Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
This quote is from Matt Cutts blog:
I’m about blogged out for the day, and there are better places to discuss this stuff (WebmasterWorld, Search Engine Watch Forums, etc.). The best way to get people to process your feedback is to use the spam report form or the dissatisfied link, make sure that you include the keyword “bigdaddy” and try to be as specific and clear as you can.... I’d be delighted to get webspam feedback, but I’m most interested in hearing feedback about canonicalization, redirects, duplicate urls, www vs. non-www, and similar issues. Before you send in a report, please read my previous posts on url canonicalization, the inurl operator, and 302 redirects.
[mattcutts.com...]
[edited by: tedster at 11:45 pm (utc) on Jan. 4, 2006]
[edit reason] shorter quote - add link [/edit]
Normally - these pages wouldn't rank very highly, so I *suspect* that maybe one of Google's answers to the whole 'paid linking golden bullet' might be to start turning the dial back towards on page content....
Anyone else noticing this?
Executive summary: if you want to play with a Bigdaddy data center, hit 66.249.93.104 instead of 64.233.179.104.
Nice to see even MC gets it wrong sometimes!
Test DC = [66.249.93.104...]
And the changes on Bigdaddy are relatively subtle (less ranking changes and more infrastructure changes).
Zues - I guess your thoughts that a ranking update might be needed for the long term effected sites is spot on then.
This explains why I am seeing the return of crawling for homepages etc - but these pages dont rank and the associated site is not getting crawled deeply - assuming these pages were hijacked - Google is following the 301/302 better at this stage and displaying the destination url - but no ranking update has occured for the destination page at this stage.
Should be intresting over the next few months....
seeing pre-Jagger canonicals on 64.233.179.104 - not encouraging.
ie pages ranking as they were before AND listed without
the www.
The ranking return for my pages would be nice but given that the cannonicals are incorrect for the site I don't see any improvement in that DC.
Executive summary - keep trying Google.
Sept22 causalty reporting,
seeing pre-Jagger canonicals on 64.233.179.104 - not encouraging.ie pages ranking as they were before AND listed without
the www.The ranking return for my pages would be nice but given that the cannonicals are incorrect for the site I don't see any improvement in that DC.
Executive summary - keep trying Google.
Your results are not surprising as Big Daddy is NOT live on 64.233.179.104 since yesterday.
There are many post above highlighting this as does Matt Cutts blog.
Executive summary - keep up clean up.
66.249.93.104
is the one is DC I am referring to. I am taking this
one as being big Daddy.
I am not trying to be clever here, far from it just checking the facts.
I can see old results and no improvement for the canonical screwup I witnessed with my site around Sept22.
Elio,
If you want to check my facts sticky me and I will let you have the site which you can check on Big Daddy and on the current Google. You will see that the non-www are all over bigdaddy (and ranking) and that since sept 22 when they all went supplemental I implemented a 301 which is now almost correctly obeyed on the most upto date online Google (excluding bigd)
Ranking has not yet returned on the online Google.
Executive summary - sorry for the typo - if you want some facts sticky me.
I believe you!
I just thought you were checking on the wrong DC.
Its odd that your seeing these problems as our site and the majority that have posted here have seen a dramatic improvement with canonical issues on Big Daddy.
It is possible that BD was turned off when you did your check - why not have another go just in case.
If not I am sure that further improvements will get to your problems before release.
Anyone experiencing this (those that were hit on September 22nd)?
I follow several keywords daily.
Example:
Red Widgets = Keyword 1
General Widgets = Keyword 2
They are similar, but entirely different in their own right.
However, when I run a search on Red Widgets on the dc, it looks like Red Widgets has merged results with General Widgets. Thus causing irrelevant results for the term red widgets.
I have sent a couple of reports on this, but I wanted to know if anyone else has noticed that? My primary concern is that google looks at those 2 keywords as the same and they really are not the same at all, no matter how you look at it.
Thanks.
*Edit
I also want to point out that the "data refresh" that happened on December 27th is when this happened, but this hold true on live dc and the bigdaddy. Any thoughts?
I am a member of the Sept 22nd Club.
On BigDaddy..,
I see the number of pages listed as the same as before Sept22.
I see the URLS listed without www (now with 301s they should be www)
I see rankings very similar for pre jagger/Sept 22.
So for my Sept 22 site I see rollback/flashback/life before Jagger..
Obviously there must be improvements, as others have reported.
I just see rollback.
"So for my Sept 22 site I see rollback/flashback/life before Jagger.. "
For the most part I agree with you, however, the post above yours was not in effect during the sept 22nd occurrence.
My sites have seen idexing problems resolved then lost, rankings slightly improve but still no where near where they were before, so I am also pinning my hopes on an update.
The site was around and did well for six years before Jagger, I think I will maintain it for at least another year before letting it go. I don't really want to get into the situation where I have a legion of half baked sites each one focused for a different search engine.... I may have to though.
My new site which is a few months old is indexed on Big Diddy too, vs only one page on current index.
Still one of my competitors with excessive keyword stuffing on BDiddy, but i'm reporting that now.
Any idea how long it will take for these pages to replicate through to google live?
Thankfully, when doing the
site:mydomain.com - site:www.mydomain.com
check,there are only www. URL's
In fact things have got worse. There are now more results for URLs that have been 301 for a year, more supplemental URLs for pages that haven't existed for one or two years, or have changed their content more than a year ago (in fact some now date back to early 2003), and many fully indexed (but supplemental) pages that have in fact been excluded by robots.txt for more than a year and had previously been completely dropped out of the index all through the summer and autumn, but have now been added back in.
BigDaddy?
Big Let Down more like. No improvements at all. Sorry, this is another backwards move.
Big daddy has all my main pages indexed properly and while only about 1/2 the site is in there I am thinking it is much better to have that than all the old crap resulting from 301's or whatever showing up on the reg index.
We are even ranking a LITTLE on big daddy. It is a good start.
Getting good crawls from google now days as well.
Thankfully, when doing the
site:mydomain.com - site:www.mydomain.com
check,there are only www. URL's
You have a space after the '-' (minus) sign. Remove the space and try your query again.
doesn't work without a space either side of the dash, for me :-))
Google has always been pretty good at finding resolves for Windows system errors. I've always used the same syntax for my searches -- 'event id nnnn' followed by the faulting item. I've been searching like this for years and always got accurate results on Google within a page or two.
Not any more! A search for "event id 7026 memalloc" (without the quotes) returns 65 results, of which all but 3 are supplementals. The same results were on my default G and on the test DCs.
I hope the mods leave this in, as it's not a search term that offends WW policies and really does demonstrate the supplemental problem.
1. New sites fully index faster comparing to the default DC where the home page is the only page listed, if lucky, very limited pages indexed. Good.
2. Old sites:
a. Most of the inside pages are under supplemental. These supplemental pages are the old, deleted, moved pages or pages which haven't updated for the last three months. (not good)
b. 301 redirect is working well (no more www & non-www conflict) (good)
c. URL-only pages disappeared (good)
d. No. of pages has slightly been reduced (-20%)
3. Others:
a. All SERP results have PR, mostly PR2. Has any one seen this or just me?
b. Still has more weight on the domain name
This thing is months away from being anything meaningful, other than disappointing in its non-progress.
What could be wrong?, because normally the page is crawled every day, it does but only with old datacenters.
