homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.20.63.27
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 152 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 152 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 > >     
Update Pluto : Back Links Updated on Some Data Centers
Bhavin




msg:3058625
 1:23 pm on Aug 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have noticed on 64.233.187.104 and 64.233.187.99 datacenters Back Links Updated.

 

topboy2




msg:3062038
 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

g1smd




msg:3062040
 11:56 am on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> Could be because some are listed without www and others with non-www...maybe google still hasn't got the canonical problem sorted. <<

You can sort it out yourself. Get that site-wide 301 redirect in place.
More thoughts: [webmasterworld.com...]

BillyS




msg:3062067
 12:55 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

The related: command is also fixed on these DC. And it actually makes sense.

Definately a tweak or two. I'm showing an increase in backlinks.

Alex70




msg:3062122
 2:43 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

To me that Dc is far from accurate, it return as supplemental a directory with the robots in place; ex: www.mysite.com/directory-abc/robots.txt

jdancing




msg:3062155
 3:53 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

I didn't know anyone paid attention to google backlinks since they have only shown a small sample of backlinks for a least the past few years. A change in the size of their backlink sample on a few sites is hardly "update worthy".

reseller




msg:3062159
 4:05 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hi Folks

When it comes to the current situation of 64.233.187.104 and 64.233.187.99, I guess you are beating a dead horse ;-)

Allow me to recall what GG just posted yesterday:

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).

BillyS




msg:3062448
 11:14 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> 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).

Funny how the related: command all of a sudden is better than ever. I think there is more to this data center than everyone is letting on. Maybe it's just not ready for prime time yet, but I do believe we are seeing a preview of the future.

After all, what's part of info:

cach:
link:
related:
contains:

[edited by: BillyS at 11:17 pm (utc) on Aug. 27, 2006]

JackR




msg:3062496
 12:33 am on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> Funny how the related: command all of a sudden is better than ever. I think there is more to this data center than everyone is letting on. Maybe it's just not ready for prime time yet, but I do believe we are seeing a preview of the future.

This is a VERY interesting point. Using the related: command to search for my competitors, I see my own site listed each time in the top five.

I wonder if this is indicative of the fact that google views my site as a prime example of its kind, eg an 'authority' site.

futuresky




msg:3063063
 2:31 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> Could be because some are listed without www and others with non-www...maybe google still hasn't got the canonical problem sorted. <<

You can sort it out yourself. Get that site-wide 301 redirect in place.
More thoughts: [webmasterworld.com...]


Thanks gismd. Until now I've tried to avoid doing what I consider (in my humble little mind anyway) to be any unneccesary stuff like this, after all, as tiori states in the thread at [webmasterworld.com...]
All other search engines seem to figure out www vs non-www
The content of that thread too makes me very wary of the 301 solution.

I'll give it a month or so and see what happens as things are...if I'm still supplemental I guess I'll have to try the 301 route.

g1smd




msg:3063335
 5:20 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

You'll still be supplemental in a month. Those results hang around for a year even after fixes are put in place.

plasma




msg:3063452
 7:10 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

if I'm still supplemental I guess I'll have to try the 301

Do it now. Google rewards it.

zeus




msg:3063579
 8:50 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

About the wired site count, it has nothing to do with a 301, I have had a 301 for over a year nothing changed, so I have removed it again.

The site count here is some wierd bug, because when you go a page further, the count goes double and so on.

goubarev




msg:3063612
 9:19 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Ha!

I was SOooooo right!

GoogleGuy: "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've said "that must be some geek at google playing around with +/- button" :c)

colin_h




msg:3063641
 10:00 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

I suppose it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Google are monitoring all of the site: searches on this test server and looking to apply penalties or some other fun thing to those unsuspecting webmasters.

Yours Always Suspicious of Google's Intentions

Col :-)

GoogleGuy




msg:3063991
 6:02 am on Aug 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Nothing new to report; it's just that dude working on things. As far as site: showing more results, I wouldn't believe those numbers--the more accurate numbers are likely to be the lower numbers at other data centers.

