Google Datacenters Watch: 2006-01-30

Observations, Analysis and Remarks

[johnwards]

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

This is just odd.

The 64.* DC's return about 300 pages from my site.

The 216.* DC's return about 46,000 pages from my site.

And the 66.* return 69,000 pages from my site.

Currently I have about 65,000 pages.

If I go to google.co.uk I get 46,000 pages. If I go to google.com from my US based server I get the same 46,000 results.

It is all very odd and confusing.

[edited by: tedster at 9:56 pm (utc) on Jan. 30, 2006]

[Ellio]

>>>>I assume you guys are using the sf giants search to determine BD dc's..
Just a thought, has anyone figured out, or does anyone care to guess why this search would be changed under BD?

They both have the same title, (www.sfgiants.com & giants.mlb.com)

So, has anyone figured out why this BD has this effect on those URLS rankings? <<<<

This is fully explained by Matt on his Blog in an early Big Dady post - The new infrastructure has used its cannonicalization improvement to find the best homepage.

[paintbox]

Sorry, my site: search was on the wrong page...
site:giants:mlb.com on non-BD gives 24.300 pages and on BD it gives 147.000 pages. Quite a big difference! Could this alone explain the difference in serp placement?

[otech]

semantics aside Ellio, what i was trying to say was whether anyone had specifically analysed the sf giants results to determine why this one was the reliable example Matt Cutts said it was.

Paintbox, thats what i am talking about, nice one - so you reckon it got there from a canonical fix?

Do you think the indexed pages total is perhaps because once the canonical issue was fixed its pagerank was restored already - maybe thats why more pages got in there.

But that would mean PR updates on sites with repaired canonical problems are near instant?
Maybe thats why we are seeing different rankings too - as the PR is getting shuffled a bit when sites are repaired?

I was under the impression this would take a re-crawl to clear up rather than an instant PR boost..?

[Ellio]

>>>But that would mean PR updates on sites with repaired canonical problems are near instant?
Maybe thats why we are seeing different rankings too - as the PR is getting shuffled a bit when sites are repaired? <<<<

I believe this may be the case.

[Eazygoin]

Reseller >> Nice post :-) You explained things very clearly.

My main site was showing about 850 pages prior to BD being made public. It now shows over 60,000, which is nothing to do with canonical issues, as I didn't have any. However, my belief is that it could be to do with filters being levied, which show every internal link, and all extended URL's.

Now maybe Google is allowing all possible URL's to show for a site, and will later place another filter to omit the results that are not considered important. My default URL by the way, where I checked, is one of the BD Ip's.

[paintbox]

But that would mean PR updates on sites with repaired canonical problems are near instant?
Maybe thats why we are seeing different rankings too - as the PR is getting shuffled a bit when sites are repaired?

Yes, I believe this could very well be the case. In which case this would also confirm what many people have said for a long time: PR is updated continuously, whereas toolbar PR gets updated only occasionally.

Also: better serps rankings would of course not follow automatically when sites are fixed, but only if the "restored" pages help improve the PR (I suppose the opposite could happen in some cases).

[reseller]

Eazygoin

>>Reseller >> Nice post :-) You explained things very clearly.<<

Thanks for the kind words, my friend ;-)

otech

>>Maybe thats why we are seeing different rankings too - as the PR is getting shuffled a bit when sites are repaired? <<

However, we should also consider other options in explaining the difference in ranking we see. Including the possibility that algorithm update is taking place on BigDaddy as Matt signaled on his latest BigDaddy post.

"Remember that Bigdaddy involves new infrastructure and is not just a data push or algorithm update."!

Those of us who are used to "decode" GoogleGuy's and Matt's posts know that our two kind friends at the plex also indicate important things between the lines :-)

[BillyS]

>>The New Serps on BigDaddy DCs

I don't get you reseller. First off, you're a day and a half off with this annoucement. The "big" SERP change actually occurred before 6:30 p.m. EST on Friday. One pattern to that change seems to be for those affected on September 22nd.

Second, on Saturday, you're announcing an update and spreading of BigDaddy - well that isn't happening either.

For someone that stresses how important it is to be accurate in statements, you should follow your own advice. Others reading this thread often look at what your saying as authoritiative, but to me it seems more like wishful thinking.

Matt claims that BD is only on three DCs. I tend to believe him. Perhaps we are merely seeing BD-like results on other data centers, but under the hood they are not BigDaddy.

[colin_h]

Hi BillyS,

>>>>For someone that stresses how important it is to be accurate in statements, you should follow your own advice.<<<<

I'd be surprised if anyone could be anythong other than theoretical about what is happening at the moment. This saga has had a great deal of ups & downs, and I have seen a great deal of people declare an update over the past 2 months.

IMHO Reseller gives information when he sees it and always bases his theories on clear evidence. He definately doesn't deserve the dis-respectful tone that you are taking with him.

All the Best

Col :-)

[reseller]

BillyS

And I thought that you are still watching your grass grow :-)

Have a great Sunday.

colin_h

Thanks, my friend. Much appreciated.