Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Now we have the new BigDaddy infrastructure rolled-out, its about time to make some assessments (could be damage assessments for some publishers).
Though Google data centers are in everflux (or possible update of some kind), signs of improvement or deterioration should be becoming to some extent clear.
To judge whether the new infrastructure is a success or a failure, we might use the following items as a check-list and see whether they are met yet or expected to be be met very soon:
- improve search quality (otherwise why should it be there at all)
- reduce spam to large extent
- fix the canonical issue
- possibly deal with supplemental issue
- more correct indexing of sites (again.. otherwise why should the new infrastructure be there at all)
Thanks for feedback.
Hello all friends,
my website has been damaged.
But there is any hope that google will fix all his problems? or there is not hope and I have to resign myself about all my work destroyed?
Matt is but one small cog in a big whee
His level of inside knowledge suggests otherwise. Not small at all if you ask me.
Google New Infrastructure. A Success Or A Failure?
The king is drank since mid 2005 with no recovery in sight. Too many brilliant amateurs with inflated salary packages trying to fulfil conflicting instructions and play around with knobs day in day out. That's what i see :)
Imagine a library where either it changes its index and classifications of books each day or just displays books on shelves in random. How do you classify the quality of such library?
And a library, that makes more or less money depending on where the books are is called a bookstore. :) Unprofitable books tend to get dropped, and the Da Vinci Code, may it also be biggest b*****s on this earth gets a nice display at the entrance and the truth about the whole subject can be found on level 7, 5th backrow on left on the upper shelf. Please call an assistance with a ladder in case you want it. ;)
See the Da Vinci Code Quest on G ... :D
Nothing against making money, it's just not an academic pursuit.
[edited by: mattg3 at 1:25 am (utc) on April 30, 2006]
Yes...the stale old truth that was written with many "highly suspect" agendas in place...mostly political and power brokering in order to control public opinion...get over it..the REAL truth is just around the corner...(and the truth you mention can stay up on the top shelf...back in the very corner where no one can get at it...the world's a better place without "this" version of someone else's lies...
Yes...the stale old truth that was written with many "highly suspect" agendas in place...mostly political and power brokering in order to control public opinion...get over it..the REAL truth is just around the corner...(and the truth you mention can stay up on the top shelf...back in the very corner where no one can get at it...the world's a better place without "this" version of someone else's lies...
Hmm, maybe if you replace in what I wrote "truth" "with critical outlook on the facts presented in a popular book".
Ultimately the BD algorithm seems to largely select popular views and not a more realistic broad view. There is a WP link with more diversity.
I see scholar .google seems to have, regardless of BD, a broader sprectrum of opinions on the facts presented in the DV book (as an example!) and seems to stay still more true to the ideal of a library.
The point above was to highlight that ultimately academical, economic and popular relevance/quality are located on different poles.
In that sense Google main SE is, also after BD, still a mostly emotive SE and not a logic SE.
I am not sure in what "hotspot/wound" I tapped there with your seemingly emotive response. Do I believe the church covered things up? Likely. Do I believe the story in the book? No. It was interesting though to read about the Gnostic Gospels. But that's I believe for another forum to discuss. :)
Just updating the thread for the record.
Around three weeks ago, on 28th April 2006 and in my msg #:10 , I have listed some current thread describing the main problems we had witnessed on the new infrastructure.
Today, unfortunately, I see the most critical problems are stil there unresolved, and I'm listing here few important threads which reflect those issues:
Pages Dropping Out of Big Daddy Index (Part 2)
[webmasterworld.com...]
Very Odd - Big Drops in SERPS Today April 26, 06
[webmasterworld.com...]
Not being fully indexed, Who is at fault?
[webmasterworld.com...]
Odd - meta description IGNORED?
[webmasterworld.com...]
Homepage is not first SERP on site:mysite.com
[webmasterworld.com...]
Data Center Watch 2006 May 05
[webmasterworld.com...]
Lets hope the next 3 weeks will bring us better news.
<quote>This crawl caching proxy was deployed with Bigdaddy</unquote>
Missing/strange snippets, pages dropped then reappearing,pages missing may be all due to this change of technique.
Am somewhat suprised that this has not been mentioned that often.
Luckily all our "now you see them now you don't" pages appear to be back on our main sites and strange snippets back to normal
Successful? - I guess we have a long wait to see if that is the case as the internet is now such a big place.
Just my two pence worth.
<edited>Logical order</edited>
"reseller: My opinion is that most of the variances seen in the SERPS that people are seeing could well be explained by the crawl caching proxy ( [mattcutts.com...] )
<quote>This crawl caching proxy was deployed with Bigdaddy</unquote>
Missing/strange snippets, pages dropped then reappearing,pages missing may be all due to this change of technique."
Maybe.. and maybe not :-)
I guess the current critical situation of Google is a combination of two failures:
- technically, BigDaddy is unhealthy infrastructure.
- Google either keep silent or denying that there are major problems with that unhealthy infrastructure. Google keeps asking for feedback from webmasters, while feedback from Google to webmasters doesn't exist.
When was the last time we have seen a BigDaddy weather report?
IMO, the tragedy of our beloved Google is; its dieing and nobody at Googleplex care (:(
"unhealthy" - not so sure - "inexperienced" new caching structure possibly. To be unhealthy there must be a reason - lack of exercise perhaps.
The growth of things like Google Co-op, site-maps, adsense bots etc must all be contributing to the central cache which is then accessed by the "main" bot.
If there is an "error" in the crawling by one of the bots which is placed in the central cache the "error" will be also be picked up by the other bots visiting this central cache.
The definition of an error on this forum may be differrent to Googles internal definition of an error.
I think the lack of a "school report" on Big Daddy is slightly disturbing - even more disturbing is attempt by Google in wanting webmasters to provide their data via sitemaps etc - don't see MSN doing this.
Of course we will be straight into Big Sister sometime, so yet again - as we have in the past - we can never been sure on the success or otherwise of a change in methodology.
Honestly, I think part of big daddy was to raise some very good (Informative and good looking) adsense sites to the top of the serps. We all have noticed that.
Its all about google making money. Do you really think they care about us webmasters? They try a pr campaign using matt, but he is just stuck in the middle.
Bottom line, as long as google is making money and gets a lot of adsense clicks, why would they care about the few of us.....
"... and certainly in the world of technology, take every technology company that failed, their sins, their big mistakes were all made in the years of their greatest profitability."*
So, is BigDaddy one of Google's big mistakes?
Probably it's to early to tell.
However, by looking at today's SERPs and the crawling issue described by trinorthlighting, yes it seems like a big mistake.
*See [archive.org...]
Here is a link to an article in the Financial times that is rather interesting.
Yahoo harnesses users’ collective knowledge
Yahoo will on Wednesday set out plans to harness the collective knowledge and interests of its 400m regular users to develop the next generation of search technology and narrow the gap with internet juggernaut Google.
[news.ft.com...]
After spending some time reading Matt Cutts recent post [mattcutts.com], I'm just wondering:
Is Matt Telling Us: Content Is Dead..Long Live The Links!
The reason for my wondering is the high focus of Matt on Links, with little mention to content or the quality of content.
Which could mean that as long as your content isn't a duplicate and regardless of its quality, linking to that content is the most important factor for:
- crawling and indexing of your content
- ranking of your content
And that for sure make optimizing for Google much easier than it was before BigDaddy!
Of course above is a sad news for those publishers who focus on quality content.
And good news for "publishers" who will be able to "generate" contents by one way or the other.
The same "focus on links and not content" might explain the poor quality of current Google serps. Pages are not ranked because of their content relevancy to search queries, but for their extent of being linked to!
"it has always been about links. Links + original content."
Not anymore, IMO.
Today its about: Links + any "not duplicate" content
I don't know whether I'm alone on this one.
Every time I read Google's feedback on BigDaddy, I see the folks at the plex very satisfied of the progress and results.
My problem is very simple to explain. I as a webmaster/publisher unable to see BigDaddy the way the folks at the plex see it. I.e I can't understand or able to see satisfactory progress or results of BigDaddy.
