| 10:10 pm on Jul 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Now someone tell me Google have improved the serps since the roll out of big daddy"
Okay, I will. I can't see how anyone can make the case that the serps are not dramatically better. The results on the datacenters are not very good, but the results on google.com are for the most part great.
They do need to relist and rerank properly somewhere between five and 25% of the sites on the Internet, but aside from that (which is mostly still just because their database is corrupted with inept supplemental data) the vast majority of sites listed deserve their approximate listing. Only a couple types of spammy garbage is "working".
If Google were top flush the supplementals completely, without resurrecting a lot of garbage, this should free up the good sites stupidly lost, and lead to even better results.
Every datacenter shows fairly weak results, so it's amazingly out of character that the far superior comcast results first seen last month actually have become the dominant result set. That may bode ill for the future, but then again it may be a sign of better things to come.
| 1:38 am on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|The results on the datacenters are not very good, but the results on google.com are for the most part great. |
My case is that in my sector many of the top sites have been replaced by directories, spam sites and affiliate sites. How is that great?
| 2:12 am on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
This is getting crazy....I just realized google updated my site links. Nearly doubled in links The weird part is that it is showing url strings from an older format (cold fusion) which I have not had in over nine months.
How is this possible?
| 5:40 am on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Okay, I will. I can't see how anyone can make the case that the serps are not dramatically better. The results on the datacenters are not very good, but the results on google.com are for the most part great. "
Are you talking about the sector(s) you watch, or are you issuing here a general assessment for all sectors?
| 6:30 am on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I see that Matt Cutts is back and seems to be just as out of touch as ever. Reading through his "Reminder: Check your Sites" section, it seems the recent results are my fault and not that of Google ... Surprise, Surprise!
All the Best
| 6:36 am on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
with the amount of postings on the 27th please don't tell me he's just going to push this under the rug!
| 6:49 am on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Good morning tigger
"with the amount of postings on the 27th please don't tell me he's just going to push this under the rug!"
Guess he has already done that :-)
| 8:16 am on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Looks like he's avoiding the subject altogether seeing as he's been asked direct questions about what happened on the 27th and has simply commented on something else instead.
| 9:27 am on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
When I go directly to the DCs that show garbage in McNameless eg [126.96.36.199...] from the UK, I see the same good results for some terms that I see on [188.8.131.52...]
The garbage seems to be filtered out for location UK. Knowing what I do about the terms in question this may be because of semantics (pure speculation!). The reason I say this is because, post Florida, we identified a problem with the use of an American English thesaurus in the semantics algo. The term includes a word which has an entirely different meaning this side of the Atlantic.
For a different term which has broadly the same meaning in the US and UK the results are garbage on both of the DCs identified above. 5 of the top 10 pages listed are from scraper, afiliate, no useful content directory sites.
For this term:
If I go to [google.com...] ( [216.239.59.*...] ) I get garbage.
If I go to [google.co.uk...] and do not use the "pages from the UK" button I get reasonable results (this is the same DC [216.239.59.*...] ) but if I use the "pages from the UK" button I get somewhat less good results.
My assessment of good, garbage, less good is based on the number and position of the scraper, afiliate, no useful content directory sites versus the real content kind of sites someone who used that term would actually want to visit kind of sites/pages.
[edited by: engine at 3:43 pm (utc) on July 7, 2006]
| 10:15 am on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I believe this is the route cause of a number of problems and imo why the serps are a mess. I could give zillions of examples like:-
Plaster-Building Material for walls etc
Plaster-First Aid Product
Plaster-A seattle based Rock Band
Plaster-Ingestion medical complaint
By Google trying to push this issue you get in a number of cases serps results that are not even remotely relevent to the search string OR you get good quality authority sites about the search string diluted with garbage thats should not be listed.
| 11:14 am on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|"with the amount of postings on the 27th please don't tell me he's just going to push this under the rug!" |
Guess he has already done that :-)
|Looks like he's avoiding the subject altogether seeing as he's been asked direct questions about what happened on the 27th and has simply commented on something else instead. |
Same thing happened last Sept 22. Loads of threads and posts and not a word. It took until Oct 17 for this snippet "After that, some people might have noticed some changes around Sept. 22"
I dont understand why they cant acknowledge it even if no further comment can be made at the current time.
| 11:45 am on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"I dont understand why they cant acknowledge it even if no further comment can be made at the current time."