Remember that infrastructure that we talked about by the end of the summer that as a by-product would make site: searches more accurate? My guess is that 64.233.187.104 has that infrastructure turned off, so that the site: results estimates appear higher at that data center. But again, I think the lower numbers at other data centers are more likely to be right.

Again, not much to see overall; just an engineer tinkering with a data center on their own.

reseller




msg:3064010
 6:41 am on Aug 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Good morning GoogleGuy

"Again, not much to see overall; just an engineer tinkering with a data center on their own."

Thanks for feedback.

No harm done as long as that daynamic engineer doesn't start tinkering with The Mother of The New Infrastructure 72.14.207.104 :-)

steveb




msg:3064040
 7:19 am on Aug 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yeah, why would anyone want someone doing something good with the related results to tinker with the worst quality datacenter Google has...

KenB




msg:3064329
 1:36 pm on Aug 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

I suppose it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Google are monitoring all of the site: searches on this test server and looking to apply penalties or some other fun thing to those unsuspecting webmasters.

Yours Always Suspicious of Google's Intentions

Col :-)


One wouldn't be so paranoid if everyone wasn't out to get them. ;)

Simsi




msg:3064412
 2:50 pm on Aug 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Probably a silly question, but why does a "link:www.widget.com" differ from a "link www.widget.com" command (colon/no colon)? In my case the ":" version I have 0 now, the latter I have 360 odd. Weird.

[edited by: Simsi at 2:51 pm (utc) on Aug. 29, 2006]

colin_h




msg:3064435
 3:12 pm on Aug 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

KenB,

Stop trying to soften me up ... I know you work for Google and you're trying to get my secrets ;-)

All the Best

Col :-)

plasma




msg:3064513
 4:24 pm on Aug 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

why does a "link:www.widget.com" differ from a "link www.widget.com" command

link:www.widget.com searches for links to that site
link www.widget.com is just an ordinary search for the keyword "link" and the keywords www.widget.com

Brett_Tabke




msg:3065740
 1:04 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Anyone seeing fresh PR updates as well?

trinorthlighting




msg:3065741
 1:05 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

I am seeing a back link and pr update as well.

Bewenched




msg:3065810
 2:03 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

I haven't seen pr or backlink update for us. But it's never shown all of our backlinks... it shows about 1/10th of what we show in the other engines and/or our list of manufacturers that link to us as their authorized online dealer.

It's almost as if they don't show us the good ones on purpose. Just recently going through another engine I found at article that had been written about one of the widgets we sell and they linked to us as a point of purchase. I never even knew this was there.

oaktown




msg:3065817
 2:10 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Bewenched,

"It's almost as if they don't show us the good ones on purpose."

Ding, ding, ding, ding! That has been a favorite theory of mine for ages.

As for the PR update...Where? Somebody please tell me where to look.

PR! Bawahahahaaaaa! I MUST have more PR!

reseller




msg:3065870
 2:52 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Where do you see the PR updates? I don't see any at the moment.

Simsi




msg:3065880
 2:59 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

I am seeing a back link and pr update as well.

I'm seing PR move on 75% of the Futurepagerank DC's too.

plasma




msg:3065949
 3:31 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm seing PR move on 75% of the Futurepagerank DC's too.

Could you be a bit more specific?

oaktown




msg:3065955
 3:34 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

I can't see any PR updates, but for my small-niche, two-keyword term on most of the DCs I checked my site has jumped from #99-103 (where it has been stuck for 3 months), to #15-17.

Something is afoot for sure. Maybe the PR has jumped and it just isn't showing yet. I think GG said that it updates constantly but that "toolbar" PR is only updated occasionally (if I understood correctly).

Simsi




msg:3066201
 5:43 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Could you be a bit more specific?

Sure. Using the #*$! FPR tool, yesterday showed 2 DC's with a fluctuation, while my site showed the old PR. Today, most of the DC's show a new PR on the FPR tool, and my site is now showing it (as of about an hour ago) too.

g1smd




msg:3066315
 7:07 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Google shows only about 5% to 10% of the links that they actually know about.

They do this to thwart link spammers. Yahoo gives a more complete picture.

This 152 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 152 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 > >
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