686
 4:35 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Good find hu12!

Looks like March 14th is the last day for new PR reporting.

steveb




msg:769687
 5:43 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

March 14 seems right.

reseller




msg:769688
 5:55 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Google Datacenters Are Not Finished Products

Good morning Folks

Among the basics of the art of the DCs watching is not to assume that you are looking at perfect finish products. The mentality of Google is a dynamic one. Everything is in continuous development process and that covers all Google products. You name it, and you find it in Beta.

That means when we look at the DCs we shouldn't be issuing final judgment, especially just after the deployment of the new infrastructure.

Whether your site suffer of canonical or supplemental issues, you have to wait and see. Yes, I know its hard to accept the current situation and see your site going supplemental. But there is still hope and Matt hinted that both issues will be dealt with.

Wish you all a great day.

ariane




msg:769689
 6:52 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Dear friends though I read daily ww today I decide to join you. In my first post I want to thank many of you in this and other threads that with there help and advice my page has partly recover ,canonical problems solved ,supplemental problems solved, slowly the site ranks in top positions like in the past (though a few pages yet)
Today I just noticed a PR and backlink update I have post a new topic on it. I strongly believe if the PR spread across whole sites and pages that are on PR0 yet ,many thinks will be upside down. Keep your fingers cross and fasten your belts. Today I believe starts the real Big Daddy update, again a big thanks to webmasterworld forum and all its members for all the great support they provide to fellow webmasters

krakrazor




msg:769690
 7:07 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm here to testify, PR jumped up 4 today!

GuinnessGuy




msg:769691
 7:17 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

After having no PR for over a year(went from PR5) we are now back with a PR5 today. Rankings still in the gutter after going from page one for our main keyphrase on 8 March '06 to page 25 or so. Hopefully, this new PR will help our rankings although, with google these days, who knows. It is at least hopeful.

After coming though the muck of 302 hi-jackers, scrapers scraping our design and using 100% of our content(and having a PR5 while we had zilch) I've got a bit of hope. I wrote google only two days ago about this(again) and only got a canned response. But, two months ago they did write back saying they were sending our case to the engineers. From what I gather from reading other posts of late, there are others who may have come out of PR hell(PRH).

Luck to all

Guinnessguy

Dayo_UK




msg:769692
 8:04 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

GuinnessGuy

I am in the same boat - my PR slowly reduced to 0 throughout the year but is now back to a 5.

However, no improvements in rankings as I still have site ordering, canonical, root page identification problems (what ever is the best word for this bug)

But hopefully PR coming back will help this process.

McMohan




msg:769693
 8:18 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

PR updated alright, but not much science behind it IMO. Either this PR update is only for the new pages (or pages which didn't have PR before this update) or this update is random at best. For, I see all the new pages which were created after the last PR update, having PR of 4 to 5, and the older pages haven't changed their PR.
Otherwise I can't draw sense to this whole affair where an old page which has a PR of 3 doesn't change its PR, whereas a new page linked from it has a PR5, with no external link.

Afterthought - Can it be that the pages which showed white on the toolbar are processed by the new BD algo/mozilla-bot data and the pages with some green on the Toolbar are waiting in the queue?

reseller




msg:769694
 8:29 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Dayooooooooooooooooo :-)

"I am in the same boat - my PR slowly reduced to 0 throughout the year but is now back to a 5."

Here is a reseller qualified guess of the day. Only on WebmasterWorld.

It could be this specific part of PR update is the first step in an attempt to resolve the canonical issue. Therefore its limited to sites/pages of PR0.

Thoughts?

Dayo_UK




msg:769695
 8:36 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hmmz..

I have internal pages that have gone down in PR (which does not surprise me as they have not been crawled due to the canonical problem) - so PR on existing pages has changed too (from as far as I can see) - so not limited to sites/pages of PR0.

Perhaps a merge of the Mozilla Googlebot calculated figure and the Old Googlebot and it is still ongoing (not just accross the DC - but in the sites)

I guess it is still watch this space time at Google..........

ariane




msg:769696
 8:40 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

"It could be this specific part of PR update is the first step in an attempt to resolve the canonical issue. Therefore its limited to sites/pages of PR0. "
Yes and no and maybe.Anyway it does'nt look like a major PR update as you reseler says probably its a part of a fix. I got back my old PR5 from 0 that I had for several months ,like some other fellows here.Still many pages have 0 .As MC said Big daddy will take some time to resolve problems ,today anyway it's another one of the BD's big steps .Let us all wait and see.I recon changes will be spread late May -July (in a new BL PR updatte)

McMohan




msg:769697
 8:56 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Dayo, the site I am watching isn't affected by the Canonical problem (touch wood), so one can't say for sure how will canonical problem pages will behave. Saving such sites, the behavior of PR update pretty much matches with what reseller says.

But then a counter arguement to reseller's qualified guess of the day will be, PR of the new pages that aren't affected by canonical problem have updated. So, the update need not necessarily be restricted to solving the canonical problem as a first step.

reseller




msg:769698
 9:17 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

McMohaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan :-)

"But then a counter arguement to reseller's qualified guess of the day will be, PR of the new pages that aren't affected by canonical problem have updated. So, the update need not necessarily be restricted to solving the canonical problem as a first step."

