Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.20.238.193

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Update Brandy Part 3

     
7:41 pm on Feb 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member googleguy is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



Continued From: [webmasterworld.com...]

"Any clue as to the possible role greater reliance on semantics is playing in your never ending quest for more relevant results?"

I'd say that's inevitable over time. The goal of a good search engine should be both to understand what a document is really about, and to understand (from a very short query) what a user really wants. And then match those things as well as possible. :) Better semantic understanding helps with both those prerequisites and makes the matching easier.

So a good example is stemming. Stemming is basically SEO-neutral, because spammers can create doorway pages with word variants almost as easily as they can to optimize for a single phrase (maybe it's a bit harder to fake realistic doorways now, come to think of it). But webmasters who never think about search engines don't bother to include word variants--they just write whatever natural text they would normally write. Stemming allows us to pull in more good documents that are near-matches. The example I like is [cert advisory]. We can give more weight to www.cert.org/advisories/ because the page has both "advisory" and "advisories" on the page, and "advisories" in the url. Standard stemming isn't necessarily a win for quality, so we took a while and found a way to do it better.

So yes, I think semantics and document/query understanding will be more important in the future. pavlin, I hope that partly answers the second of the two questions that you posted way up near the start of this thread. If not, please ask it again in case I didn't understand it correctly the first time. :)

11:57 am on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Thar she blows!

I think I spotted a big white one!

64 results now on www2 www3 .fr .cd .cl .it .fm .ms

Using google dance tool from UK.

Best wishes

Sid

12:01 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Thar she blows!

I hopes you's is right Sid, as on www2 + 3 I am now showing on page one results for a very broad term that I was at the bottom of page 2 on the 64. results.

Note: www results are still bouncing around from california

[edited by: vrtlw at 12:06 pm (utc) on Feb. 17, 2004]

12:01 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Fine its on www2 and www3.
Anybody knows what www2 exactly is?
12:09 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



www 2 + 3 are not the same as the 64. results, sorry everyone that is just not what I am seeing. I have significantly gone up in the ranking!
12:11 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tigger is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



agree, I'm not seeing 64 on www2/3
12:13 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Pinging www, www2, www3 & .co.uk from here in UK doesn't give any 64.* results - are folks imagining things ;)

DNS flush makes no difference - 66.* or 216.* -unless 64.* has migrated to these

[edited by: SyntheticUpper at 12:27 pm (utc) on Feb. 17, 2004]

12:16 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



are folks imagining things

Not imagining.

If your on NT, 2000 or XP you could try a 'ipconfig /flushdns' from the command prompt. This should flush your DNS cache.

64 results refer to the 64.x.x.x datacenters details previously in these update threads that GoogleGuy said should rollout across the datacenters this weekend.

We have begun to see very different results appear though.

12:22 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



OK, just tried [www2.google.com...] from my PC here in Oxfordshire UK and it is showing same results I'm getting for 64 for my keywords. Those are completely differnt results to what we are seeing on .co.uk and www, which are the same results we've been seeing pre-Brandy.

Not imagining (or even done any product sampling to confuse myself!) Used a differnt machine to the one where I saw results first. Even emptied cach and refreshed cache etc. Defintely seeing same results we get on 64 on www2 and www3, but not www or .co.uk

12:27 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Defintely seeing same results we get on 64 on www2 and www3, but not www or .co.uk

Well we will see it pan out in the next few hours I guess. It seems geographical to me, but results are very very different in California.

12:27 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Definitely seeing 64 results on www2 and www3 from Northern Ireland. I'm on Mac SO X, emptied cache and deleted all cookies - still seeing 64.

Google have also updated their home page:

"2004 Google - Searching 4,285,199,774 web pages"

Could that be taken as a good sign? Or is it just coincidence that GoogleGuy said 64 results will be introduced and a few of us UK users are seeing them on www2 and www3?

12:28 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I'm pretty certain that www2 and www3 are not showing 64.x but neither are they showing the same as www. The results look similar to 64.x but there are significant differences. Remember, GG didn't say he was 100% certain that 64.x would be the change that would rollout. I think he said he was pretty sure but that they use different names internally. Question is, which datacenter are the www2 and 3 results coming from and will these results, rather than what most of us are seeing on 64.x, roll out to www?
12:30 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



What is it worth to know that results in Namibia, China or elsewhere are showing 64 results on www2 and www3 when nobody knows WHAT EXACTLY WWW2 or """3 RESULTS ARE?
Again is it a BACKUP SERVER? Which is used when Google has to cope with a lot of traffic or WHAT IS IT?
12:31 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Question is, which datacenter are the www2 and 3 results coming from and will these results, rather than what most of us are seeing on 64.x, roll out to www?

