| 3:08 pm on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
lol, that's a bit spooky to say Pluto is about to be downgraded :(
| 4:17 pm on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well, this one is interesting. I am seeing links from Google Groups (Usenet), a couple of ancient blog comments, forum posts and other sources that in thepast were roundly discounted and didn't show up. Geesh, there is even a guest book entry from over three years ago!
I might need to go back to frequenting those usenet groups and give WebmasterWorld a break:)
| 4:44 pm on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Hey all, sorry for the confusion but could someone clarify the "more links are showing" discussion?
Are you searching "link: www.mysite.com" and "link: mysite.com" (www and no-www) and actually seeing new/more results?
I ask because I actually see less results on the named datacenters for an arguably 'expert' site.
| 6:21 pm on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I really don't get it that we are having a BL update already now.
Of relevance to this thread, I jest wish to recall what GoogleGuy posted on August 13, 2006 [webmasterworld.com]
reseller, getting a new set of PR/BL out hasn't been a high priority, and I wouldn't expect it to be for a while.
When referring to the end of summer when many data centers would have some more changes, that's the true end o' summer, around the autumnal equinox, i.e. roughly the end of this quarter. I haven't heard much new about the 72.#*$! data center with its infrastructure, but I'll ask.
GG said this month on 13 August that he wouldn't expect PR/BL new set for a while.
Its only 12 days has passed since that. Very surprising indeed!
And as you might have noticed, GG was talking about the end of this quarter which is end of September 2006 where many DCs would have more changes..
Maybe GG would be kind to post a weather report and for that I thank him a bunch in advance.
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 6:28 pm (utc) on Aug. 25, 2006]
[edit reason] fixed link and quote [/edit] [/edit][/1]
| 6:42 pm on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I too see updated "link:" command on both of those data centers.
Both with "www" and "no-www" numbers changed...
On one of my site the "link:" doesn't return anything! Was 2000+... (the "site:" still returns 39k results)
On another site all the no-www links are gone - the www links went form 600 to 900... (BTW, for that site I changed the "preffered display to be with www" on webmasters' central)
| 8:19 pm on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Reseller, this might be the testing indexes for that update. The serps on those data centers differ a bit.
| 8:36 pm on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Naming an update because backlinks changed?
Slightly on the other hand, the quality of backlinks shown is a bit better... if still fairly random.
[edited by: steveb at 8:40 pm (utc) on Aug. 25, 2006]
| 8:38 pm on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Of course it could be a testing. However, we have been talking about changes on that particular DC for sometime [google.com] as you can see ;-)
| 10:30 pm on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
How old are the links being shown?
| 11:23 pm on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Naming an update because backlinks changed? |
I suspect that Pluto will be stripped of its update status and be declared a dwarf update.
| 12:33 am on Aug 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Big deal. The backlinks changed. Only really important for link chasers, and the ones who still "chase" links to get their own sites to rank well won't ever be real competition. So, otherwise, means nothing.
| 6:17 am on Aug 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It's definetely a back link update. That said, the SERPS have moved to a somewhat significant degree for me, so a full blown update, I don't know, but an update nonetheless.
| 8:03 am on Aug 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The SERPs have also moved somewhat to significately for me as well. One from a fairly competive but stable position on middle of page 1 to the middle of page 2.
It seems that some other sites have been pushed into the rankings, perhaps it is just the flux... but I think it's the beginning of an update. We'll see in a few days.
| 8:25 am on Aug 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
well the last backlink update saw me going from 70+ to 14! reading this thread, I checked and found it was at 15...
in any case, my site's jumped from #100+ to #38 in the serps on all datacenters the last 2 days. some are reporting #11. hope it holds... been working really hard. does this kind of fluctuation happen often?
| 12:45 pm on Aug 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
does this kind of fluctuation happen often?
It happens every 3-4 weeks according to Matt C.
| 2:54 pm on Aug 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Talking about BL update...
One of the sites I watch (not one of mine) went from 17,900 to 39,000 BL! Thats either a "natural" BL growth or a natural BL bug. Lets wait and see ;-)
| 3:05 pm on Aug 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Since when did backlink changes become named updates?
This DC nonsense is getting ridiculous, even Matt implies it's sad!
| 3:30 pm on Aug 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Since when did backlink changes become named updates?"
