Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
Forum Moderators: open
Five days into it and it is almost over with index moving across the other 7 main data centers.
So far, 7 days into this PRE-DANCE:
The SJ data has not started to migrate to the other 7 main data centers. FI not included.
I have not seen sj results show up on www in over 3 days now.
www2 and www3 all are pointed to the IP of sj.
I've seen it mentioned that we have been privy to a part of the dance we normally don't see and I would be inclined to agree with that.
I don't think we will see the real dance start for a couple days at least. It's not a real dance anyway until all the data is applied, so I think we are all going to see a big shift from what the SJ server is showing and what will actually be in the index.
I find it funny that GoogleGuy has disappeared. I think they rolled out the new algo to get our opinions. Most searchers don't bother to fill out a satisfaction report. They just go somewhere else. In that respect, Google has a great asset in this community because they sure got a lot of feedback about what was on the SJ server. I think when the dance really starts in earnest, we'll see GoogleGuy show up again.
Anyway, back to work adding content for the next deep crawl
[edited by: mrguy at 10:39 pm (utc) on May 8, 2003]
The real update is likely to occur soon though perhaps between the 10th and 15th. Think about it the crawl was about that time last month, and sj or w2 are not displaying results from this date but slightly older. However not as old as the current index, hence seeing new sites indexed, but has anyone noticed that these new sites have no backward links.
But how do you explain the sites are not yet listed at all on sj? ( I mean some site that have been listed on www for over 3 months now) Could it mean that this site just does not pass the "new spam" algo? If this is true, then I have to say this new filter thingy still contain bugs... cause my site which is missing does not spam at all.
Cause isn't it more fundermental that goole at the least should list all legit websites first then worry about back links? And what does back links have to do with whether a site is listed at all?
For example, when I search for mysite.com on sj, there are over 50 results, and every single one of them are back links to my site. But guess what? MY SITE IS NOT IN THE RESULT?! It sure smells like my site is filtered by some new algo for whatever reason...
So what's the difference between me and them? Not links. But keyword density - aka spam. I'm very new to this game and I've never looked at keyword density recomendations before. Now I have and I can see I had too many keywords on the page. Not ridiculously so, but definitely too high. I'm slowly getting rid of keywords now.
I don't know how typical this is. But maybe it will help someone somewhere.....
My guess is it was something else. How high was your keyword density, and how many words are on the page? Doesn't look to me like too high of keyword density is a problem with Google. Unless perhaps you try something ludicrous. Like 30% density on a 1,000 word page. Except in impossible cases, rather than penalize it would make sense for Google to just not give any benefit beyond a certain keyword density. The reason being to avoid false hits. I've seen non-SEOed pages that had high keyword density because of the unusual nature of the page.
Also, I do not think we should be editing our pages yet based on these results. For the person who is now removing keywords, you may find you love where you're positioned once this update happens, and then you'll be scurrying to put back in your page all those keywords. Just something to think about.
The funny thing about my case is that I have two sites (same ip address) and both of them are lost in sj... does this mean google does some kinda sorting according to ip? And when one lost, others (among same IP, different URL) too?
When I look for the same site on fi using the same search terms I am buried. However, when I look at the size of the cached page - 39K.
Google has clearly indexed 2 different versions of the same page - I was doing updates around the time of the crawl.
I know what the differences are between the 35K and 39K - I keep my old submitted versions so all I needed to do was find what version my 35K page was.
From looking at the two different versions it is apparent that the search terms appear to be more focussed in the 35K page. Both indexes are showing b-links way down, but the number is equal in both indexes. So it looks like on page factors have had a major effect on the ranking.
I have now resubmitted my 35K page - hope it was in time.
Has anyone else had similar results?
Makes me strongly suspect the server was down or unreachable. If so, you'll be out of the index this month.
rfgdxm1 and dididudu >>sucessfully deep crawled and fresh crawled in April---and not in -sj
..is not unusual-- it is the norm right now that last months newly indexed sites are not showing in -sj in the majority of the cases. Which is one of the leading sources of anxiety right now. It will correct itself. Dont worry.
When the google update ends I will be higher towards the heavens, don't you just want to know which web-site is mine?! (hehehe)
For all you guys that doing well on sj, I am happy for you all, really. For those of you are lost from sj and worried and confused like me, may we all be saved by the time passes. After all, we are only a small group of people among all people on the net today, the last thing we want to do is to feel more superior by puttings others down.
so either the dance has begun to www. on what we've seen from sj or fi, or google is just having some fun....
so, we'll remain... for the moment.....
we'll bet on the dance beginning, and that sj/fi will become the update.
No. God, please noooooooooooooo. ;) Every now and then the load balancing causes a searcher to hit -sj or -fi. This same thing was happening a few days ago. The only datacenters I see the new index on is -fi and -sj. For whatever reason, Google so far hasn't propagated this index.
the information was absolutely not put in to boast about rankings won, or rain on those who may have lost. we didn't say whether or not we come out better. it was neutral as to us. only and observation on a something we caught in our stat manager, and posted for the forum's information.
if you would like to re-read our post to see this true, feel free.