You are right in; "not resricted". However, I asume that 99.99% of what the folks at the plex do is done by algo. As byproduct of the process other "healthy" pages of PR0 are also updated.

Dayo_UK




msg:769699
 10:13 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

OK, perhaps it is an attempt at solving some Canonical problems.

One of the symptons of the problem is that correct site ordering does not work - and obv. a PR update should help sort this out as homepages should have highest PR etc....However, with this PR update lots of sites have internal pages with higher PR than the Homepage - so ordering a site by PR would cause problems.

Hmmmmmz - I hope G know what they are doing (and fix the issues soon of course ;) )

For now I am a bit more encouraged as it is nice to see my Green pixels back - even though they have not resulted in anything in the serps.

Dayo_UK




msg:769700
 10:44 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Also I should add that although my homepage PR has gone upto 5 the internals are 0 (This might be because they were supplemental the time of the export) and the other site it links to PR has is 0.

So it is sort of as if they PR is there but has no value in terms of serps or passing on PR.

But the link:domain.com and link:www.domain.com and the PR on the two are matching up a lot better for a number (not all) sites I monitor.

textex




msg:769701
 11:24 am on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I am in the same boat Dayo.

I wish Google would get it right already. Its like two steps forward two steps back.

Dayo_UK




msg:769702
 1:53 pm on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Thanks to sugarkane who mentioned this.

Some sites (not all) with Canonical url problems have the related:domain.com link working again.

So we have PR back, related links back - but still no rankings - lol - hope this does come through as a proper fix.

Lol - also the related links puts your own site at the bottom :( - when working normally in correctly working sites it would be top.

Something still holding back these sites......

Grinler




msg:769703
 2:33 pm on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Some sites (not all) with Canonical url problems have the related:domain.com link working again.

So we have PR back, related links back - but still no rankings - lol - hope this does come through as a proper fix.

Dayo when you say ranking are you saying your pages are in the index but just with a crap rank..or that newer pages are not being indexed at all?

Dayo_UK




msg:769704
 2:39 pm on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Grinler

Pages are indexed, although indexing is poor - it is a relatively easy check to see if your site has been effected.

Do a site:domain.com check - your homepage probably will not be first.

Do a "www.domain.com" check - as a phrase - your page will be in about 600-700 after all the spam.

Do a "Unique Company Name Check" - your page will be in about 600-700 after all the spam - and often an internal page rather than the homepage.

textex




msg:769705
 3:17 pm on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Do a site:domain.com check -
Our home page is first.

Do a "www.domain.com" check
We are in the 800s

Do a "Unique Company Name Check"
Our domain is a KW, and we rank in the 30s

We do suffer from canonical and supplemental. All of our inner pages are indexed but have no PR. Prior to this PR update, we did have PR and before that update, we did not.

What road are we on? A road to fixing or are we still walking in circles?

C'mon Google!

Dayo_UK




msg:769706
 3:19 pm on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>>Do a site:domain.com check -
>>>>Our home page is first.

Yep - Dont know if that is a sign of a recovery or just one of those things.

C'mon Google! :) You can do it?

reseller




msg:769707
 3:25 pm on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

textex
"What road are we on? A road to fixing or are we still walking in circles?"

Road to fixing, of course ;-)

soapystar




msg:769708
 4:42 pm on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

if i do site:domain.com
the first result is a subdomain.

sub.domain.com

then all other pages are domain.con with homepage listed 4th

subs also for:
site:google.com

reseller




msg:769709
 7:32 pm on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Another DCs Set Join The Reseller Friendly Datacenters

Good evening Folks

I see the data of the reseller friendly DCs migrating to another datacenter set [64.233.161.***...] .

At this moment, they are:

[64.233.161.99...]
[64.233.161.104...]

[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!

SniperRyan




msg:769710
 8:10 pm on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Do a site:domain.com check -
Homepage is #1, 43,100 results

Do a "www.domain.com" check
Homepage #1, 42,700 results

Do a "Unique Company Name Check"
First 2 results go to our main products, 3rd is a news article about us, 4 & 5 go to our UK site, next is aother news article, 7 is a group collaboration site on which we have a page, 8 is a blog entry about us, 9 is our Hackersafe record/description, #10 is a product review.

By this test we are looking pretty good (actually, by any test we are looking good right now). During the Supp. Hell weeks we got all the way down to 900 indexed pages, so there is hope.

For reference, we are PR7 on the homepage and currently showing 250 Google recognized backlinks.

soapystar




msg:769711
 8:21 pm on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

site:www.google.com

homepage second result.

bobmark




msg:769712
 8:46 pm on Apr 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

still dunno, reseller :)

these dc's are showing a very old index; lots of 404's, lots of supplementals.

I think whoever said "going in circles" was about right.

What I see is a very limited index on my default dc (I think consisting of pages crawled maybe 2 weeks ago and representing maybe 5% of site's total pages). Then I see the "reseller friendly" dc's with the same ancient index I could find weeks ago, but with some merging of newly crawled pages.

I think Google is still trying to fix the mess of BD and we're gonna see some sort of merge of old and new which won't be your "reseller friendly" dc's but may be that + newly crawled pages.

This 193 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 193 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved