Look at the overall picture. - Do you show well at sj/cw/fi and the like? - Spam will disappear again [webmasterworld.com ] GoogleGuy msg 39 May 17
Kirby, I'm not worried about spammers that have been handled before and appear to be back. Most of those will be gone again. But I do want to hear spam reports like "this type of search seems to work better or worse with the new system." worker, if I were playing Yoda like Alphawolf suggests, I'd say: worry less about PR on the toolbar and more about rankings.
And less about rankings for high-profile phrases and more about overall rankings. And less about rankings and more about traffic. And less about traffic and more about conversions. Maybe that doesn't sound much like Yoda though. I think the shorter answer would be that if you're showing well at datacenters like sj/cw/fi, I wouldn't worry much about what the PR says.
I just wanted to say thanks to the other posters who are taking a step back and looking at the overall picture. Please help to remind people that the longer-term view will keep folks less stressed and more productive. :)
About micro-level views, larger landscapes, and a post showing deep understanding [webmasterworld.com ] GoogleGuy msg #54 May 17
teeceo, when bringing up a new system, you want to work from a known base of data. I fully expect that after that, we'll be working to bring in newer sites. And your anchortext, rfgdxm1. ;) FWIW, BigDave has (in my experience reading his posts--I don't know who he is) a deep understanding of Google's workings and perspective. I would give his comments as much consideration as you would mine. mrdch, I understand why webmasters may be anxious--mainly my post was meant to bring out a few points that people may have missed. WebmasterWorld is great for the micro-level view ("I dropped from #4 to #16, but only in cw!"), but not always for the larger landscape.
On-page factors: Well optimized individual pages bring traffic from different important key phrases [webmasterworld.com ] GoogleGuy msg #78 May 17 (referring to msg #71)
annej, I really wish every webmaster would do the log analysis that you just did. :)
Stefan, there was a lot of work at Google behind these changes. We're trying the make the transition as gentle as possible, but there's still a lot of work left to do.
Specific feedback about improved or worsened searches welcome [webmasterworld.com ] Google Guy msg #181 May 18 (Remark: quote shortened)
This is just my take, but I don't think it helps anybody to have folks call other people dancing monkeys, or post claiming "BŁ*LLSH!T" in all caps, or virtually jump out of windows. If people have constructive comments for this index, I gave a method back in msg #24 of giving us specific searches or types of searches that you consider good or bad. I just checked, and I don't mind telling you that so far it's a single digit number of reports. I'm guessing that number will go up at least some after this reminder post :) but if you have specific searches or suggestions to pass on, that's probably the best way to get them to us.
Current status of update [webmasterworld.com ] GoogleGuy msg #205 May 18 (Remark: read accurately, also posts referred to)
Sure, Anon27 and deanril. I think the plan will be 1) deploy the new index/system across all data centers 2) begin pulling in more data (i.e. newer backlinks, pages, and spam updates) 3) once new data is into the system, begin pulling in new algorithms that have been waiting in the wings I believe the current status is that we're around step 1.5 or thereabouts; something like 7 or so data centers have the new index/system. I expect the current pace of switching data centers to continue about as it has been. I would expect step two to occur over roughly the same timeframe as a typical index cycle (thus the "more than weeks, less than months" comment).
Step 3 is longer-term and ongoing, but I'm really excited about what we'll be able to do to improve quality across the board.
Hope that helps, GoogleGuy
(Staza, that should help with your questions: yes, and I believe so to #1 and #2.)
[edited by: Marcia at 3:44 pm (utc) on May 19, 2003] [edit reason] Formatting of nested elements. [/edit]