| 11:03 pm on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I am definitely seeing some fluctuations in the SERPs...
I looked over my indexed pages using "site:" and I've seen some new pages...not just homepages.
| 11:29 pm on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Google has three different indexes in play at the moment, so it is very important that you report the IP address of the datacentre that you saw that effect happen on if it is to be of any use to anyone else here...
| 11:32 pm on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| 11:38 pm on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
That actually surprises me, as I thought it might be 18.104.22.168 or one of the other "experimental" IPs.
Things keep on changing.
<edit>The "experimental" search results that have been on 22.214.171.124 for the last few weeks, have now migrated to 126.96.36.199 as well. This has happened some time in the last couple of hours. In fact it has spread to several others, now.</edit>
This is looking more like the updates of 2002 when a new index appeared on one DC then took 4 or 5 days to spread to all of them. Has Google reverted to doing the dance?
[edited by: g1smd at 11:46 pm (utc) on May 2, 2006]
| 11:39 pm on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>188.8.131.52 << I just checked it and yep! My problem site has gone index only on that dc.
| 11:39 pm on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
So what do you make of it? I don't follow the different data centers. Just happenned to notice this result when I was doing a routine check a couple of hours ago.
| 11:47 pm on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I noticed a 2000 visitor drop on one site on Sat and Sunday and ck'd one of the multi-datercenter checkers and I for the k-w phrases I ck'd, I was all over the place in the top 10 SERPs. Seems like every DC was different for some terms. Still in top 10, so that is great (since I have seen 'off the map' in my short web life before)...I am seeing lots of fluctuation, but so far, none of my sites are doing horrible, a la Bourbon or Florida.
| 11:52 pm on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Out of curiosity, I checked 184.108.40.206, and no change on the site: search for one site(just a baby, only about 3 months old), but on my main site (about 4 years old), it shows about 30 more pages indexed than last I checked, and NONE of the 40 some odd non-www supplemental that existed.
I did a very quick check of half a dozen keyword combos I persue, and did not notice much difference in the serps.
Back to Watching
Edited to add, went back and checked again, and this time my main site was down 84 pages, still not showing the non-www supplementals, so it looks like there might be different datasets floating around on the servers on that datacenter.
| 12:22 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Most of the day it's been 2 indexes. But in the last hour or so they added another one.
One of the indexes does not make any sense, for a particular keyword search it comes up with 200M results. While the others have 600M and 700M.
Yesterday it had 700M steadily throughout the day. I am only looking at the front ends, and simply hitting refresh. It changes very rapidly.
| 12:27 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
That new one will be the one that previously was only at 220.127.116.11 and 18.104.22.168 and which has spread to several DCs yeasterday, and many other DCs today.
Before that, Google had two different indexes out there, with a roughly 50/50 split across the DCs, and the "experimental" one was on just one DC. Now the third is spreading, and the other two are disappearing.
The new one has many problems. I really can't believe that they are rolling it out.
| 12:30 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
This is indeed what us DATACENTER watchers were reporting for a few weeks now. Hmm...Now maybe some people beyond just us DATACENTER watchers will get a clue. This is spreading to other DC's. G1SMD is in fact correct, there are 3 sets of SERP's out there. The 2 that you see on McDar's and a third one that just pops into play on Default Google's no matter what IP it shows it is. You cannot see these SERP's that are the third set if you put the IP in the address bar. Nor will you be able to see them on McDar's.
And for those that said these won't spread...ENJOY!
[edited by: MLHmptn at 12:35 am (utc) on May 3, 2006]
| 12:32 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
For me, the third set is 22.214.171.124 and family. These first appeared just a few weeks ago on one DC and moved to the 72 a few days later.
These results are VERY different. This is the biggest change I have seen in Google results in at least 5 years of looking. I want to start calling this an update.
The results are utterly awful. There is no "exact match" for "quoted searches" any more, either.
Some of the searches I do, now have thousands of results, rather than dozens, but none of the results actually fit the search query.
Many SERPs are stuffed full of supplementals. Some are 100% supplemental results.