Matt is a nice a guy, but I guess he is not allowed to say much about 27th. Instead he is entertaining his audience with some old stuff. You might call it blog recycling :-)
| 12:09 pm on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Same thing happened last Sept 22. "
"I dont understand why they cant acknowledge it even if no further comment can be made at the current time. "
Yes, here here to that.
Matt may be a "nice guy" although to be honest I could care less about his personal qualities, what is pathetic is Googles complete patronization of webmasters and our problems.
We are all grown ups you know Google (mostly anyway) we can take the truth even if it is that you just don't want to tell us anything!
| 12:15 pm on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>You might call it blog recycling
I'm sorry Reseller I class it as annoying
| 1:07 pm on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think Matt will say something eventually, but I am a firm beleiver that Matt really focuses on spam. He has hinted in the past on his blog, and also on some podcasts that there is an index team. I really think more and more that Matt is not really invloved with the index team as much as we may want him to be. Thats not to say he has never been helpful, but it is a different department.
I am by no strecth a "cuttlett", but I really think he deserves a little slack.
Where has Adam Lanski been? Maybe that is the person that should be posting something, or giving a weather report.
Personally, i think that Google's image would be much better if every department had a blog that discussed what they do and how their changes may or may not be affecting serps.
| 1:30 pm on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Focus on spam?
He might want to check out some of the more popular spam domains because at last count one has grown by 300k overnight.
But don't try to post that on his blog, it will get deleted.
Seems MC doens't really want to hear about the true spam issue. He just wants to talk about apache rewrites.
| 2:25 pm on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I know how you feel, but if there is a different department that handles index refreshes that would tell me that they would be the first to identify the problem and then the spam team would follow up with the concequent complaints.
I am in the same boat as everyone else, I have watched my sites get bumped in and out of the serps drastically since last year, but i can't expect it to be stable all of the time anymore until these data refreshes are worked out. Matt has touched base on the data refreshes, but he has pointed out that it was unrelated to big daddy.
With that said, there is little to no talk about them. So i can only conclude that Matt is aware of the data refreshes, but has little to say about them.
It would also make sense to me that there has not been any named update since Jagger. (big daddy was an infastructure change).
Beleive me, I am in the same WH boat that everyone else is, but I think that this issue really lies upon the data refreshes. Just my 2 cents :)
| 3:08 pm on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The key word there is "if".
Nobody knows because they never talk and what they said is vague and useless unless you want to take a guess at reading between the lines.
Its really a joke at this point. Getting information from MC and google is harder than getting answers out of the Bush administration.
I understand that we really can't do anything about it but they continue to piss more people off every day.
Now you have these humps talking about html compliance when they don't even understand that google's own homepage isn't compliant.
| 7:01 pm on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Anyway.. I'm now seeing, "Copra", for the first time on 184.108.40.206 which is the DC that I see most often on google.co.uk
| 7:58 pm on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Reseller i wasnt saying matt wasnt a nice guy or unhelpful. if it wasnt for his Boston Pubcon 2006 contact email one of my sites would still have been floating around in limbo. im sure whoever looked at it opened the door to G to have it fully indexed again.
