Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.214.35

Message Too Old, No Replies

Google Datacenters Watch 2006-02-21

Observations, Analysis and Remarks

     
2:11 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 2, 2005
posts:450
votes: 0


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

Current BigDaddy status from what I can see:

- BD is visible on (using 'sf giants' test)
64.233.161.99
64.233.161.104
64.233.161.105
64.233.161.147
64.233.171.99
64.233.171.104
64.233.171.105
64.233.171.147
64.233.179.104
64.233.185.104
64.233.187.104
66.249.93.104
216.239.37.99
216.239.37.104
216.239.39.99
216.239.39.104

That is around 1/3 of datacenters listed on the McDar tool (I think).

- For me at least BD is returning a significantly lower number of indexed pages.
- BD index is still clogged full of scrapers, doorways and 404s. Meanwhile the sites sticking by the guidelines are getting trounced.

Google puzzle me.

[edited by: tedster at 6:01 am (utc) on Nov. 8, 2006]
[edit reason] thread split [/edit]

4:37 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 11, 2002
posts:481
votes: 0


don't pay any attention to those jerks who tell you that you shouldn't rely on google for business

By the sounds of it you should of listened :)

Dayo_UK

4:39 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Inactive Member
Account Expired

 
 


rookiecrd1

Have those pages got the supplimental tag? If so then they wont rank.

4:40 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 5, 2006
posts:2094
votes: 2


I give up on trying to figure out google. Their information fluxuates way to much and their index does not seem to be up to date. I am glad that I rank good and steady in msn and yahoo. If I depended on google it would be hit or miss depending on the day and time...
4:40 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 2, 2002
posts:374
votes: 0


colin_h - agree with you 100%.

Saying you shouldn't rely on Google is idiotic: they have 60+% of the search market and if you have a web based business - as opposed to bricks and mortar or telephone/late night ads you have no choice but to rely on Google.

I have a lot of top 3 SERP pages in MSN and Yahoo and it didn't help me a whole lot when I went in the Google dumper for the 4 months of the year where I used to make 80% of my money in a seasonal industry.

Tell ya one thing. What I discovered is the nature of the Google algo allows sites to manipulate both rankings AND - with a concerted effort - destroy the PR and hence traffic of competitors. I got PR0'd in Google in large part because of a systematic campaign of content theft by a competitor who set up a ton of waste sites (mostly free hosted) for the purpose of duplicating competitors content. It is an inherent problem in Google and not one that seems to be a problem in MSN or Yahoo.

Took me 4 months of solid work to undo the damage, guard against theft and restore PR (at least I think it is - Google index keeps reverting back to 3 months ago lately).

4:41 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Full Member

joined:June 11, 2005
posts:305
votes: 0


curlykarl,

By some querk of fate my listings came flooding back just before the sales process was started ... so I'm 3/4 mil better off today than I was last year.

Still it's interesting to keep my hand in with a few new projects that I started last year ... and they're not getting hit by today's fun and games. Must be doing something right ;-)

Col

4:44 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Full Member

joined:June 11, 2005
posts:305
votes: 0


Hi Bobmark,

I always wondered what would happen if you copied someones site and then changed the date stamp to before the orinator site. Would that be enough to destroy someones PR?

Cheers

Col

4:46 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 20, 2005
posts:339
votes: 0


Dayo_uk >>

When you say supplemententals won't rank, do you mean they won't be indexed, or they won't get page rank, or they won't get positioned well in the SERP's?

Dayo_UK

4:49 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Inactive Member
Account Expired

 
 


Eazygoin

Generally they will not be positioned well in the serps.

5:20 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 6, 2003
posts:49
votes: 0


Sure hope we learn something soon. I have had a 65% drop in the number of pages in the BD index and of the remaining pages, now all but the home page are supplemental. (11 year old site)
5:22 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 16, 2005
posts:76
votes: 0


>> tomapple

same for my site

approx 100k pages supp/ MIA - only index left and ranking @#1

5:38 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:June 16, 2005
posts:7
votes: 0


Colin-h cheers

302 problem in december 2005 has cost me Ģ705,000 in lost income. No blackhat straight clean site.
People do place alot of importance on google results and when you follow the guidelines and build good sites, then google drops them because of the 302 issue then you begin to worry. Hey msn and yahoo have 302 sorted and my sites thankfully rank well there too.

5:59 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:May 28, 2004
posts:89
votes: 0


I ask everybody who has the problem on Bigdaddy: Write to Google! I know that Google never gives individual answers in Mails. But: Mails cannot harm for this topic.....

->

[google.com...]

6:00 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 19, 2003
posts:155
votes: 0


Just happened about 30 minutes ago across all data centers including BD all 3000+ pages went supplemental except for homepage

Dayo_UK

6:05 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Inactive Member
Account Expired

 
 


Sooooooo

We may aswell ignore supplimental results as they dont rank and MC has stated that they are on a different crawl etc to the main index.

Meaning, that there is a lot of sites out there effectively with only 1 page in the index!

