homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.106.111
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

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 284 message thread spans 10 pages: 284 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 10 > >     
Datacenter Watch: 2006-06-09
g1smd




msg:756809
 9:21 pm on Jun 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

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

Now this is interesting.

A site with 40 000 "real" pages and some 80 000 duplicate content pages excluded using robots.txt (it's a forum - see my prior posts about vbulletin) and still some 80 000 duplicate pages that are not yet so excluded.

Additionally some 500 000 non-thread pages also excluded in robots.txt and most of those already delisted. The whole site is listed as www; nothing is listed as non-www at all.

Looking purely at indexed threads:

site:domain.com shows 90 000 www pages all as normal results; including some duplicate content that will eventually be excluded.

site:domain.com -inurl:www shows 24 000 www pages all of which are marked as Supplemental Results and all of which also have an old cache date. This search should show zero results. It certainly should not be showing www pages at all, the search was for "-inurl:www". What is going on?

[edited by: tedster at 8:44 pm (utc) on June 13, 2006]
[edit reason] split into new thread [/edit]

 

lammert




msg:756810
 11:32 pm on Jun 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

Nice observation g1smd.

It seems to be a bug in the supplemental index query parser which doesn't recognize the -inurl: statement. It is a good way to see which URLs are in the supplemental index.

BillyS




msg:756811
 11:46 pm on Jun 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yeah a bug, time to take advantage of it.

steveb




msg:756812
 12:34 am on Jun 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

Pretty dramatic changes in the "new" results in the past hour or so.

An awful lot of very poor sites added, and niche relevance of course lowered again.

It's remarkable how well expired domains are doing again.

Right Reading




msg:756813
 1:54 am on Jun 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

It's remarkable how well expired domains are doing again.

I moved my peronal site a year ago and for my main keywords the old site, which has been defunct since the move, is now ranking significantly higher than the identical site at its real location.

Right Reading




msg:756814
 1:55 am on Jun 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

"personal" not "peronal"

is there a way to edit your posted messages?

BillyS




msg:756815
 3:30 am on Jun 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>is there a way to edit your posted messages?

You can for a short time after posting...

Look for the "owner edit" icon between your "user profile" icon and the "sticky mail" icon.

foolsgold




msg:756816
 8:47 am on Jun 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

Interesting - getting the 'new' results on the 72's now.

72.14.203.104
72.14.203.99
72.14.203.107

petehols




msg:756817
 10:37 am on Jun 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

I am now getting the new results on 48 of the DCs the rollout could now be happening and the "new" results could be here to stay!

Pete

petehall




msg:756818
 10:53 am on Jun 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

Next time have a little faith... I said these would propagate for months :-)

whitenight




msg:756819
 10:58 am on Jun 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

:)

So the question remains..

what were they tweaking the FIRST time these rolled out and then retreated just as quickly?

petehall




msg:756820
 11:02 am on Jun 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

Good knows, but something was obviously not right. It certainly wasn't apparent to me on the searches I watch but that means nothing.

whitenight




msg:756821
 11:20 am on Jun 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well it's kinda too early here in the States to open the champagne :) So have two or three for me, will ya?

I'll catch up later today

ownerrim




msg:756822
 1:18 pm on Jun 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

"what were they tweaking the FIRST time"

Don't know, but I did notice that, despite how horrible the results were, they were effective at curbing certain types of spam (while letting in loads of other types of spam).

econman




msg:756823
 1:32 pm on Jun 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm seeing strong indications that some 6-12 month old (aka "sandboxed") information-intensive sites are suddenly appearing in the SERPs on a large number of data centers. Some other posts also mention more "sandboxed" sites are now being displayed.

Are others seeing this specific pattern?

Are there other indications that Google is reducing their emphasis on "longevity" or "aging" of links?

Are there other indications that Google is increasing the visibility of informational sites at the expense of ecommerce sites?

Eazygoin




msg:756824
 1:49 pm on Jun 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

econman >

I guess it depends on the selected keywords that are searched for.

