| 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.
| 10:00 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Supplementals back to December 2004 return to gfe-eh.google.com and so far everywhere else I've checked.
Google should open a antique store because they sure suck as an up to date search engine.
(Looks like I won't have spend the bucks to send flowers to the Googleplex since they have not met the target of removing ancient supplementals by the end of this month.)
| 10:11 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Heh, I also just noticed that gfe-eh no longer has the cleaned up version of the supplemental results. It seems to have "rolled back" again; but this is about the fourth or fifth time I have seen that brief rollback in the last couple of weeks.
What may be happening (and Matt Cutts has hinted at this several times before) is that the datacentre is actually offline while they do something to it, and all calls for that datacentre are actually going to a different one behind the scenes.
| 1:40 am on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|and all calls for that datacentre are actually going to a different one behind the scenes. |
Maybe that would explain why all of the sudden we are getting hit from international customers. We haven't had so many calls from europe and australia ever. We do ship there, but it's a real pain to verify their orders.
| 2:11 am on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I was just going to post about international results. They look like they have gone haywire in the alst several hours, like spam dam burst and all sorts of the blog/guestbook garbage polluting the english Google just slopped into the other languages.
The just seem to get worse and worse every day, strangely in a way that they should have no problem with.
| 4:07 am on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>> I was just going to post about international results.>>
Yeah.i cannot believe it.I could be looking at yahoo or msn now.Their adult serps are that bad.
| 4:44 am on Aug 31, 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.
Shhh... Let the link chasers keep using what they think is best :)
| 8:57 am on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I agree with JackR. The link: command is secondary to what is happening on 126.96.36.199, where only slight increases in backlinks are noticeable.
However, the changes for the related: command are fascinating, with major changes showing. The results are far more accurate in identifying similar sites. Our main competitor has for months not shown any related results on google (which is an impossibility in a competitive sector) and have consistently remained at position 1 for primary search terms. On 188.8.131.52, they now show 30 related results, as does my site, and 19 of the related sites are common to both our sites, with each of our sites included in the others similar results. The 19 sites common to both of us are definitely all "authority" sites in our sector. In both our cases, the datacenter correctly includes a number of sites owned by each company (which are not included in the 19 sites common to each of us). The balance (less than 6) are a few sites which are within our sector but unique to each others related commands.
A similar pattern runs through a related: command for all my main competitors.
This is the biggest update I have seen for related commands and definately seems to be correctly identifying authority sites in our sector.
Whether these changes roll out to other datacenters or affect the serps remains to be seen.
| 9:16 am on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I forgot to mention that I find it appropriate if Brett decides to name these changes "Pluto". Although this outer planet has been reclassified as a dwarf, the fact remains that it is a member of our solar system and is therefore both "related" and "similar" to other celestial objects orbiting around the google...I mean Sun.
| 10:37 am on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|The 19 sites common to both of us are definitely all "authority" sites in our sector. |
Out of interest, how do you decide whether a site is an "authority" site Optimus?
Oh and incidentally, the PR on my main site, which changed yesterday, has rolled back today.
[edited by: Simsi at 10:39 am (utc) on Aug. 31, 2006]
| 12:16 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The related command just brings back pages in my site. Is this good?
| 12:57 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
authority = An accepted source of expert information or advice, eg. a noted authority on birds.
IMO the 19 sites I refer to all contain information and advice relevant to our sector. Of course some are better than others, but the consistent thread is that they all have good to excellent content, are free of garbage, redirects, mass link pages etc and all deserve to do well in the serps.
Of further interest to me on 184.108.40.206 is that another competitor which consistently embraces dodgy tactics, including content theft, has all 30 related links for his main site displaying the plethora of his company's interlinked domains and subdomains.
That of course, may indicate that he is an authority of his own!
| 1:36 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Let's keep the "Pluto" for a real update.
Personally I am still up in the air when watching those DC's. Not that it is all bad SERP's but I find that reaching page 1 seems amazingly easy for some insignificant sites with low end link exchanges as only marketing. Weird.
Maybe we should ask that "dude" about his tests though? :)
By the way watching closely some results, it looked like he is not testing on US results, more on UK ones (just a guess this morning).
One thing is sure, some quality filters are off IMO. (although 220.127.116.11 is not much better today from where I stand)
| 2:50 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Anyone noticed that search for a domain string isn't working today?
The pages are indexed when you do a site: search, but search for the page doesn't work at the moment.
| 2:59 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yup - search for 'www.google.com' and there are some strange results there. Especially the fifth one down - Not quite Google but a town in East Yorkshire!
| 3:14 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
How can site "A" be realet to site "B" and site "B" not to be related to site "A" only google knows...
| 3:23 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Something's wrong. I just typed in my domain and it no Longer gives me the menu to choose backlinks, current cache etc etc.
