Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Reseller,
Having looked at these dc's in some detail, I have to disagree with you (tho glad you're making a comback!).
Because of major changes to a site I have in the OCT-FEB period, I can pinpoint the vintage of the index quite easily (and confirm the site specific results with others I am familiar with). What I see on these dc's is an index made up of ancient results (circa AUG 2005) with some additions from FEB or so.
If this truly is the result of the carnage of the switch to BD then Google has accomplished nothing in the FEB-15 to current timeframe.
If as you say, Google knows exactly what they're doing, what they are apparently trying to achieve is to augment the AUG-05 index with a few new pages. If you mean Google intended to "break down" the entire index and rebuild it "live" - unlike in the past where more or less finished updates rolled onto all dc's over a 5-7 day period - then I might agree. What I can't see is the reseller frindly ® dc's being anything but yet another interim step. The difference is, I see the process as scambling to try and fix an unanticipated scru-up, you see it as an deliberate plan.
Either way, I'm counting the days until Microsoft rolls out their new product as Google is ripe for the taking ... takes awhile for the public to turn against a SE but there certianly is precedent (remember when you couldn't turn on your TV without seeing ads for Lycos?).
From a webmaster point of view, the ideal world is MSN, Google, Yahoo with 30% market share each.
[edited by: tedster at 10:32 pm (utc) on April 6, 2006]
[64.233.187.104...]
[64.233.187.99...]
with out change, for about 2 weeks now my site has been at #6 on the front page(around #70 in all other dc's) at different times in past 2 weeks other dc's have shown same results, only to be rolled back later though.
also, titles in results are being used from DMOZ directory? (if site is listed in directory)
From Matt Cutts Blog:
March 30, 2006 @ 9:45 am
It appears that results on 64.233.187.99 and 64.233.187.104 are dramaticlaly different. Yesterday results from those 2 DCs propagated to about 12 DCs but later reverted back to just these 2. What are those results?
April 5, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
216.239.37.104
64.233.187.104
64.233.187.99
stressing out way to much about these DC’s what are they? They show results much differnt then the rest.
"Reseller,
Having looked at these dc's in some detail, I have to disagree with you (tho glad you're making a comback!)."
Thanks for taking the time to write us such detailed feedback.
First off, I posted several times that we need to be open minded and look at the new infrastructure without using previous standards to issue any pre judgments. New infrastructure demands us to think in new ways and expect everything and anything from our friends at the plex ;-)
"Because of major changes to a site I have in the OCT-FEB period, I can pinpoint the vintage of the index quite easily (and confirm the site specific results with others I am familiar with). What I see on these dc's is an index made up of ancient results (circa AUG 2005) with some additions from FEB or so."
I'm gonna assume all what you wrote is correct and to the point.
So you are saying that you see a Pre-Jagger index with some additional data from Post-Jagger.
Maybe they are using the said data for testing. And maybe they found out that the said data are better than those of Jagger. Why not?
"What I can't see is the reseller frindly ® dc's being anything but yet another interim step. The difference is, I see the process as scambling to try and fix an unanticipated scru-up, you see it as an deliberate plan."
Well.. I posted several time that we should start to be used to Google following a continuous gradual development process from now on. As such I wouldn't dare at all to assume that The Reseller Friendly DCs are going to be the same always ;-)
"Either way, I'm counting the days until Microsoft rolls out their new product as Google is ripe for the taking ... takes awhile for the public to turn against a SE but there certianly is precedent (remember when you couldn't turn on your TV without seeing ads for Lycos?)."
I don't hope so. I'm a Google fan, ya know :-)
"From a webmaster point of view, the ideal world is MSN, Google, Yahoo with 30% market share each."
Better.. MSN, Google, Yahoo, X-SE, Z-SE with 20% market search each, IMO.
Have a great evening.
LOL better if Alta Vista comes back and Visi Calc once again rules the spreadsheet world :)
But yeah, I just took the 3 likely suspects and gave them 30% each 5 X 20% would be nice too.
Why such different results Google?! Were these two dc's simply non-filtered SERP's?!
MLHamptn may be right and they're some sort of test bed. I KNOW I saw that index in other places before and its like I said - a lot of it from AUG but with some new pages.
Tedster had noted that when BD started to appear it looked to be the same index from August that they had apparently taken to use for testing (you could see it on the BD dc's before it started to migrate into other dc's). I really think Google ran into some big problem integrating that index with the most recent one - the one that appeared about FEB-15 - and have been playing catchup ever since.
What it looks to me now is they have a "new index" that is very limited and fragmented - crawl results from the past few weeks with lots of pages on most sites missing - and this weird "reseller frendly" index that combines that with the old BD index.
I have yet to see the mid-FEB index (that had updated links among other things) merged into BD and we may never see it. My suspicion (guess? hunch?) is that the whole supplemental thing was caused by some component of the algo identifying many of the the AUG pages in the original BD index as stale, which you'd have to think was not anticipated by Google.
I DO know one good way to get pages listed as supplemental is to not update them for a long period, so seems reasonable to me that the algo converted whatever pages failed the "freshness test" in the BD index to supplementals, as by the time BD went live they were at least 6 months old and if - for example - they had last modified dates 6 months prior to August, they'd be 12 months old as far as the algo was concerned because the updated versions were not integrated into the index.
Anyway its a theory :)
i think too that they where probably some kind of test dc's. On one occasion yesterday, I saw in the top 10 results, the Chamber site at #1 and 3
other exact mirror/dup sites with different urls and/or extentions (.org,.net ) etc .. all where actually in the top 7 spots.
I have to think that the dup sites would get filtered, if there where filters in place.
As a side note: Can a website, like a Chamber of Comm.
site that has been around for a while (10yrs), get penalized for creating these dup/mirror sites?
I know there are about 5 or 6 of the dup sites floating around right now.
In March, 2 keywords on my site rose into the (relative) stratosphere:
from AWStats:
Best guess - about March 28, there was some kind of roll-back within the DCs.
I assume these are - or were anyway - domains like .org, .net. etc. that were just pointed to the same address as the .com, right? I mean, not actual separate sites with their own location and duplicate content?
If its the first, this seems really significant to me that they would be showing up, but I think tedster or someone who really understands DNS and duplicates as it relates to Google can answer better.