I am seeing the better (for me anyway) results more consistently on the www. SERPS

12:32 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



As far as I can see www2 and 3 are looking at 216.239.57.104 . This datacentre seems to have the 64. results but very very slightly changed in my area anyway.
12:33 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



"2004 Google - Searching 4,285,199,774 web pages"

An interesting observation that the old "57 Varieties" has gone. 4.285 billion is extremely close to the 2^32 (4.295 billion) indexing limit that has previously been proposed for Google. I wonder if they were having indexing problems...

[edited by: SyntheticUpper at 12:36 pm (utc) on Feb. 17, 2004]

12:33 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



andy_boyd - I'm in London, also running Mac OS X and am seeing differences between www2 and 64.233.162.99. Are you sure you're seeing identical results?
12:34 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



This datacentre seems to have the 64. results but very very slightly changed in my area anyway.

I guess your slight is my significant

12:35 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I'm seeing same results for a range of our main keywords on 216.239.57.104 as I get on 64.**** and www2/www3> So maybe 216.239.57.104 *is* the IP address that www2/www3 are both looking at?
12:36 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Netzen, it's good to keep an eye on what happens on www2 and www3 as that is where the updates seem to settle, before being pushed on to www.google.com.

Traditionally we watched www2 and www3 as it could be taken as a sure sign that something was happening, but now things are much more fluid in the world of Google it seems. Even with all this talk of datacenters and geo-specific results, I still think that what goes on at www2 and www3 is a fairly accurate precursor to what will come on www.

<added>Kennyh - I'm now seeing fluctuation, but only for one site. I have a site which makemetop would call an authority site, it is now ranking slightly better. This authority sight has secondary indented results showing, whereas earlier they weren't.</added>

12:46 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Thanks andy body!
The first answer to my question.
Even though it could be more accurate ;-)
12:47 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Seeing 64 on www2 & www3 in Eastern US now, wasn't there last night. :)
12:51 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



www is changing for me on the West Coast USA. Could be done by the time people start their new week at work here.
12:53 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Netzen, no problems.

Customdy, if you say that results from 64 are now showing in the east coast of USA and we're seeing 64 results (or something super close to 64) in the UK, would that not indicate a rolling update has commenced at some point during the last 24 hours like GoogleGuy stated?

<added>Sorry about this - just got my first glimpse of the new results on Google.com from Northern Ireland. Kennyh, can you confirm from London?</added>

12:56 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



What are you seeing Andy_Boyd?
12:57 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Andy, and idea how long Google UK usually take to update after results settle down on www.google.com? Or are we in uncharted waters with the *new* google?

I just wondered if when results on www2/www3 stabilise do they move onto www.com first, then .co.uk, or both together? I suppose now things are move fluid there is no *usually* anymore eh?

It's the first update I've been through and as things for us go back from where we sit now on Google.co.uk (oblivion for many keywords) to pre-Florida or better with the results on 64.**** (and now www2/www3), I can't wait :)

And it's not purely a selfish comment on may part. Lots of my competitors are back too, which is fine by me. I have no problem with competition from other like minded businesses that deserve to be where they are - I just hate being pushed from #1 to #900+ by a bunch of over SEO'd shopping portals with no real content. So, the results on 64.**** seem a lot more relevant across the board for our sector.

Of course, naturally I'm pleased we're on top for a lot of the search terms - I can't deny it. But I'd have equally settled for just more relevant than post Florida/Austin. So, win for searchers and win for us :) Lets just hope they roll out soon eh?

[edited by: wine_guru at 1:00 pm (utc) on Feb. 17, 2004]

12:58 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



64.233.161.99
1:00 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



64.233.161.99

I am seeing very different results to this on all www. www2 & 3 datacenters. What do you make of it from northern ireland?

1:00 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



64.233.161.99 results now on www2 and 3 from South France
1:04 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



vrtlw - for me I am seeing 64 steady on www, www2 and www3. I see some sites dated as 15th Feb 2004.

From Northern Ireland there is no change at .co.uk, .de, .fr, .ca etc - they all still return post-Austin SERPs.

1:04 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Guys, it is very interesting where in the world you are, but there is no need to post what you see every 10 minutes. Calm down and just wait until it settles!
This 327 message thread spans 11 pages: 327
 

Featured Threads

Hot Threads This Week

Hot Threads This Month