Some sites have lost 99% of their indexed pages.
Many cache dates go back to 2004 January.
[edited by: g1smd at 12:36 am (utc) on May 3, 2006]
| 12:34 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
That set appears to me to be one of the sets G1SMD. The third set is mysteriously displaying at un-announced times of the day.
I took some screenshots of the mysterious third set of SERP's. G1SMD, I will have to msg you a URL to view some screenshots. Hopefully you can decipher where they are coming from? :> This is the oddest change I have ever seen from Google. That 3rd set is simply "Mysterious".
[edited by: MLHmptn at 12:38 am (utc) on May 3, 2006]
| 12:48 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Looks like "Big Daddy" should of been called "Big Baby"
A new algo and it acts like a baby and drops a big #2 right into the index :)
Who knows how long we will have to wait to get a diaper change. Hope it don't sit around to long and stink up the place.
| 12:52 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Wow, the crappy one is really crappy!
Anyone notice that on some browsers they are adding tracking URL's?
I have seen this before, but it seems to come and go.
| 12:55 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I see more variability across DCs than even this morning. I don't think we can predict which results will become permament yet.
It does feel like the beginning of an update though.
| 12:57 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Matt Cutts did say at the Pubcon. Expect to see updates comming down the line that come from every direction. Rather than just from a few of the same nodes.
| 1:11 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Actually looking at this further I think its a heavier de-dupe filter. The so far best index seems to be the middle one.
| 1:21 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
126.96.36.199 seems to have some positives in terms of less pages that do not exist being in the index. Are other people seeing that?
The loss of "exact match searches" is really weird though. I would think that is a glitch though rather than corporate choice since there seems no value in not allowing exact searching.
| 1:27 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
For some sites, less pages that DO exist are shown there too.
That set of results is a mess.
| 1:30 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
188.8.131.52 FINALLY deleted old URLs from one of my main Web sites.
I eliminated the content from those URLs about 4 months ago and they kept showing as supplementals.
Today, they are gone. I'm pretty happy.
| 1:30 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yes, I understand the indexing of less pages that do exist is an issue, but... suppose those pages happen to be ones that had a parallel (often hidden) supplemental listing. While it would be quite a cataclysmic thing, at this stage if the only way to purge a cancerous supplemental was that they had to drop such pages and then let them back in as they got crawled again, well that would (in a couple weeks) make for a dramatic improvement.
I'm not saying that is what is happening, but it might be something going on... or at least a way to look at things optimistically.
(On the other hand, I am finding plenty of examples of indexed pages that have hidden supplementals that can be found by searching for old text no longer on the pages. Not as many as before, but still some.)
[edited by: steveb at 1:40 am (utc) on May 3, 2006]
| 1:34 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
For an osCommerce site to go from 20 000 pages down to 12 on 184.108.40.206 and family is quite a big drop (and that has been discussed in another thread here yesterday).
The other (older) datacentres are showing 3500 for the last few months too.
| 1:47 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Isn't it a removeal of Supplemental Results?
I see no supplemental for our site on 220.127.116.11 and seems like the same results with supplememntal on the the other DC
| 1:49 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Lots of supplementals still exist. There may in fact be significantly less, but for sure it isn't a complete removal.
| 1:52 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It also seems to depend on what happened to a site, in terms of redirects, meta data, redesign, etc, before and after about 2005 June or July too.
| 2:33 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
18.104.22.168 - Is one of those DCs that handles the site: command consistently. Meaning I get 894 not matter what command I use.
I mentioned this inconsistency about a month ago. It is real, for example my default Google.com 22.214.171.124 doesn't return the same results:
site:sitename.tld = 842
site:sitename.tld/ = 890
site:www.sitename.tld/ = 870
| 2:45 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
From my perspective, it looks like pages that I deleted from my sites over the last year or so have now also been deleted from the supplemental index.
| 2:54 am on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
[126.96.36.199...] also has stripped my problem site down to just the index. I guess all the dc's in that line are the same.
| This 176 message thread spans 6 pages: 176 (  2 3 4 5 6 ) > > |