I don't think so, but when you put google.com in your address bar the actual IP it will point to is in cluster and some time cluster are out of sync. There are more than dozen ip in cluster for google.com for load balancing purpose. Means one is not having same data as other one but they do resync it to get consistent result. Don't worry it will come
I do know about the datacenter swap outs, but our traffic is considerably off as well.
this has happened to me too.
yesterday 7th November.
Today 3rd November.
I've seen some similar things -- I think it's a rollback in the GWT reporting, but not in the SERPs which look fresh to me.
We have seen supplemental pages updated in October on our sites, we have not noticed a rollback....
I have even seen for a short time that it had a sub page as the highest PageRank for the site - this was for a few dozen of our sites. It refreshed a few days later and showed the home page as it should. I just think it is a hiccup in the system and not a roll back. Just my opinion.
There has been a rollback (at least in Webmaster Tools reporting) on one of my sites from around Nov. 3 to Oct.8 which is where it stays still for the last week.
[edited by: tedster at 6:59 pm (utc) on Nov. 10, 2006]
|Jordo needs a drink|
Today, mine says last visit was Nov 9th.
In a few cases, we're not showing the latest date for the home page crawl in webmaster tools right now. We're working on this and should have it corrected shortly. I'll keep you posted - I'm flying out to Vegas on Monday, but surely I can find wireless there, right? :)
Vanessa > Are you also aware that the 'Summary' - e.g. URLs restricted by robots.txt (x) isn't always accurate?
The data shown today is completely different to that shown in the SERPs.
Cache date 9th November in SERPs, 31st October in Webmaster Tools.
17 pages in SERPs, message saying NO pages are indexed in Webmaster Tools.
Works well for me, both SERPs and GWT show the same, November 9th
This should be fixed now -- let me know if you see anything that seems odd.
OutdoorMan, I'll look into that.
Vanessa > Thanks. Now it seems to be accurate :)