Feedback on BigDaddy Data Center

[FromRocky]

< continued from [webmasterworld.com...] >

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]

[texasville]

When I query: [66.249.93.104...] for site:www.mysite
I get a very abbreviated listing for my site. Most of our "widget" pages are gone. Almost all of our content pages are supplemental. In short: this site is trashed in the index.
When I query site:mysite I get many more pages with both www and very old non-www pages showing up. Old versions of pages that were updated months ago. Pages that haven't existed since May of last year. This site has been 301'd for months. There should be no problems.
I thought Google was supposed to have all these brilliant engineers? I don't have any of these problems on MSN or Yahoo. Just can't believe what I am seeing.

[lancer]

For me the results on 66.249.93.104 are looking fabulous. At last could it be that my hard work over the years is going to pay of...? I feel I've been penalised for too long (although there is no proof of this, it's just a hunch. I think I had some dodgy links (some accidental, some deliberate). One doesn't just want any old links these days...)

[Sobriquet]

66.249.93.104 is today showing new results but also showing very old results for files and sections removed long back and some of them even replaced with new data.

the default google shows 9000+ results but 66.249.93.104 is showig 41000+ results.. i am beginign to worry now as it seems the latest update ( post xmas ) may go a waste .

[Dayo_UK]

>>>I could be wrong but didn't either googleguy or Matt Cutts state not to worry about the order of your results in the site search?

MC did at one stage.

But he is now suggesting that site ordering does occur.

But as Steveb points out - for a hell of a lot of us (eg the sites this DC main priority is to fix) site ordering is not happening.

However, MC did say Canonical improvements in time - hmmmz - so what are we supposed to be looking at for the moment I am not to sure. Yes I am seeing more homepages indexed and I guess more destination urls indexed.......

Anyway - on the downside MC also talked about a supplemental Googlebot crawl - and there is not going to be one for a while.

[g1smd]

>> site:mydomain.com - site:www.mydomain.com

The dash MUST abut the search term.

You actually need this: site:domain.com -inurl:www

[roodle]

Big Daddy is looking good for me. All the trash hanging about on some of my sites has been taken out, though I expect this is just cosmetic(?). Hence massive pagecount reduction. It all looks leaner and meaner. Some rankings improvements too, but I still see a blatantly spammy site getting ranked at no.2 spot.

"Someday a real [algorithm] will come and wipe this scum off the [serps]" Travis Bickle - SEO

[RobinK]

Mozilla bot has been going crazy on our site for the last week or so crawling tons of outdated pages that were at one time 301's but have been 404's for over 2 years. They were from when we changed our site over to php and changed all our url's.

Maybe that is why our site on bigdaddy seems to have cleaned up quite a bit.

[colin_h]

It seems to me that Matt Cutts asking for feedback from SEO's and Webmasters is not going to produce any definitive results. We will never agree on what are good serps as we are all too tied in to the system. Let's face it ... in any other business we would be called competitors. We must always keep in mind that, to some extent, the last thing a webmaster wants is a level playing field. We all want to be ahead in the game.

Any other large organisation would pay an impartial marketing firm to provide consumer marketing data for any new product, especially one that is supposed to break through new boundaries (Like Big Daddy).

Be careful what you report to google ... they're not your friends.

[RobinK]

Dayo_UK,

Thanks for the update concerning site ordering. I am seeing our stuff start to get ordered in a logical fashion too.

I just went and took another look at the test datacenter after I read your post and the only thing I can see really wrong in the ordering is that our privacy policy is listed first and home page is 2nd. Then our main pages follow like they should.

On regular google our home page is also listed 2nd, with whatever article has recently been crawled always showing up 1st.

[Powdork]

Be careful what you report to google ... they're not your friends.

They aren't my competitors friends either.
Besides, when I report my competitors spammy tactics to my friends, all I get is a blank stare.;)

[texasville]

I suggest that anyone checking big daddy and liking the results for site search, be sure to check both www and non-www versions. Could be a real eye opener even if you have 301'd.

[RobinK]

I just checked and I don't see any results for the non www version. We have our site 301'd from non www to www.

