Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
AlexK, that's a different domain. But the point is very well taken. You've found a pretty obscure query (~295 results) that the keyword stuffing spammers like to target. I'll check this out in more detail.
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 1:03 am (utc) on Nov. 12, 2005]
:( - Tell us when you want the feedback/reports then.
Looks like the blending might be starting.
>>I hope that this is true reseller.. <<
It is true. I recall either GG or Matt posting that Jagger3 shall stay on that DC for around 3 days. Shall try to find GG´s or Matt post so that you can show it to your "hysterical boss" ;-)
Here it is. It was Matt and not GG :-)
"Martin, Jagger3 will probably move slowly over to other data centers. I was expecting it to stay for 2-3 days at one data center before it started to shift, and it first was visible on Friday."
[mattcutts.com...]
[edited by: reseller at 9:29 am (utc) on Nov. 7, 2005]
The very worst (for Google) of all these changes is the sense that grows in Webmasters that G just does not listen. That would be fatal for G in the long run.
Shall try to find GG´s or Matt post so that you can show it to your "hysterical boss" ;-)
It is on Matt's blog [mattcutts.com] ( November 5, 2005).
This ordering on [66.102.9.104...] - changes every single site:domain.com request - my homepage was first at one stage with recently cached pages then supplementals.
Is this still in flux - Well I guess it must be if it changes on every request?
Would it make sense if I was to expect that it would settle, Homepage, Cache pages then Supplementals.
(Cant bring myself to talk about the C word at the moment :()
We do better than most companies
With Adsense, a side-column had strange positioning, and I did not know whether it was something in my CSS or something in the G Javascript. The folks at Adsense kept returning my posts until (with their help) I was able to locate it as *my* error, and fix it.
With general Webmaster, I had a problem with the Mozilla-G-Bot and asked for it to be slowed down, and they stopped it dead. I then asked for it to be returned to normal, and my post was ignored.
Talking about listening I was wondering if the spam team at googleplex had a change to take a look at this famous (French, now also in the US, UK, Germany, italy and spain) SEO company which has for best practice implementing cloaking pages and hidden text throughout the internet on so many website (1000's I think).
Even pushing the arrogance (that made laught a few on this forum when I posted a live example a couple of days ago) by signing their cloaking pages with a link to their site(s) which even help them increasing their link popularity :)
I'm saying it kindly because I know that you guys are busy with a load of work of course but I just find it strange that the clients of this company get caught by Google on regular basis and they seem to benefit from some sort of "immunity" to any penalty.
Just throwing my 2 cents, I'm not in your shoes. But it is very disapointing - though so much clean up seems to have happened and I like the upcoming SERP in advance (I was doubtful 2 weeks ago)
Should I post their link here? ...--just kidding ;-) Even though ...
Definitely feel free to do a fresh spam report with jagger3 and your nick (followgreg) if you want me to doublecheck though.
I'm gonna head to bed, catch you later..
normasp>>I hope that this is true reseller.. <<
It is true. I recall either GG or Matt posting that Jagger3 shall stay on that DC for around 3 days. Shall try to find GG´s or Matt post so that you can show it to your "hysterical boss" ;-)
Here it is. It was Matt and not GG :-)
"Martin, Jagger3 will probably move slowly over to other data centers. I was expecting it to stay for 2-3 days at one data center before it started to shift, and it first was visible on Friday."
[mattcutts.com...]
Thanks so much reseller.. ;-)
It's very difficult give a explanation of this to my boss because she doesn't understand anything about DCs.. I'd started to find other job last week..
Good night -
OK, where do I go from here I wonder.
Now, after Jagger update I can only repeat:
Brett Tabke's 26 steps need update also...
All the search engines have problems figuring out canonicals. Webmaster who naively think their sloppy webmastering will be figured out only have themselves to blameSo, you're going to suggest we treat those site like racial minorities? This is now a political issue for Google?
No, I believe this is Google's problem. Google cannot ask millions of websites to make those changes Ex Post Facto. It won't happen.
happy look forward to seeing the outcome of FollowGregg's Post, preventing them coming back in some new hidden guise if you flush them, I guess is the harder task.
