Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
This is just odd.
The 64.* DC's return about 300 pages from my site.
The 216.* DC's return about 46,000 pages from my site.
And the 66.* return 69,000 pages from my site.
Currently I have about 65,000 pages.
If I go to google.co.uk I get 46,000 pages. If I go to google.com from my US based server I get the same 46,000 results.
It is all very odd and confusing.
[edited by: tedster at 9:56 pm (utc) on Jan. 30, 2006]
>>Oh, and good morning reseller ;-) I just had one cup of espresso this morning. Cappuccino will follow soon.<<
Good morning to you too, taps. Yes more espresso and Cappuccino..please :-)
>>And remember: tomorrow is Allegra's first anniversary. <<
I know. It was the day where I lost 75% of Google's referrals (:(
Lets hope Allegra-II will be a nice guy and pays back what Allegra-I took away from us.
Heard that before. Hope so :).
The other day someone mentioned the xml query that brings up search results in an XML format with the tag <RK> which by looking on other forums and here is thought of the page rank tag.
It is intresting to know that the <RK> tag shows vastly different values in the BD dcs to the non-BD dcs for some sites.
If this is tag does show page rank - it does look like PR has been or is being recalculated for canonical/hijack problem sites but it does not look like the PR value has been applied to the serps (eg as mentioned no significant ranking update so far).
As it stands I dont think there is much to see until those internally recalculated values are applied to the serps.
For those that say PR does not mean anything - well often it means very little - but it does mean something when you are showing a PR0.
>>>Further feedback will be requested later this week.
Wonder if there will be further developments that require further feedback - as it is there is little more to say in feedback etc than there was at the last call.
>>For those that say PR does not mean anything - well often it means very little - but it does mean something when you are showing a PR0. <<
Agreed.
PR0 = problems
or
a new page/site
Soooooo. It could be that your old caninical-site has suddenly returned back to the index with a PR0 and as brand new and young as ever. Lucky you Dayo_UK :-)
Wish the same is possible for old people. You give them a Google PR0 and they retur back young and "productive" again :-)
As reported by me yesterday and contrary to Matts radio broadcast there are actually twelve Big Daddy DC,s live that have been showing big daddy reesults for over 24 hours:
[64.233.171.147...]
[64.233.171.105...]
[64.233.171.104...]
[64.233.171.99...]
[64.233.179.104...]
[64.233.179.99...]
[64.233.185.104...]
[64.233.185.99...]
[64.249.93.104...]
[66.249.93.99...]
[216.239.51.104...]
[216.239.51.99...]
All of the above return giants.mlb.com/ in a sf giants search and are therefore definately Big Daddy.
I hope that more are now added on a daily basis.
.
Yes, BD is on more DC than MC says.
However, MC probably refers to DC by C-Class so :-
[64.233.171.147...]
[64.233.171.105...]
[64.233.171.104...]
[64.233.171.99...]
are just one DC C-Class.
Reseller
You can rank with a PR0 on a new site - but not on an old - totally different kettle of fish. However on the BD DCs using the XML Query PR is back on some PR0 I have monitored.
No idea why.
Ellio
Yes, BD is on more DC than MC says.However, MC probably refers to DC by C-Class so :-
[64.233.171.147...]
[64.233.171.105...]
[64.233.171.104...]
[64.233.171.99...]are just one DC C-Class.
Agreed but that still 5 DC's by C block rather than 3!
.
[edited by: Ellio at 10:49 am (utc) on Feb. 1, 2006]
Would google put the fresher data into bigdaddy before doing a full roll out?
Yep and [66.249.93.104...] is not consitently BD - I think the cache dates you are seeing are not BD cache dates - do they match the other non-BD caches?
Dayo, the cache i am seeing on 66.249.93.104 as its part of a result for a page of our site that only shows up on Big Daddy - so I am certain this Cache is in the big daddy index. Same search on other BD DC's returns the page in exactly the same place but with an older cache 15.12.06 instead of 28.12.06.