What I see is the followings:
- Sites and pages are dropped of the index for no logical reasons.
- random indexing of pages and sites
- fluctuations of indexed sites
- fluctuations of PR values
- fluctuations in site: search
- fluctuations of search results
- poor search relevancy
- no reduction of spam
- emphasis on backlinks and reduction of importance of quality contents
- elastic generic feedback from goodle's side
Therefore, I really can't understand why do the folks at the plex keep talking about satisfaction regarding BigDaddy!
It reminds of the college student who's up all night pounding out the final paper, and is just happy he got it in on time. He doesn't care about the grade. He's feels he has achieved his "goal" by simply getting it in on time.
I'm getting the same impression from Google employees. Upper management wanted this thing out and implemented. Who cares whether it deserves a passing grade or failing grade. At least it's not an incomplete.
After reading Matt Cutt's explanation of the new infrastructure at [mattcutts.com...] , my perspective has changed dramatically.
I was motivated to critizise the new infrastructure because I found the current crawl not as good as before and also some of my sites were loosing pages.
According to Cutts, it seems the problem is on my end: not enough trustworthy links pointing to my sites. So, I'll fix it.
On the other hand, as soon as Webmasters fine tune their sites, we might get some quality results in the near future.
"According to Cutts, it seems the problem is on my end: not enough trustworthy links pointing to my sites. So, I'll fix it."
It is all the fault of webmasters. Nothing wrong with BigDaddy. Its our sites that are nothing but junk. Thats what Google is telling us. Blame it on the webmasters.
And we should believe all that rubbish.
And regarding backlinks. Google requires webmasters shouldn't buy backlinks. Webmasters shouldn't do reciprocal linking or linkexchange. However, webmasters should manage to get trustworthy links. How many new sites can meet such requirements?
The truth is Google has created a monster under the name BigDaddy. First that ugly monster will destroy thousands of health webmasters sites. Then the same monster will for sure destroy Google.
Congrats to google engineers!
(1) They are not going to LOSE revenue from adsense sites, they are going to gain. Many more sites will now have to purchase adsense, and many sites with adsense on them will not rank as well, so google will get the click through traffic from their search engines results, not from adsense sites, so no giving away teh 65%.
(2) What happens at google, does not effect rankings on yahoo and msn. So the junky style sites with adsense on them, will bring google revenue from those sites rankings on yahoo and msn.
That said, the no recip links, not enough links is sure going to hit little webmasters hard. How do they GET links if no one can find their site to then recommend it.
I guess we just ask other site owners real nice like:
"Can we please have a link to our site but I cannot return one, or pay for one, really do anything else for you in return but my site is really awesome and you should link to it."
REPLY: "No you may not have a link. Although your site is awesome it is not in the index and has no PR so it may come back and hurt my rankings in the process."
I have two pages(not total, just what I'm discussing). They are both probably over six years old.
Page 1 title is industry tutorial 101 (plus some keywords).
Page 2 title is industry tutorial 111 (without any additional keywords).
Both pages are roughly the same age, share the same layout, including on-page menus, and share the same keywords meta. Content is totally different, no similarity at all.
So, I do a search for "industry tutorial" and page 1 shows up, page 2 is nowhere to be found. Roughly same on-page SEO, no IBLs that I could identify to either. If I click "omitted results", I get page 1, index page, page 2. Granted, that's only from something like 4.2MM results, so it's not a huge sampling.
The only apparent similarity I see is the keywords and the URL. Perhaps there is more significance placed on 101.html and 111.html
Perhaps incremental numbering is now seen as a lack of quality?
Observations, not necessarily opinions.
"Can we please have a link to our site but I cannot return one, or pay for one, really do anything else for you in return but my site is really awesome and you should link to it."
LOL, Google and it's link no link obsession. Further evidence that page rank is dead and buried. The whole Google philosophy of ranking sites based on votes from other sites is down the toilet. End game.
Questions asked:
1) When will they finally realise it?
2) When will they admit it and move on to a different ranking system? a ranking system that actually works and makes sense.