I will keep you posted guys. I trust Googleguy and his staff. Hopefully these scammers/cheaters/... will feel the blade of Inigo very soon.
we are talking about a big fish though, they are swimming in impunity for so long that they have serious clients which probably makes Google's task even more difficult - but I believe that they have been reported to Google quite often.
I would think that a fair penalty would be to just drop them from the index while giving no more importance at all to webpages linking to them so it does not turn out like a major catastrophe.
I'm happy to hear Googleguy talking about it, because there should not be double standards on the internet, there are so many already in real world :)
I don't have time right now but I will probably followup with a more detailed spam report to Google later on.
Will keep posted :)
66.102.7.104 shows now relatively constantly the results of 66.102.9.104I found this weirdness for 66.102.7.104 --
If you do a 66.102.7.104 search on a string, then hit the Search button again and again, the results often shuffle around! Some sites go up, some go down.
On 66.102.9.104, the listings order does not change for repeated Searches, but sometimes the descriptions for a site or two will change.
What's this all about?
Type "virtual travel" (no quotes) into Google.com or a jagger DC, and see the 3-way split.
Type "overseas travel" (no quotes) -- no split.
SCNR
found this weirdness for 66.102.7.104 --
If you do a 66.102.7.104 search on a string, then hit the Search button again and again, the results often shuffle around!
Yes! Since one hour this Datacenter shows often the 66.102.9.104.
I´m sure that the 66.102.9.104 results on 66.102.7.204 will consolidate.
It is not the 66.102.9.104 results that are appearing on and off there.
Same as another DC, eg Jagger 1 or 2 - lost track of the early Jaggers. - But it is definetly not the 66.102.9.104 results.
66.102.9.104 results on 66.102.7.204
I see two different results for my primary search string
The results come only sporadically but always frequent. .
I wonder why 'GoogleGuy' didn't respond to my post. Interesting.
For everyone who has asked though, here is the broad outline of the methodology we used to determine key site inclusion quality.
1) Each person selected up to 10 topics each to study2) In groups of 3 people (quality check point), a search term was identified and agreed for each topic
3) For each topic, Google, MSN and Yahoo were searched using the identified search term. The top 25 results for each were recorded. For Google we used the most up to date 'Jagger' DC, partly because I felt it would add value to this forum.
4) All the sites identified for each topic were then aggregated into a single list. Each list, covering a single topic, typically had 30 to 50 sites included
5) The lists were then exchanged with different groups of 3 people (quality check point). Each group were then charged with viewing each site and selecting the 5 most important/useful sites from each topic list on that particular topic.
6) At this point, we had the 5 key sources in each topic area, with no search engine bias attached in the selection process. We had reduced the impact of subjectivity by passing the topics from group to group. The next phase was therefore to establish the degree of key site exclusion in each search engine.
7) The topics were once again placed with different groups of 3 people. Each group now searched each search engine on the search term(s) for each topic.
8) If any of the 5 key sites were missing from the top 20 returns for a search engine, that search engine was marked 'red' for that search term.
9) This exercise was performed for all topics and search terms.
10) The number of red marks for each search engine was calculated.
This process gives a relatively objective measure of quality site exclusion (and thus inclusion). The search engine with most red marks clearly has most quality sites buried or missing. As I stated earlier, this should be important to search engines because a researchers search experience and success is determined as much by what they DO find as what they don't see ('spam').
On this measure MSN was the clear winner, with very few quality sites excluded from visibility. Google was by far the worst performer.
As a research entity ourselves this is clearly important to us. If important data sources are filtered out of the returns haphazardly, it makes the engine almost a liability to use in some instances. It does also confirm our 'feelings' over the last few weeks. We have in fact changed our default search from Google as a result of this. Whether we change it back will be determined by a re-run of the above sometime in the future. It hardly looks likely though.
Finally, browsing the current results in the Jagger 3 DC, for me, there seems to be a clear problem with identification of quality DATA, as opposed to trustworthy sites. Just because a particular site is deemed to be important, doesn't mean that a single page that simply references a particular topic is of any value whatsoever. In some of the niche topic areas I explore, the DC returns are full of them. It seems that all Amazon, IBM, HP or any large internet centric institution needs to do is create a page on a topic and they rank highly. This is generally a very poor effort.
Regardless of my opinion, I hope that the above exercise is of interest.
