| 6:55 pm on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Works for me.
| 7:20 pm on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, its fine now, sure went off for 30mins.
| 7:23 pm on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Anyone have a name for the new results |
The privilege of naming updates belongs to Brett_Tabke. It is a tradition that dates back to the end of the Google Dance and has been unofficially endorsed by Google. I am sure that when somebody at Google confirms to Brett that an official update is taking place he will name it.
There are many threads about the naming and history of updates here at WebMasterWorld. If you are new to sweeping changes in the Google indexes you may want to try some searches in the box at the top of this page and read-up on the good, the bad, the horrors and the gleeful head rushes that webmasters, site owners, and optimizers have experienced in the past. (Great way to kill a Sunday afternoon)
Going through your first update is akin to crossing the equator for the first time on a ship, earning your first belt promotion in martial arts, or taking part in your kindergarten graduation ceremony. It really does not mean much in the long-run, but at the time it occurs it seems really important.
Yes, fortunes have been won and loss during these updates, but that's part of what makes the wild wild west so exciting. Enjoy it now, for someday this will all become well-mannered urban sprawl.
(I must be feeling a bit poetic today, and I'm a very bad poet.)
| 7:39 pm on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Anyone have a name for the new results"
copra ,tundra ,mandra,frank capra....:)
| 7:58 pm on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If you go to <an online tool> you can see the different Datacenters that Google has. You will notice that there are two major groupings of the results. For example, right now 184.108.40.206 is showing the NEW results while 220.127.116.11 shows the OLD results.
There are different variations occurring so, if you have not been following the datacenters, it may be difficult to distinguish some of the variations, however the old results are fairly stable and the new results show more variations among the different datacenters.
Does that help?
[edited by: tedster at 3:57 am (utc) on June 23, 2006]
| 8:35 pm on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Adam Lasnik posted about a bad data push earlier today."
Recently I have been very disappointed with Google employees for lack of proper communications with the webmaster communities.
With all due respect to our friends at threadwatch.org, I was very surprised and disappointed again, to see Adam or other Google's employees haven't posted anything here on the biggest webmaster community forums regarding clarification to the bug of site: queries .
Talking about Google reaching out to webmasters...
| 8:50 pm on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Interesting that what appears to be a very good update in terms of quality (not including the huge number of pages popping in and out) has a "bad data push" aspect. No exaggeration, every single Google update for the past couple years has been a bad data push, where any new data was swallowed up by the corrupt data predominating in the index. In that context, it's hard to imagine what would be called a "bad data push" now.
The site page indexed numbers are ineptly screwed up as they almost always have been, so that isn't news. On the other hand, if Adam is refering to the extremely high amount of expired domains ranking well (like it was 2001...), that would certainly be a good example of a bad data push. Again, not counting the lost pages, the update has been pretty good in terms of quality, except this introduction of an awful lot of expired domain pure-spam garbage.
Now we can wonder if they will "fix" this "bad data push" by again corrupting their index with billions of supplementals that don't exist, etc.
| 8:58 pm on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>> I was very surprised and disappointed again, to see Adam or other Google's employees haven't posted anything here. <<
Well, Matt Cutts is away on holiday from May 28th until at least July 10th, so I guess that we will not be hearing anything much from there until at least then. Even then, his first days back will probably be consumed with a huge email and meetings summary backlog.
Adam was in Europe from May 29th until June 11th, and has only been back at work a few days. I suspect that work, work email, and work meetings come first.
However, whatever happens, the backlog of stuff posted on the main dozen SEO and webmaster forums must already exceed 10 000 posts. So, no, I do not expect a quick response.
| 9:42 pm on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|"Anyone have a name for the new results" |
| 2:04 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
This is strange. All the pages from one of my sites which were already in the index last week are indexed fine.
I did a site:www.example.com for my site and I had a load of new pages which appeared in the index this week. I was pleased as we went from 143 pages to 1,460 pages.
When I checked through the results I got the dreaded
"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 143 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included."
All the new pages appear without the meta description, and a wacky title! (And yes, I checked that they were OK!). All that shows for the title is the actual title with the first couple of words from the page appended.
For the snippet in the SERPs, just a few words from the body text appear. In the case of the omitted pages, this is the navigation menu - which means Google thinks all those pages are duplicate content :-( Once again, the previously indexed pages show the correct title and snippet even though essentially they use the same template product page as the newly indexed pages.
