Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.145.58.37

Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & andy langton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Update Pluto : Back Links Updated on Some Data Centers

     
1:23 pm on Aug 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 30, 2004
posts:23
votes: 0


I have noticed on 64.233.187.104 and 64.233.187.99 datacenters Back Links Updated.
11:51 am on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 18, 2002
posts:59
votes: 0


do a site:www.yoursite.com on google

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,740 hit refresh goes down then back up

our site has gone from 30 pages upto 2000+ from friday

11:56 am on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:July 3, 2002
posts:18903
votes: 0


>> Could be because some are listed without www and others with non-www...maybe google still hasn't got the canonical problem sorted. <<

You can sort it out yourself. Get that site-wide 301 redirect in place.
More thoughts: [webmasterworld.com...]

12:55 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

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

joined:June 1, 2004
posts:3181
votes: 0


The related: command is also fixed on these DC. And it actually makes sense.

Definately a tweak or two. I'm showing an increase in backlinks.

2:43 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 1, 2005
posts:137
votes: 0


To me that Dc is far from accurate, it return as supplemental a directory with the robots in place; ex: www.mysite.com/directory-abc/robots.txt
3:53 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 18, 2003
posts:745
votes: 0


I didn't know anyone paid attention to google backlinks since they have only shown a small sample of backlinks for a least the past few years. A change in the size of their backlink sample on a few sites is hardly "update worthy".
4:05 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 6, 2005
posts:1678
votes: 71


Hi Folks

When it comes to the current situation of 64.233.187.104 and 64.233.187.99, I guess you are beating a dead horse ;-)

Allow me to recall what GG just posted yesterday:

I talked to one of the engineers who would know, and it turns out that it's an engineer who has grabbed the 64.233.187.whatever datacenter for himself to tinker around with making info: queries slightly more accurate. I don't expect the visible/external info: or backlink data to spread to other data centers (or if it did, not for a long time).

11:14 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

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

joined:June 1, 2004
posts:3181
votes: 0


>> talked to one of the engineers who would know, and it turns out that it's an engineer who has grabbed the 64.233.187.whatever datacenter for himself to tinker around with making info: queries slightly more accurate. I don't expect the visible/external info: or backlink data to spread to other data centers (or if it did, not for a long time).

Funny how the related: command all of a sudden is better than ever. I think there is more to this data center than everyone is letting on. Maybe it's just not ready for prime time yet, but I do believe we are seeing a preview of the future.

After all, what's part of info:

cach:
link:
related:
contains:

[edited by: BillyS at 11:17 pm (utc) on Aug. 27, 2006]

12:33 am on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 15, 2005
posts:326
votes: 0


>> Funny how the related: command all of a sudden is better than ever. I think there is more to this data center than everyone is letting on. Maybe it's just not ready for prime time yet, but I do believe we are seeing a preview of the future.

This is a VERY interesting point. Using the related: command to search for my competitors, I see my own site listed each time in the top five.

I wonder if this is indicative of the fact that google views my site as a prime example of its kind, eg an 'authority' site.

2:31 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:July 20, 2002
posts:118
votes: 0


>> Could be because some are listed without www and others with non-www...maybe google still hasn't got the canonical problem sorted. <<

You can sort it out yourself. Get that site-wide 301 redirect in place.
More thoughts: [webmasterworld.com...]


Thanks gismd. Until now I've tried to avoid doing what I consider (in my humble little mind anyway) to be any unneccesary stuff like this, after all, as tiori states in the thread at [webmasterworld.com...]
All other search engines seem to figure out www vs non-www
The content of that thread too makes me very wary of the 301 solution.

I'll give it a month or so and see what happens as things are...if I'm still supplemental I guess I'll have to try the 301 route.

5:20 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:July 3, 2002
posts:18903
votes: 0


You'll still be supplemental in a month. Those results hang around for a year even after fixes are put in place.
7:10 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 13, 2003
posts:630
votes: 0


if I'm still supplemental I guess I'll have to try the 301

Do it now. Google rewards it.

8:50 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

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

joined:Apr 28, 2002
posts:3444
votes: 1


About the wired site count, it has nothing to do with a 301, I have had a 301 for over a year nothing changed, so I have removed it again.

The site count here is some wierd bug, because when you go a page further, the count goes double and so on.

9:19 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 10, 2006
posts:117
votes: 0


Ha!

I was SOooooo right!

GoogleGuy: "it's an engineer who has grabbed the 64.233.187.whatever datacenter for himself to tinker around with making info: queries slightly more accurate."

