| 1:04 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
| 1:18 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
| 1:31 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
i am noticing that wikipedia is getting more indented results, thereby pushing everyone else down.
upon further review, i think i am noticing that more of the #1 results are getting indents, which is pushing everything down. this seems true for wikipedia as well as other top results.
[edited by: elsewhen at 1:39 am (utc) on Aug. 11, 2009]
| 1:32 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Fortunately it's as easily manipulatable ( what ranks on page one of the old G ranks on page one of this one ..YMMV ) ..it appears to be running "live" pre search ..fast.. yes ..
bright ..not very ..
worth watching and poking with sticks ..?
for now contented with it's results I am ..:))
| 1:46 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Posted by Matt Cutts and another engineer at the Official Google Webmaster Central Blog....
Help test some next-generation infrastructure [googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com]
|...Right now, we only want feedback on the differences between Google's current search results and our new system. We're also interested in higher-level feedback ("These types of sites seem to rank better or worse in the new system") in addition to "This specific site should or shouldn't rank for this query." Engineers will be reading the feedback, but we won't have the cycles to send replies.... |
| 2:03 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
We probably should include this part:
|Here's how to give us feedback: Do a search at [www2.sandbox.google.com...] and look on the search results page for a link at the bottom of the page that says "Dissatisfied? Help us improve." Click on that link, type your feedback in the text box and then include the word caffeine somewhere in the text box. |
| 2:39 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I don't know how people from outside of the US are able to give feedback on what is being seen at [www2.sandbox.google.com...]
Due to Google's regional filtering, results on [www2.sandbox.google.com...] would be .com I gather without the regional filtering algorithm applied which kinda makes it hard to notice any difference for me as I only ever use .au.
| 2:56 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The rankings for all the sites/keywords I watch appear to be the same as the "regular" results of 3-4 weeks ago.
| 4:44 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
@nuthin - try appending the gl= parameter onto the URL to see ~ version of international results.
For AU append &gl=au to the URL
| 5:12 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
also note that its using # in the URL #q=this+that, instead of ?q=this+that .. Ajax driven .. thereby rendering all 3rd party analytics software useless ..
|brotherhood of LAN|
| 5:53 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Only the form & logo are not JS, which I assume is for people who turn it off (and won't get results pages smothered in it)
| 6:33 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
also .. searching on from the homepage of the sandbox google search and typing in a specific brand region query, results in the first link shown in the drop down "google suggests" box as a link directly to that brand site, not a search query .. interesting ..
so even though there are lots of advertisers that would be advertising against that brand and region Google are foregoing that income to make it one click from the search to the intended site.
| 7:22 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|also .. searching on from the homepage of the sandbox google search and typing in a specific brand region query, results in the first link shown in the drop down "google suggests" box as a link directly to that brand site, not a search query .. interesting .. |
It's that way on the current site.
| 7:42 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I have been running some tests in the sandbox for 'longtail' keywords currently bringing traffic to a website I run.
The SERPS are not as trakkerguy suggested the ones from 3-4 weeks ago, at least not looking at my ranking data.
The changes seem minor. That is to say #1 and #2 are generally the same, but after that it seems it's anybody's guess.
Can anyone confirm this?
| 7:59 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Speed of light. The results seem a bit better than what is there now... except it's like a couple weeks ago in that the results could use a bit of skimming off of some irrelevant sites with tons of links... and also put a much larger emphasis on title as domain index pages that generally about widgets are being valued over more specifically titled history of red spinning wigets pages.
| 8:48 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I just have to say WOW, the results for widget and long tail widget in my niche are let say up to 50% different from what live now in the good sense, almost all spam is gone, and one more thing , my site dropped of the SERPs exactly 2 months ago from now(all pages still indexed ) but its dominating in the dev version. All white hat. Is it me or at least in my niche all sites displayed for widget on 1st and 2nd page are only very frequently updated websites with a lot of fresh content finally.
| 9:18 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
<widget model number> with &gl=uk apended
On "normal" Google, its been dropped (has been since the current churn started)
Its #2 in the dev.
Top natural result is FREQUENTLY indented (more so than usual)
Apart from that, only minor tweaks from current SERPs
| 9:26 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing almost the same results as the live G
| 9:34 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Nothing revolutionary here from the SERPs standpoint and I'm rather disappointed that there's been no major step to place emphasis on content and yet still TONS on links.
| 10:06 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Looks cleaner, still some crud with inflated links slipping in as steveb mentioned from last update (this includes in .au), I notice some of the link exchange type resort domains really doing well - for instance. Also wiki needs to be cut back a little, it's too dominant, top 10 is ok, not top 2. It is fast too.
| 10:09 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I sure hope these SERPS ain't going to go live cos I'm nailed if they do.
| 10:10 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
FAST FAST FAST
| 10:22 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Testing this from Luxemburg, I see hardly any differences to the current Google - if anything, SERPs remind me of what they looked like a year or so ago.
| 10:26 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|also note that its using # in the URL |
That's a real bummer. How do I add it as a search engine to Firefox?
| 11:02 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing virtually no difference in the top page results, but past page 1 then a lot or my pages are slipping
| 11:18 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I wish they would take this opportunity to eliminate the artificial rankings boost they give to Youtube videos.
| 11:26 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I got this on my third search:
'We're sorry... but your computer or network may be sending automated queries'
| 11:34 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
| 11:41 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Im on the fence with this one. Its very different to the conventional Google results, but is it better? I see pretty different results, but I cant say if they are better or worse, just different.
I am seeing a lot more emphasis being placed on Wikipedia, and that does annoy me.
One good thing, it is very quick.
| This 201 message thread spans 7 pages: 201 (  2 3 4 5 6 7 ) > > |