Not only that, some of my subdirectories no longer show as being in the index with the 'http' in fromt but are still indexed without the 'http'
I'm noticing this on all datacentres.
| 5:52 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Asia_Expat, its same here - its broken for ten hours at least...hope its not some new change.
| 5:58 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
We've got a new thread going specifically about the change to www.example.com searches
| 11:24 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have seen the "supplemental cleanup" wax and wane several times at gfe-eh in the last two weeks.
I have also seen bits of it spread to other DCs at times, and later revert. Yesterday the cleanup had been at least partially reverted even at gfe-eh (but that DC may actually have been offline).
Today, at gfe-eh and other DCs, I see the cleanup in an even more advanced state than at any time before. A lot of the more recent supplemental results for pages that are gone, redirected, or since edited have also now been cleaned away too.
| 3:56 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I am a newbie so if this is common place I am sorry. This afternoon I noticed my site dropped from 5 on page 2 to 9 on page 3. When I was on page 2 Google Results page showed my site cached on the 30th. Now that I am on page 3 my site shows cached on 29th and when i view the cache it shows aug 26th.
Any idea what is going on? It sucks being on page 1 for 3 years and them dropping constantly for the past 2 months. I am starting to fee like it will never get better. Watching my results multiple times a day can't be good either.
| 10:26 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>> cabana: it's been a while that GG SERP is constantly fluctuating.
Although right now (looking at 18.104.22.168) it really starts scring the hell out of me.
I am usually a big GG fan, but there are damn wrong results right now.
Googleguy, are some filters off or what?
There are websites:
- with almost 100% similar backlinks, from VERY low end unrelated sites
- using automated link schemes,
- spamming every homepage they can
- other with 100% textlinks purchased from totally unrelated sites
...on top of SERP's now? It's sad. Given some improvements since June I though all would be fixed, obviously not.
Compare to that one of our websites that has REAL 100% true, relevant and related popularity which is gone fully supplemental and sliding down to nowhere, it makes me wonder!
Hopefully just another test, but I am not sure anymore.
| 8:14 pm on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
here we go again .. tiresome really ..
| 12:42 am on Sep 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think everybody is getting really tired of this Google mess. It will not change till the end of Summer, 1 more month to go. Why waste time? Just one thing, Google is on top of other Search Engines right now, but if it keeps testing new algos that don't work, it will be over some day.
| 1:44 am on Sep 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
What scared me was when I looked for one of our major keywords and the TOP site that came up was beyond spam. It tried installing malware on my machine. Even looking at the cache of the site was like the description of spam.
| 5:06 am on Sep 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The spam on 22.214.171.124 is wretched, but even ignoring the spam the results are even worse. Trivial nothing sites being valued while higher quality sites dropping behind the fluff as well as the spam.
I think this is the "at least 85% of your links must be extremely low quality" datacenter (thus valuing both spam and trivial sites).
| 6:57 am on Sep 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Maybe we should wait until the end of this month (September) to see how the 126.96.36.199/104 will look like. We know that its the new infrastructure, but we also know that the friends at the plex are still working on it.
Meanwhile, I would suggest to enjoy the rest of the summer :-)
| 8:04 am on Sep 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Wow, looks like yet another data collapse. Page after page of duplicate subdomain redirects just appeared, especially when looking at results via the ie? interface.
Google's embarrassing summer affair with blog comments and redirects is just stunning.
| 8:17 am on Sep 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Maybe we should wait until the end of this month ...
Reseller, how many months have we been saying this?
It must be getting on 18 months for some of the forum participants and still no real light at the end of the tunnel. I don't really know how the Google experts keep stringing us along like this.
All the best
| 8:32 am on Sep 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I feel for those too Colin.
It's the first time that I feel almost embarassed for Google though.
For the past couple of days, seing so many really "average" sites (I don't want to be rude) being pulled up to page one is just amazing.
If this is a test, someone must shed some light for me, cause I can't find any good reason.
On the other hand, I remember last year some weird things happenning around the same period, but it is not that bad was it?
| 11:31 am on Sep 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Reseller, how many months have we been saying this? "
Too many months, indeed. Lets say that we have been waiting at least since Bigdaddy was on the move [mattcutts.com].
However, it seems that the deployment of the new infrastructure has been more complicated than the good friends at the plex have expected.
I have faith in what our kind fellow member GoogleGuy has told us about ".....at the end of this summer", and my own personal motto has always been; Always Look On the Bright Side of Life ;-)
| This 152 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 152 ( 1 2 3  5 6 ) > > |