I've said "that must be some geek at google playing around with +/- button" :c)

10:00 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Full Member

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


I suppose it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Google are monitoring all of the site: searches on this test server and looking to apply penalties or some other fun thing to those unsuspecting webmasters.

Yours Always Suspicious of Google's Intentions

Col :-)

6:02 am on Aug 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

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

joined:Oct 8, 2001
posts:2882
votes: 0


Nothing new to report; it's just that dude working on things. As far as site: showing more results, I wouldn't believe those numbers--the more accurate numbers are likely to be the lower numbers at other data centers.

Remember that infrastructure that we talked about by the end of the summer that as a by-product would make site: searches more accurate? My guess is that 64.233.187.104 has that infrastructure turned off, so that the site: results estimates appear higher at that data center. But again, I think the lower numbers at other data centers are more likely to be right.

Again, not much to see overall; just an engineer tinkering with a data center on their own.

6:41 am on Aug 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 6, 2005
posts:1678
votes: 71


Good morning GoogleGuy

"Again, not much to see overall; just an engineer tinkering with a data center on their own."

Thanks for feedback.

No harm done as long as that daynamic engineer doesn't start tinkering with The Mother of The New Infrastructure 72.14.207.104 :-)

7:19 am on Aug 29, 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


Yeah, why would anyone want someone doing something good with the related results to tinker with the worst quality datacenter Google has...
1:36 pm on Aug 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 24, 2003
posts:729
votes: 0


I suppose it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Google are monitoring all of the site: searches on this test server and looking to apply penalties or some other fun thing to those unsuspecting webmasters.

Yours Always Suspicious of Google's Intentions

Col :-)


One wouldn't be so paranoid if everyone wasn't out to get them. ;)
2:50 pm on Aug 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 13, 2005
posts:716
votes: 0


Probably a silly question, but why does a "link:www.widget.com" differ from a "link www.widget.com" command (colon/no colon)? In my case the ":" version I have 0 now, the latter I have 360 odd. Weird.

[edited by: Simsi at 2:51 pm (utc) on Aug. 29, 2006]

3:12 pm on Aug 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Full Member

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


KenB,

Stop trying to soften me up ... I know you work for Google and you're trying to get my secrets ;-)

All the Best

Col :-)

4:24 pm on Aug 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 13, 2003
posts:630
votes: 0


why does a "link:www.widget.com" differ from a "link www.widget.com" command

link:www.widget.com searches for links to that site
link www.widget.com is just an ordinary search for the keyword "link" and the keywords www.widget.com

1:04 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Administrator from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Sept 21, 1999
posts:38063
votes: 13


Anyone seeing fresh PR updates as well?
1:05 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 5, 2006
posts:2095
votes: 2


I am seeing a back link and pr update as well.
2:03 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:July 26, 2006
posts:1619
votes: 0


I haven't seen pr or backlink update for us. But it's never shown all of our backlinks... it shows about 1/10th of what we show in the other engines and/or our list of manufacturers that link to us as their authorized online dealer.

It's almost as if they don't show us the good ones on purpose. Just recently going through another engine I found at article that had been written about one of the widgets we sell and they linked to us as a point of purchase. I never even knew this was there.

2:10 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 20, 2003
posts:189
votes: 0


Bewenched,

"It's almost as if they don't show us the good ones on purpose."

Ding, ding, ding, ding! That has been a favorite theory of mine for ages.

As for the PR update...Where? Somebody please tell me where to look.

PR! Bawahahahaaaaa! I MUST have more PR!

2:52 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 6, 2005
posts:1678
votes: 71


Where do you see the PR updates? I don't see any at the moment.
2:59 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 13, 2005
posts:716
votes: 0


I am seeing a back link and pr update as well.

I'm seing PR move on 75% of the Futurepagerank DC's too.

3:31 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 13, 2003
posts:630
votes: 0


I'm seing PR move on 75% of the Futurepagerank DC's too.

Could you be a bit more specific?

3:34 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 20, 2003
posts:189
votes: 0


I can't see any PR updates, but for my small-niche, two-keyword term on most of the DCs I checked my site has jumped from #99-103 (where it has been stuck for 3 months), to #15-17.

Something is afoot for sure. Maybe the PR has jumped and it just isn't showing yet. I think GG said that it updates constantly but that "toolbar" PR is only updated occasionally (if I understood correctly).

5:43 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 13, 2005
posts:716
votes: 0


Could you be a bit more specific?

Sure. Using the #*$! FPR tool, yesterday showed 2 DC's with a fluctuation, while my site showed the old PR. Today, most of the DC's show a new PR on the FPR tool, and my site is now showing it (as of about an hour ago) too.

This 152 message thread spans 6 pages: 152
 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members