| 12:54 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
right. I dont consider the last 9 months everflux. The swings are far too huge and bring way to much rubbish for it to be that. Everflux still gives you a stable base but with ripples as data moves aound. These are tidal waves.
| 1:02 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>Anyone else seeing this? ;)
Yes, I'm also seeing good crap switching back to old crap with a mix of some new crap thrown in too.
| 1:19 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Same here, the results seem to get even worse now... There are only a few datacenters left showing me results I like.
Recently, I heard someone describe Google's fluctuations as a 'Google fart'. I don't think it is, I think Google is suffering from chronical diarrhea...
| 1:24 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
What about if this was the way Google was moving.
From now on there would be 2 or maybe 3 different sets of results.
Would this mean more webmaster having to go the PPC way to ensure they are always on the 1st page.
I don't think this is true.
But maybe just maybe
| 1:52 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I am now seeing "New Good Crap Stuff" spread out across all data centers! |
The new good stuff just went back to the "good old crap" of several weeks ago on the "New Good Crap" data centers.
I think that we need to give the data sets a name so that we all know what we are talking about.
I suggest that we call the new good stuff "Copra" and the even newer crap "Turd".
Just to be clear Copra is the set which Petehols and I were hoping would propogate and Turd is the absolute crap that we noticed yesterday.
Lets face it its all crap by different names and one mans crap is another mans fertilizer :)
| 1:57 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Google data flux= "Googlasm"
| 2:00 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The following are currently showing the "Copra" results.
The remainder have "Turd" on them.
[edited by: tedster at 7:29 am (utc) on June 14, 2006]
| 2:19 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I concur with these showing copra...
Yes, in my little corner they are big changes, the biggest I’ve seen in 2 years, but they are not necessarily bad changes. Many of the old ‘part of the furniture’ sites have been uprooted and shuffled for the first time.
Age looses way to youth and beauty.
| 2:49 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
im not saying they are always bad...but given that they are constant then they are never optimal given that only one set can be optimal...while im not saying all changes are bad..im am saying that theres always a huge amount of rubbish in there just as you had with the old updates..they werent public and while the data shifted and fliters lifted they let a lot of rubbish float around..that element is now an ever present part of the index and its always public...
also to this point BD had opened the gates to pro spamming that was previously under control...
| 4:09 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I've been tracking 70 servers individually.
Last night 3 more servers "defected" from Copra to Turd. None switched from Turd to Copra.
Copra - 26
Turd - 44
Additionally, the results (for my two word phrase) in both the Turd and Copra groups had a spread of 3-5 points between the individual servers. This morning, all the servers I looked at in the Turd group, 18 out of 44, are EXACTLY synchronized. I haven't got time to check every single one, but I'm betting that they're all like that. The Copra group still shows a spread of 3 points.
The only conclusions I draw from this is that A) whether they know it or not, G does have two distinct sets of results, which are based on two distinct algos or filter combinations. B) Speaking strictly from my own perspective, the Turd results are closer to what I was seeing before all this BS started than are the Copra results. C) The Turd results MAY be gelling into what we will have to work with in the immediate future. D) Steveb called it correctly. (paraphrase) They tried a new formula and it blew up in their face. Now they are doing damage-control and trying to recover.
[edited by: tedster at 7:30 am (utc) on June 14, 2006]
| 4:09 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>Google data flux= "Googlasm"<<
Google data flux = Google-Orgasma :-)
| 4:39 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
maybe they should change their name to feecle...
| 4:39 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Dont you think its absolutely f@cking amazing how Google can get away with producing this?
Is it now just a case of them being the biggest so in effect they can do what they like? "who cares if the serps are relevent as long as those adwords get purchased" kind of attitude.
I concur with seing the same data movement and boy is it ugly!.
I can also add that About half an hour ago they were displaying google adwords above the serps results and under them (rather than down the sides) ie similar to Yahoo. So position 11 in the natural seps would become position 16 and position 21 would be about 32 etc etc. That was even worse if it can be.