Weird. Stupid Google.
| 2:55 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
And like clockwork, Google's "fixing" of a "bad data push" results in the index dramatically degrading in today's everflux introduced in the past couple hours.
Get ready for yet another total failure. They just seem incapable of making any progress.
| 5:16 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Just to report that my site has reappeared since disappearing on Friday for my main keywords.
| 6:53 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
My site that disappeared on Thursday has now returned on about half the DC's
| 8:02 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Good Morning Everyone
Monday morning and still on 37 DCs even still on 3 72.** DCs is this any kind of sign.
Wait and see....
| 8:15 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Just a quick note for everyone who has reported sites disappearing, if you are using <an online tool> you might want to query the datacenters directly. Sometimes the queries that give numbered results without descriptions will drop sites that are actually showing in the regular queries. It's just one of those things.
[edited by: tedster at 3:57 am (utc) on June 23, 2006]
| 8:39 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|however the old results are fairly stable and the new results show more variations among the different datacenters. |
Does that help?
Well it might do if it was correct.
What you call "Old results" changed significantly yesterday so they are not stable. This dataset is what we have been calling "Turd", the problem with calling them "Old" and "New" is: what happens when we get New New results?
By the way the names that we are using are not for an update but as a way to identify the different sets of crap results.
In my niche the Turd results moved closer to the Copra results yesterday.
Curently there are 36 Copra DCs and 19 New Turd (or Dung) DCs on McDar.
| 8:42 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Monday morning and still on 37 DCs even still on 3 72.** DCs is this any kind of sign. |
One of us is miscounting. I have the same problem with sheep so its probably me.
PS Still very good news either way. Now all I need is for all of the UK defaults to be Copra and I might have a good month.
| 9:00 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
On reflection - this bad data push just seems to confirm to me that they are still dealing with the problems caused by the site:domain.com/ etc problem and a lot of what we are currently seeing is just side effects of this.
| 9:08 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Just check it is definately 37 the now and hopefully the rest will follow and a good month could be had by all!
| 9:38 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
i have counted 36. it has been stable for a day now.
| 9:50 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
i'm seeing some improved rankings for my site now 3 months old this morning, and some rankings for keywords I didn't rank for before, which is great :)
today and yesterday seen an increase in traffic from g too. let's hope it lasts. is this an update on the way do we think? pr and backlinks need doing i reckon, it's been a while now.
| 9:56 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"pr and backlinks need doing"
Any ideas of an update to the above?
| 10:24 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
turd results back on .com & uk
| 10:29 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Not from my viewpoint still copra here.
| 10:38 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Turd on my .co.uk, but that does not mean anything.
I had Copra on my .co.uk for quite some time over the last week or so.
As long as they are winning on majority DCs I'm happy...
| 12:41 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Anyone who thinks things are still under control at Google should read the info on the links posted by g1msd in message#83
There's nothing else to say really.....
| 12:52 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I don't think anything is under control at google. I think they lost the reigns a while back. I also think they will be lucky to recover from any of this. They always come back with " everythings under control" , " we know what we're doing" but that is far from true. I think that they are just trying to be too clever and from where they started from a simple easy to use search engine has just turned into a pile of useless information that searchers can't even find what they are looking for.
Just my 2 cents worth anyway but maybe a few would agree.
| 1:15 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I don't think google has problems. I think they are testing things.
To have two or fours set of results can be a good thing.
| 1:21 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Am I correct that all Google DataCentre IPs are in just these blocks?
Are there any others at all?
Please contribute to the DataCentre list [webmasterworld.com] that is being compiled.
| 1:53 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I just did a search for widget widget2, and the results showed the top 3, then a line, and then 'search for widget AND widget2'written, followed by 3 searches including 'AND', another line, then back to the original search query.
I clciked on widget AND widget2 and at the top of the search result it said 'The "AND" operator is unnecessary -- we include all search terms by default'.
I can't fathom the point of this,if default words such as AND are not necessary.
| 2:23 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I think that they are just trying to be too clever and from where they started from a simple easy to use search engine has just turned into a pile of useless information that searchers can't even find what they are looking for. |
While I agree the current results are crap, I think we should keep in mind that the spammers are (in large part) respsonsible for the current state of things. The recent story about the spammer who injected google with billions of pages of junk is a prime example. The bad guys always seem to stay one step ahead of the cops...
| This 179 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 179 ( 1 2 3  5 6 ) > > |