I just meant "they" being google, and last sept matt was the only "real" person from google that webmasters could talk to.
now adam is around too, he could have made a comment on it and by comment all i mean is "we pushed some buttons but at this time that is ALL i can tell you".
they'd be giving away nothing but at least webmasters would know for certain changes have or are taking place.
i just think they could do better on that front - a lot better. not as if they cant afford 1 more employee - lol.
anyway sorry to have deviated from DC watching :-)
| 8:19 pm on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Matt, focusing on spam!?Give me a break.He is google's main pr man.He is doing too many other things to be focussed on spam.
As head of the spam department, Inigo should fall on his sword and retire gracefully.
| 9:12 pm on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Matt, focusing on spam!? Give me a break."
I never said that was Google's top priority, but yes that is his job i think.
"He is google's main pr man.He is doing too many other things to be focussed on spam."
He is not the main PR man. He was on vacation, but as a department head for spam, he should have a team the can work seamlessly regardless if he is there or not.
I am not trying to defend him at all, i am only trying to say that he is the spam guy and while he does more than likely have a great influence within Google, there are different departments that handle different tasks and that in the way i see it, many people like to come down on Matt about stuff, when the problem is indexing issues which he is not part of.
I think that its kind of like going over to a department store for a hammer and asking people over in the clothing department what the best hammer is they offer.
However, i do beleive that spam is a problem on various keywords i watch, but i dont think that it an issue of spam at this point, i think that the index is pushed and it gets wacky for a while.
| 10:15 pm on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
This update is definitely a mistake. Results in Belgium and Netherlands show up literally tons of spam sites in the top - 10 results.
Two of my colleagues asked this week for an alternative to the Google search machine..
I suppose and old pre-anti-spam database has been linked for some reason, and things will be back to normal soon?
| 10:39 pm on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"I think that its kind of like going over to a department store for a hammer and asking people over in the clothing department what the best hammer is they offer. "
I like your above lines. Couldn't find better to describe the serps on the following DCs for the sector I watch :-)
| 4:16 am on Jul 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I've found that my site has lost rankings on all but one datacenter: 220.127.116.11
Has anyone found the same?
EDIT: I've just discovered my pre June 27th rankings on another datacenter: 18.104.22.168
So can anyone let me know if this is hopeful or these two datacenters just haven't been changed over yet?
| 7:03 am on Jul 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
For us this is just like Jagger about a year algo (wasn't it?) I see similar sites doing well while we languish. I remember before they said yes its an update (and called it Jagger) there were posters protesting something was going on but nobody would acknowledge one was taking place. Well this looks like the pre shocks before a big earthquake.
Time will tell but last time after much anxiety we returned slightly better tahn before.
| 10:35 am on Jul 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
As of today the SERPs are looking very different for me. I'm particularly interested in the June 27th issue, which tedster has sent over here to put to bed, and I wonder if it has been put to bed to some extent today?
Yesterday various people talked about this DC [22.214.171.124...] showing results for the site:mysite.com search more or less as they should be.
When I looked at that DC yesterday I saw about 1/10th the number of pages listed for our site, but it was a correct amount, in that it listed the all pages and not the permutations that sometimes exist (eg extra variables on the URL like?date=27june)
It also showed more pages without clicking the "repeat the search with the omitted results included" link than we had previously had listed.
So I was pretty happy with the results and so were all those who saw the home page in pole position again with the site: search
Today that is more or less what I am seeing on Google by default. Not sure what DC I have, but I checked the above one again, and it looks the same.
So - for those who were suffering from the 27th Site: search shinanigans - are you fixed? I hope for you all that you are.
| 10:37 am on Jul 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
That DC looks pretty much by itself still IMO - perhaps you are just accessing it from Google.com at the moment?
Someone mentioned in the old thread that when they got an updated cache the site:domain.com check returned correctly again.
Anyone else seeing this - I have not had an updated cache on my homepages since then although I have on some internals and some of these internals are now top on a site:domain.com check.
| 10:45 am on Jul 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
regarding [126.96.36.199...] thats showing much better results for me but the site:command is all over the shop
| This 179 message thread spans 6 pages: 179 (  2 3 4 5 6 ) > > |