All in all, imo google have gone from previously being a quality provider of search to a greed driven public company with no vision other than how to reduce serps quality in order to try and increase adwords spend and frankly i think they have pushed the wire so far now that they are no longer a relevent search engine.
How long it will take for users to deflect is anyones guess but i wouldnt want to be holding stock in Google thats for sure, i think its days are numbered now the boys were right to sell out when they did imo
| 5:26 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Sounds like RichTCs rankings took a hit....
| 5:36 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
But he's right. The Turd mutation of the algo isn't the kind of thing that we should be seeing from a company that wants their identity to remain synoymous with search.
And Sid, love the names.
| 6:26 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Duh, its all about adsense and adwords sites now.
| 6:56 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Sorry have been busy all day and just caught up with this thread. Firstly hissingsid I have still been watchin the DCs and i think there are another 8 DCs that should be on the copra list i have been counting a steady 26 for the last 4 hours. I love the names "copra" and "turd" turd is the exact meaning of what we are seeing on those DCs. I am watching these with interest and i think this could go either way. Whichever way the results settle I think could determine googles future.
Lets wait and see what this way ends....
| 6:57 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Quality I love that lets hope that we can talk more about "turd dropping" in the future.
| 7:08 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Why do I have a feeling in the next few days the wikipedia definition of Copra will be updated?
Good to see the positive direction. Strange that 90% of us agree it's a good result. Normally you have 50/50 split with winners and losers justifying their position.
| 8:20 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Here is what I am seeing:
Old SERPs with Some Variations
[edited by: tedster at 7:27 am (utc) on June 14, 2006]
| 8:39 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Guestbook spam works now (again)....
| 8:45 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Guestbook spam works now (again).... |
yes it does just as any link as long as its not reciprocal now works. Its a spamers ffa right now. Its amazing.
| 8:42 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I sense a storm brewing...when will Google unleash? I was hoping for this weekend but it passed
| 9:06 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Interestting list of DCs. Nearly half the DCs are listed as having the "new" results, but, I rarely see them in the actual results I'm sent by Google when I put a query into Google's front page.
I wonder what percent of the time the average user is seeing these "new" results?
| 9:59 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Do I understand correctly that G is no longer recognizing (giving weight to) reciprocal links?
If that is the case, what will that do to the blogosphere, where everybody links back to someone who links to them, just as a matter of courtesy? Please elaborate. Thanks in advance.
| 11:49 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Maybe they are just having fun while Matt is on vacation. :)
| 12:07 am on Jun 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Google doesn't ignore reciprocal links, but they might no longer be given as much weight as they once were.
Going forward, you should focus on whether the links are relevant and useful to users of the web site, and located in a place where those users will find and use them.
Google is trying to distinguish between links that are only there for SEO purposes and links that are there for other (more "legitimate") reasons.
Lots of discussion of this topic is available elsewhere in WebmasterWorld.
| 12:17 am on Jun 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
How many people have noticed the many thousands of Supplemental pages with a 2005 June or July cache date that have been indexed, show in the SERPs with a full title and description, rank, and have a <meta name="robots" content="noindex"> tag both on the live page and in the old cached copy linked from the SERPs.
Oh yeah! There are thousands of them. Now that is a programming bug.
| 1:46 am on Jun 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
... and I have started a new thread about that single topic over at [webmasterworld.com...] too.
| 5:04 am on Jun 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
seeing the new results coming back. 34 out of 55. was around 20 a few hours ago.
[edited by: tedster at 7:33 am (utc) on June 14, 2006]
| 6:01 am on Jun 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Good Morning Everyone
yip definately 34 DCs now showing the results. The defining factor that I am watching is the DCs starting with 72.** as the copra results havent shown on there at all and still don't but maybe just maybe it is happening just now again we will have to wait with baited breath and see.