Now, is this a penalty/problem/bug - or is this a base from where Google are going to crawl from going forward? (Relatively common for a new site just to have 1 page listed for a while before a proper crawl takes place.)

My head says it is a penatly/problem/bug - would love to be proved wrong - but cant see it.

6:22 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:May 28, 2004
posts:89
votes: 0


I donīt think that Google does without these pages. It must be a problem/bug!
6:23 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:May 28, 2004
posts:89
votes: 0


@watercrazed

"Just happened about 30 minutes ago across all data centers including BD all 3000+ pages went supplemental except for homepage"

Also on not Bigdaddy datacenters?

6:36 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 19, 2003
posts:155
votes: 0


Armi

At the time of the last posting it was across my general google a couple of random datacenters, big daddy and little daddy. The pages are now back as usual in Big Daddy [66.249.93.104...] nowhere else.

Another piece of info the cache date on the the rest of the sites with the supplemental problem the cache shows jun 05 - aug 05, prior to the problem they showed feb 2006. Big Daddy in now showing Feb 2006 no supplementals in the first 1000. The rest are still showing supplementals after the homepage

6:50 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 2, 2002
posts:374
votes: 0


For what its worth I am seeing the usual ancient results on 66.249.93.104.

I would date them at least 60 days old.

7:00 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 10, 2003
posts:3
votes: 0


We've also expirenced big daddy placing all our 5000+ indexed pages (except the home page) into supplemental. It happened this morning for us on 2 sites.

Started last week on big daddy where we started seeing highly ranked pages disappear - they are still missing. At least they aren't supplemental... yet.

Has to be a bug!

7:06 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:June 16, 2005
posts:7
votes: 0


same happened to us 14yr old 3 hours ago started at the newest pages and worked its way through to just a index page. Lets hope its a bug.
7:14 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 12, 2003
posts:335
votes: 0


All DC's are showing my backlinks as zero. Hope it's an update! =8-o
9:28 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:May 25, 2005
posts:2
votes: 0



Not like it's any surprise, but I'm suffering from the same issues.

170,000+ pages all moved to supplemental. I was hanging on with 6 pages left in the main index yesterday. That dropped to 2 this morning, and now the only page I have that's NOT in the supplemental index is my main page.

2:25 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 19, 2000
posts:2499
votes: 22


in your pages which have supplemental listings, is the extension .htm or .html missing?
2:43 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 3, 2003
posts:325
votes: 0


>>> My head says it is a penatly/problem/bug - would love to be proved wrong - but cant see it.

Very hard to say whether it is a penatly/problem/bug with this big confusion of what's going on. With all the pages being dropped EXCEPT the homepage, it looks like a penalty, BUT I see that the homepages still rank well for their competitive terms so this is quite contradictory to being penalized. Anyway that's not a good sign to depend only from a stand-alone homepage...I hope and just hope that it is a temporary bug and not a penalty. Who know I can be wrong.

2:56 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 12, 2003
posts:335
votes: 0


Well shiver me timbers, I've just actually received a reply from Google, telling me that my site is not banned or penalised! Blimey..
Anyway that just means my SEO must be c*ap, so I'd better get on with it!
2:57 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 2, 2002
posts:374
votes: 0


On the BD datacentres I checked, most of the pages I have that are now supplemental no longer exist: not on my site, removed from index with Removal tool.

Would seem simply that there are some very old pages in the index BD is using. Perhaps, unanticipated by Google, the BD algo applied whatever formula would normally be used to flag ancient pages as supplemental.

I know a couple of the senior people on here pointed out repeatedly that BD looks like it is very old - 2-6 months depending on the datacentre.

Did Google take a "snapshot" to test BD and is now in the process of merging that old data with the current index? Is this causing pages to be incorrectly identified by the algo as moribund?

3:41 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:May 24, 2002
posts:284
votes: 0


Miop,

are you all supplemental?

3:45 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:June 20, 2002
posts:4652
votes: 0


It's just mindboggling that a company so inept can be such light years ahead of its competition.
4:24 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:May 5, 2003
posts:55
votes: 0


I just got the same thing. 1 site went down to 36 pages indexed. All supplemental (except the home page).

some of the pages google shows in the site: command have been deleted for over a year.

I also show urls like:

?source=kanoodle
?source=findwhat
?source=overture

that were only used for PPC campaigns in 2002 and 2003. Where is google pulling these urls from? It makes little or no sense.

6:58 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Full Member

joined:June 11, 2005
posts:305
votes: 0


Isn't the fact that google are using an old data-set to run Big Daddy the main reason for all of the Supplemental returns. Most of the people hit by Alegra & Jagger redesigned their sites to some extent and the appearance of supplemental listings is just helping google to reduce the number of dead links that the searcher hits on. I have no idea why they would need to use such an old data-set, but I'm guessing they are wanting to test accuracy against other historic results.

IMHO I think the data-set will eventually be merged with a current update and all will rosy again. We'll all make loads of money and be able to enjoy the spring & summer [unlike last year].

Love and Peace to Everyone ( Gimme Coffee )

Col ;-)

This 192 message thread spans 7 pages: 192