Maybe its a new trend to match the new Google infrastructure, which might indicates that BL, PR and algos updates shall get their own names in future. For example:
BL update: Update Pluto
PageRank update: Update Callisto
Algos update: Update Titan
Of course such trend would make it little bit difficult for us to remember all those names.
| 4:04 pm on Aug 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Next It will be a new name everyday for the everflux!
IMHO, A change of the backlinks displayed by G, that do not in anyway reflect the true number of backlinks for a site, is not an update. Google uses everflux of the data of the spidered links between sites to determine numbers and values of inbound & outbound links, and the backlink display change means next to nothing.
Back to watching
| 5:17 pm on Aug 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'll ask around with a couple engineeers who keep a closer eye on external backlinks/PR and see if they have anything they'd like to mention.
Bear in mind that backlinks/PageRank updates happen at their own rate, and we're continuously finding and incorporating new backlinks and computing new PageRank all the time. So an update of visible backlinks doesn't really cause an "update" or big change in rankings, because we've already known about those links for a while.
Anyway, I'll ask around and if anything interesting comes out of it, I'll let you know.
| 5:48 pm on Aug 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Maybe its a new trend to match the new Google infrastructure, which might indicates that BL, PR and algos updates shall get their own names in future. For example |
Named updates are for algo changes - Brett has the final say on the name
Even GG has put this into context for you above
| 7:16 pm on Aug 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Certainly seems to be an update. My new 9 month-old site finally has more than just the index page listed (about half of the 180 pages are listed).....But, they're all showing as supplemental. Could be because some are listed without www and others with non-www...maybe google still hasn't got the canonical problem sorted.
| 7:37 pm on Aug 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Noticed something interesting this afternoon
major differences in count on:
I hadn't tried it before with the http:// on the domain name and it shows more than any of the others.
Well .. back to work.. just thought I'd share that.
| 7:42 pm on Aug 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I went from #500 Bl's to 150 Bl's on this last update. One important factor is that only liks with pr are showing. I would say that PR is proudly and finally back in the game!
| 7:46 pm on Aug 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It's Brett's decision to call something an update, but I agree this one isn't anything to write home about. Like Pluto, I think this would be a shrinking update; the SERPs aren't really changing. :)
I talked to one of the engineers who would know, and it turns out that it's an engineer who has grabbed the 64.233.187.whatever datacenter for himself to tinker around with making info: queries slightly more accurate. I don't expect the visible/external info: or backlink data to spread to other data centers (or if it did, not for a long time).
So have fun poking around over there if you really enjoy monitoring IP addresses, but just bear in mind that it's an engineer tinkering by himself, not part of a larger trend or an upcoming update.
| 7:51 pm on Aug 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
No? shame, was looking good ;)
.....that engineer is good at his job I can tell!
[edited by: Alex70 at 7:53 pm (utc) on Aug. 26, 2006]
| 7:52 pm on Aug 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|So have fun poking around over there if you really enjoy monitoring IP addresses, but just bear in mind that it's an engineer tinkering by himself, not part of a larger trend or an upcoming update. |
Does this mean there's no reason to have the Datacenter Watch thread? ;)
| 9:18 pm on Aug 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Thanks GG for clarifying things for us ;-)
And that means that my previous message [webmasterworld.com] regarding GG's post of August 13, 2006 is still valid ;-)
| 8:02 am on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Googleguy & Reseller,
If there has been no update or change to the serps, why are there a lot of reports of massive increases in the number of pages listed for sites. My own site only has 350ish pages and the site: search shows a total of 19'900!
This happened on Thursday around the time that Pluto came into alignment.
All the Best
| 8:35 am on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"If there has been no update or change to the serps, why are there a lot of reports of massive increases in the number of pages listed for sites."
Of course GoogleGuy would be the one to give the right answer.
Meanwhile.. have you noticed that "boost" in number of pages when run site: operator on 126.96.36.199 and 188.8.131.52 or across all the DCs?
| 11:51 am on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
do a site:www.yoursite.com on google
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,740 hit refresh goes down then back up
our site has gone from 30 pages upto 2000+ from friday
| This 152 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 152 ( 1  3 4 5 6 ) > > |