Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
complain about a real problem
Can't see the sandbox being a "real" problem, or a problem at all. It's there to stop the SPAM. If I start a new company called Mesothelioma Lawyers Ltd you reckon I should show up in the top 500 purely because that's my company name?
Sure, the "sandbox", whatever it is, hurts some. It hurts people who are creating sites for free traffic. Many of them are spammers/freeloaders. It also hurts others. They - particularly anyone starting a new business with a business plan that relies on free SE traffic - are probably better off staying unemployed (or employed if they can find a job). Any new site starting off on the premise that free traffic will sustain it deserves to fail.
So, if you remove the sandbox as a reasonable cause for complaint, and remove most of the other whining, we'd reduce this thread to one page and those that can't even be bothered to read it will get a personal reply from Googleguy because he owes them.
" number of zeros: 49
average of nonzeros: 1.0"
I see movement too...for the worst though. Only 6 DCs left.
Tee hee. No movement. I just found 4 new IPs and added them: 22.214.171.124, 126.96.36.199, 188.8.131.52, 184.108.40.206
Total is now 59 IPs on that tool. I don't use 220.127.116.11, and I can't use 18.104.22.168 because something is blocking it upstream of my server. That's all the IPs I know about.
[edited by: ciml at 11:04 am (utc) on Feb. 14, 2005]
[edit reason] See StickyMail [/edit]
Maybe tomorrow Google will finally get a clean index with the 12 billion pages I suspect they are trying to roll out.
Maybe tomorrow an asteroid will strike the Earth making all this irrelevant.
Person A: Remember, it's always darkest before dawn.
Person B: What does that have to do with the Google Allegra update?
Person A: Absolutely Nothing.
I'm #1, #5 and #10 on one search for MyDomainName; with directories and an empty no content page ranked higher on the latter two.
I like your joke.
and Google is probably thinking that they fixed the probelms.
Yes, I agree, but I've already noted massive index differences in previous posts in recent days. I only wanted to make note that some indices show me in the same wierd situation as many others - directories that link to me are ranked higher.
One thing I'm hoping for when this update is resolved is for most of the spam / fake directories, link farms, and other Black Hat scum pages to be wiped out. As someone who is 99.99% searcher, I'd rather have a 4 billion clean index than a dirty 8,9,10...index.
I just have a feeling that Google is trying for a minimum 10 billion index - twice the 5 billion* that MSN Search claims.
* Rumor has it that the MSN Search 5 billion figure is actually 1 billion external web documents + 4 billion spam emails Bill Gates has received in recent years ...
On the other ones I'm not found.
[edited by: ciml at 11:06 am (utc) on Feb. 14, 2005]
[edit reason] Examplified [/edit]
Size doesn't matter here, since if one has more hijacking/scraper sites while the other has a similar amount of hijacked/disappeared sites the number comparison is irrelevant to the difference in index quality.
We should pool our resources and promote a new search engine....
G has us by the short and curlies...I dont like it, but it is what it is...
These new results ..suck...I'm better off creating articles and spamming G with phony content than improving my actual site,,
you're a joke
These new results ..suck...I'm better off creating articles and spamming G with phony content than improving my actual site
Yeah, that' what really hurts.
My shiny new black hat arrived last week. I haven't taken it out of the box yet but I have read the instruction manual and it's getting very tempting... just to quickly try it on... try on the preciousss...
The "outsourcing" idea some say Google are already using would not be a suprise, however, having been on the receiving end of some misguided Yahoo! editor recently I really cannot support the idea at all.
Are you completely sure that he or she was "misguided"?
We have to be honest here and I wonder what percentage of collateral damage is caused by Yahoo's manual editors compared to Google's algo?
I recently created a non profit site in for a club that was formed as a tribute to a poet. It featured for about three or four weeks then Allegra placed it in its black hole. This would not have happened to a perfectly innocent and useful site with a manual editor.