Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
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]
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 22.214.171.124 and 126.96.36.199 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
stressing out way to much about these DC’s what are they? They show results much differnt then the rest.
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.
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:
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.
I thought maybe they where Alias names pointing back to the .com site but they all had different Titles (similar to my website title and others sites) so im assuming they are not simply Aliases?
they do not rank near the top in any of the dc's I've checked recently, as I mentioned before though, they did show up on the 1st page in the 2 dc's that I had been watching for the past 2 weeks. (188.8.131.52 and 184.108.40.206).
I was really surprised to see them all together on the front page.
Good morning Folks
It seems that some DCs are more faithful Reseller Friendly DCs than others and they have been stabile since the begining untill now and I have marked them by ##. While some other DCs have left me others have just joined the troops and I'm leaving them without marking :-)
Wish you all a great DCs watching day.
EG. We finally get a PR update using the Mozilla Googlebot generated PR and BL for new pages - while all the old pages retain PR from the old Googlebot.
To me it still feels like they are using the old Googlebot for serp positions as well as PR on the pages already in the serps.
Which is incredibly annoying at this stage because Google has been able to re-apply PR to a number of sites hit by one of the many Googlebugs - but this PR only seems to be cosmetic at this stage.
Whether they are just waiting to switch it over and they are doing a few tests at the plex I dont know.....
I really don't think the solution to ranking a fast changing medium like the Internet is to base the algorithm on time... but that's just my humble opinion.
I can see arguments for and against this to be fair.
Some genius is out there with a solution I'm sure... :)
LOL I really am glad for your recovery, reseller.
However, "the new Shining Google" is mostly the very old, outdated, rusty Google with some of the weirdest, spammiest top 10's I have ever seen.
I can't believe all the chaos, disruption and garbage of the past month was simply to produce this utter #*$!.
If this is really the "the new Shining Google" Big Daddy gonna get stomped by Big Billy when Microsoft rolls out its new search.
For site:mydomain 41 returns on 1 dc 33 on the other. At least none are supplemental.
On the other DCs about 1,650 returns for site:mydomain. They go supplemental after about the 1st 50. Cache dates as far back as Jan. '05.
Well, actually, there are anecdotal reports - on here and on various blogs, etc. - of exactly that: non-web professional Google users complaining and switching. But I agree, there is certainly nothing like a revolt; probably not even a ripple.
What HAS changed is open criticism of Google on various industry newsletters, etc. but in the end, this may mean nothing to Google popularity with the public. Takes a long time for an established brand to slip and - as with McDonalds, for example - quality is somewhere way down on the list of factors in that brand loyalty.
On the other hand, the SE world has seen very rapid changes in fortunes over its brief history (tho it has probably never seen a SE giant on the scale of Google fall to oblivion as, while Alta Vista and Lycos both had major market share, they were small in a corporate sense compared to what Google is now).
Still, I think there's blood in the water and the fact Microsoft is renewing its effort to increase SE market share may reflect that.
I haven't been posting of late, but was driven back after the utter chaos and utter trash serps google has been providing. I've had to use other engines just to do my day job sadly.
In all honesty, had I not watched this forum, I would not have been aware of BD, as my site continues to increase its traffic, pages go up in their SERP's positioning, and I see satisfactory SERP's results on the odd occasion I search for something.
So, I guess I'm gonna get the naff comments about not just thinking about my site, and look at the damage to many others, but my point is that it isn't all bad news, and I feel justified in backing Google on this one. They are the best, we all know it, and we know things will only get better.
Criticise me if you want, but I am sure there are many sites doing just fine. If you aren't, I understand your comments, but I feel its time for some positive comment for a change.
I agree. What I am seeing is google is using the data from the early bd. The difference is, everything that was marked supplemental in that first round is now just gone from the index.
Don't know how google arrived at what should BE supplemental as I can find no rhyme or reason on my site.
I had written a number of articles that with the exception of two, appear no where else on the net. All gone now. They are good for my visitors but so far as content to create hits in google and draw people to my site?: poof!