[arubicus]

"I suggest that anyone checking big daddy and liking the results for site search, be sure to check both www and non-www versions. Could be a real eye opener even if you have 301'd."

Doing a search with and without www it shows the same results for each which is the www version. The MAJOR difference is that the inflated page count is not there. It shows correctly. I do not see any supplimentals at all. (not saying they are gone they just might be hidden).

[RobinK]

I just double checked for sure with this command site:myurl.com -inurl:www and I show no results at all.

I think this is the correct way to tell, if I am wrong someone let me know.

[g1smd]

site:domain.com
site:www.domain.com
site:domain.com -inurl:www

[RobinK]

arubicus,

What happens when you try site:myurl.com -inurl:www do you have any results showing up?

I too get the same number of results when I search for with the www and without. And the listing or results all show a www.

[RobinK]

g1smd,

When I type in mysite.com I get a listing of my pages that are in the index and they all show with the www.
Basically I get the same thing that I get if I type in www.mysite.com.

When I type in site:myurl.com -inurl:www I get no results.

That is the way it should be since we have a redirect and have had for quite some time from non www pages to the www pages isn't it?

[reseller]

Why the Old reseller isn't going to post a BigDaddy feedback?

Good evening Folks

With or without BigDaddy.. life is still wonderful :-)

Honestly I'm very disappointed at Matt "Inigo" Cutts regarding his call for BigDaddy feedback. I guess some of you feel the same.

Reasons. After waiting and asking sooooo long for that famous BigDaddy call, I was very surprised that Matt didn't mention what kind of feedback we should focus on.

Is it a feedback that my site is doing well or doing badly on BigDaddy DC?

Is it a feedback about improvements in canonical issues?

Is it a feedback regarding the Supplemental issues?

Or is it to report the degree of presence of spam sites at top of BigDaddy serps?

Or is it ..etc..etc..

I'm not gonna post BigDaddy feedback, because I feel Inigo has underestimated my and my kind fellow members intelligence and hasn't treated us with the respect we deserve, unfortunately.

And what should we understand from a plastic term as "In time"?

And which kind of serps of a BigDaddy we are going to end with after two months from now?

50% of current BigDaddy serps?

75% of current BigDaddy serps?

or only for example 30% of what we see now on BigDaddy.

If Matt has chosen to treat us as a bunch of idiots webmasters by asking for feedback without mentioning what we should post feedback about or which improvements we should expect to see on BigDaddy, thats his problem. Not mine... and for sure not my kind fellow members at all.

Therefore.. I'm not gonna post BigDaddy feedback.

God bless WebmasterWorld community.

[arubicus]

1. site:www

Shows all listings as www

2. site: (without www)

Shows all listings as www

3. site:www -inurl:www

Shows nothing

4. site:www (or without www) trailing slash

Shows all listings as www - same listing as the first two.

5. site:www (or without www) trailing slash -inurl:www

nothing

[edited by: arubicus at 9:24 pm (utc) on Jan. 5, 2006]

[Jon_King]

66.249.93.104 - Checked 7 long term sites and all is good. Serps are better than good, I'd say pretty darn close to perfect. No spam at all, no www issues and 302's I implemented 12 months ago as well as ones from a month ago are correct. What can I say, all good. IMHO

[jdancing]

My non-www pages actually increase from 850 to 21,000 on BigDaddy. I can't 301 the non-www’s because I am on a shared Windows IIS server so I am at Google’s mercy.

It seems that the non-www pages are now ignored as the correct www.mysite.com pages are the only ones that ever appear in searches. So google is identifying the proper www version of the page.

The best news is, my search position has improved. Perhaps Google is no longer giving me an underserved penalty for duplicate content?

[Powdork]

Reseller, I have no idea what you are talking about. He was very clear that he prefers feedback specifically about canonical issues, but is always happy to have webspam feedback.

Okay, now let’s get to the meat of this post: how to give us feedback on Bigdaddy. 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.

