Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
This just happenned within the last hour. Previously had thousands of sup's and regular pages.
... August 14: Lonely from no one clicking on its ads, the Google entity pulls the plug on itself....
August 15: Cockroaches rule the Earth! :)
You're talking about the "experiment" that was on one DC for a few days, then moved to 72.14.207.99 for the next few weeks, and in recent days spread to many more.
For me, that DC has a lot of problems:
There is no "exact match" search for search terms in "quotes". That no longer works.
Some sites have dropped thousands of pages. I am aware of an osCommerce site that has just 20 pages of their 20 000 pages listed now.
Some searches that I do, now have 100% Supplemental Results returned.
One search that should only have 20 results returned, now has more than 900 results, and none of them exactly match what was searched for.
Some sites have had all their old Supplemental Results from 2004 cleaned up. Some have not.
Some sites have gained a whole pile of Supplemental Results from 2005.
How about url.ca and url.uk.co sites performing so well? Noticed this?
I've noticed an increase in traffic and I find it strange since my site targets the US audience.
on all datacenters...the google goose hit me on the head with a golden egg. probably won't last long though.
Are you seeing the url.ca and url.co.uk issue that I am seeing? That being sites with those urls being weighted very high in the serps vs url.com sites with all other values being equal (as equal as equal can be)?
These SERP's are neither of the two sets of SERP's floating around on DC's if you use their IP.
Am I correct in this assumption or am I still losing my mind? :>~
[edited by: MLHmptn at 9:10 am (utc) on May 5, 2006]
These SERP's are neither of the two sets of SERP's floating around on DC's if you use their IP.
I for one had never seen those SERP's and in my niche these are the best yet. All top players on the first results. Pretty good job Google.
I forgot to tell thar I see very low page count for my main site. Really low.
[edited by: JoaoJose at 9:19 am (utc) on May 5, 2006]
The comcast serps seem the best in literally years. A couple of minor exceptions I've seen so far (one tracking link, one junk site), but for the most part excellent.
You finding any supplementals steveb?
I have 3 sites that I deny Google from accessing and they are finally gone from the SERP's. As far as my other sites that I want indexed on Google they are not showing any supplemental results.
I think we are finally on the heel of an update!
I forgot to tell thar I see very low page count for my main site. Really low.
My main site as well...Down from 13,000+ something pages indexed to only 329.
Cache from Comcast is taking me to this DC - [66.249.93.104...] - which does include supplementals etc - so some local filtering done by the partners?
Also - on the Comcast.net and Aol searches - sites which have problems whereby the homepage does not come first on a site:domain.com search - seem to show no entries at all :/
Cache from Comcast is taking me to this DC - [66.249.93.104...] - which does include supplementals etc - so some local filtering done by the partners?
The results I'm getting on that DC are not the results I get on either Comcast or AOL
Cache from Comcast is taking me to this DC - [66.249.93.104...] - which does include supplementals etc - so some local filtering done by the partners?
I am getting 72.14.203.104 for the cache...but yet the ip of the cache is not showing the same results.
This is whacked!
Which makes me think that there is some local preferences set by the partners - which may take out supplementals etc.
Which makes me think that there is some local preferences set by the partners - which may take out supplementals etc.
I'm not getting supplementals on 66.249.93.104 . Also It would be odd for both Comcast and AOL to have the same results if this was due to some kind of set preferences.
Let's see what happens....
I see an exception to that. One site has a homepage second, and a minor page first.
[edited by: MLHmptn at 10:19 am (utc) on May 5, 2006]