ECommerce sites will innevitably show up if the keywords are orientated towards them [ such as buy, sell, shop etc.] I haven't seen any priority given to information sites generally, unless you seek a keyword such as 'Statue of Liberty'.

econman




msg:756825
 2:09 pm on Jun 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

There are two distinctive things about the group of sites that has suddenly jumped into some visible positions: they are relatively young, (a.k.a. suffering from the so-called "sandbox" effect), and they are information-intensive. That's why I'm curious whether one of these factors might be shifting in this new algo mix.

Earlier in the thread, I noticed this comment about information vs. ecommerce sites:

"...One of my observations in my areas is the increased ranking of wikipedia pages on the updated DCs. ..It seems that the new knob settings favor informational sites above commercial ..."

Hence, the hypothesis. Of course, there could be other factors at play, as well. For instance, wikipedia has an extremely intensive, and diverse, pattern of internal links. So, for example, the observed boost to visibility of wikipedia documents could be due to changes in the way Google is evaluating internal links.

oaktown




msg:756826
 5:01 pm on Jun 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

My 2 cents (probably not worth that much),

I have an informational site about an individual, "John Smith".

Site is almost 2 months old (no pr of course)

I have been watching 69 servers for about 4 days now.

doing a search for "John Smith" (without the quoutes), the results seemed to be divided into two groups.

Group 1 - was anywhere between # 91 and #95
Group 2 - was anywhere between #37 and #53

As of today, a few servers have flipped from one group to the other, but here's what I see:

Group 1 (33 servers) -
All but one datacenter (5 servers) have settled in at #100, the errant 5 servers are #95

Group 2 (36 servers) -
17 servers at #40
19 servers at #47

I'm not smart enought to draw any conclusions. I'm just offering this FWIW

any suggetions, insights?

Komodo_Tale




msg:756827
 5:02 pm on Jun 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

This morning I am seeing some ugly changes in the OLD SERPs for my competitive keywords. This includes some MFA/PPC pages, keyword stuffing, duplicate ebay guides, and DMOZ pages getting into the top 20. They are creeping up and pushing more relevant sites down.

Also, it looks like the NEW SERPs have retreated somewhat.

foolsgold




msg:756828
 5:12 pm on Jun 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yes, on the way back but for how long?

g1smd




msg:756829
 5:33 pm on Jun 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> "what were they tweaking the FIRST time" <<

They were refreshing old Supplemental Results, older than 2005 June that is, among several other things.

whitenight




msg:756830
 6:12 pm on Jun 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

They were refreshing old Supplemental Results, older than 2005 June that is, among several other things.

Aha! Give that man a prize!

Ok, so what's it all mean?
I'm still of the mind that G had to dump or lost (for lack of a better term) it's data at some point.

Should we be expecting yet another "refresh/update" soon?

Conjecture? Opinions?

steveb




msg:756831
 1:17 am on Jun 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

Ya wanna amuse yourself this minute, start clicking refresh on some of those "new" datacenters now... wildly different results, dmoz titles popping in and out, pages appearing at #17 and also #22, lots of expired domain doodoo being added in.

M_Bison




msg:756832
 9:30 am on Jun 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

new results seem to be retreating now :(

toothake




msg:756833
 9:32 am on Jun 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

"new results seem to be retreating now :( "
Why did you expecting them to stay?

petehols




msg:756834
 9:53 am on Jun 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

dunno still on 36 DCs! lets not jump to conclusions probably wont be done for sure until monday or tuesday

stevexyz




msg:756835
 11:20 am on Jun 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

I wonder what the problem is? There must be black hat sites getting through - need to look at those industries - financial, poker, stop words for this forum's post etc etc......

reseller




msg:756836
 1:46 pm on Jun 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

petehols

"dunno still on 36 DCs! lets not jump to conclusions probably wont be done for sure until monday or tuesday"

IMO, it wont be done for sure until August 2006 :-)

toothake




msg:756837
 2:48 pm on Jun 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

"IMO, it wont be done for sure until August 2006 "
agree to that.-

g1smd




msg:756838
 4:11 pm on Jun 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

Nah.

2007.

This 284 message thread spans 10 pages: 284 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 10 > >
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