Now for my feedback. I had small problems with a site of about 75 pages of which 21 would show up as results with the site:mydomain.com -inurl:www search. I still have that problem on the SmallFry datacenters. On the BigDaddy center there are five results with that search and all of those are from a robots.txt protected directory. I instituted the 301 early during Jagger when I noticed the problem after some digging into why I dropped from #1 to #5 for my most important kw. On BigDaddy I am back at #1.

added- The pages that got lost were not the ones that would show for these keywords, but they are pages with incoming links that play an important roll in the site's overall structure.

[edited by: Powdork at 9:35 pm (utc) on Jan. 5, 2006]

[texasville]

Well, it is disturbing to me that google has trashed my site.
site:www.domain- missing several pages of products(this is a small site) lots of original content=supplemental

site:domain-several old version pages from 2004 added in. old 404 pages, and then the rest of the supplemental.

site:domain-inurl:www- shows nothing
<edit>
on my google.com my results are near perfect except for one product page- can't figure out why it is gone-google images is serving up a pic off that page plenty. several hits a day on it.

[Powdork]

Texasville, are you including a space before the "-"? There must be one before the "-". There must not be one after.

[arubicus]

Moz bot has been actively on our site crawling old 404/410/301 pages for about a month now. Redirect tracking scripts that 301 to external sites (since been removed) were crawled also (we seen bad problems with google indexing/cahcing the page that contained the tracking url under the tracking url). Plus it has crawled a large portion of our active pages. Since those crawls we have been seeing improvemts in our listings (not rankings) but pages were starting to stick and supplimentals started to shrink on the test datacenter...as well as the inflated page count.

[reseller]

Dear Powdork

>>Reseller, I have no idea what you are talking about. He was very clear that he prefers feedback specifically about canonical issues, but is always happy to have webspam feedback.
Okay, now let’s get to the meat of this post: how to give us feedback on Bigdaddy. 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.<<

Thats plastic terms exactly as "In time".

The right way to do it is, Matt saying clearly and very loud, that BigDaddy is to resolve: canonicalization, redirects, duplicate urls, www vs. non-www, and similar issues.

Tell me Powdork. What those kind fellow members will get out of posting their problems for the 100 time again and again and again.

Business of fellow members have been killed by canonical issues.

Business of fellow members have been killed by supplemental issues.

Don't those kind fellow members deserve at least a promiss to resolve their problems by BigDaddy?

[edited by: reseller at 9:46 pm (utc) on Jan. 5, 2006]

[s_clay]

My site has no canonical issues so I can't comment on that. I thing I do see on Big Daddy is that the results for related:www.mysite.com are better that I've ever seen.

[texasville]

Powdork-
hmmm. I did not include the space but when I do I get the old 404'd pages and the outdated cache pages and all are listed supplemental.
What should this tell me?

[Powdork]

From reseller

The right way to do it is, Matt saying clearly and very loud, that BigDaddy is to resolve: canonicalization, redirects, duplicate urls, www vs. non-www, and similar issues.

From Matt

We’d like to get general quality feedback. For example, this data center lays the groundwork for better canonicalization, although most of that will follow down the road.

But for now, the main feedback we’re looking for is just general quality and canonicalization.

Additionally, he gave example searches where there were improvements in canonicalization as well as a canonicalization tutorial of sorts. I'm not sure how much louder and clearer he could say something.

[reseller]

Powdork

>>We’d like to get general quality feedback. For example, this data center lays the groundwork for better canonicalization, although most of that will follow down the road.<<

You better tell Dayo_UK and the other kind fellow members whos sites and business are suffering of canonical issues that their problems will be resolved "down the road"

Plastic terms again....just like "In time"

Why doesn't Matt just say these simple words:

Send us feedback about your sites canonical problems and we shall correct them within weeks or a month or two months instead of down the road and "In time"

or

Send us feedback about your sites supplemetals problems and we shall correct them within weeks or a month or two months instead of down the road and "In time"

or

Send us feedback about your sites duplicates problems and we shall correct them within weeks or a month or two months instead of down the road and "In time"

etc..etc..

[edited by: reseller at 10:23 pm (utc) on Jan. 5, 2006]