Forum Moderators: open
And, if there was anything really serious then I'd expect Google would have done something about that. Obviously they see this as a non-issue.
Yep, I'm seeing it a little more often it seems. www-sj held for 4 different keyword searches that time, then back to normal www.
restart the borwser. You probably went to -sj first and then to www.google.com
When you search at Google you are shown results from up to 8 different data centres, including www-sj. Normally the only time any of the data centres have drastically different results is during the dance. After which they settle down to all showing the different results.
I've seen statistics that show www-sj as being one of the least frequently used data centres for www.google results which is why you don't see the sj results that often. That said, it's pretty unprecendented to have one of the data centers showing radically different results from the rest apart from the dance.
I'm pretty sure Google can turn off a particular data centre if they want, but in this case they are choosing to let sj results appear.
I don't think you understand what people are reporting. I have been reading this thread to see if others are seeing the same thing that I am, based on -sj results for the 30-40 search terms I check (for my clients).
Some of my clients are doing great and some are not, but this has no bearing on the fact that for many of these terms, the top 10-20 results often are showing (dominated by) pages with hidden keywords lists, hidden anchor text links, cross linked duplicate sites, doorways and redirects. I have seen a few of my totally clean clients completely dissapear along with some major corporations' websites and in their place - clearly blatant SPAM.
It would be my opinion that if Google is testing something and checking to see what people have to say about it, this information could be helpful. Also, since many people who play by the book, have seen their websites fall out of the serps, only to see duplicate sites of their competitors and obvious spam take over, it is helpful to share this info with them before they have a breakdown.
For you to say that everyone who's website is not doing well on -sj is guilty of falsely claiming SPAM! - this statement is as incorrect as someone saying that everyone who thinks this - is guilty of being a spammer.
Personally, I think everyone is entitled to post their own findings and opinions and I'm glad that this forum is here to inform people what's going on. I would be very unhappy if these results went live and I think that Google would be flooded with SPAM reports, because people will not stand for duplicates and doorways dominating the serps.
Those of you who think this is falsely claiming SPAM, maybe you're not looking at the same results as many of the rest of us are, maybe you haven't read the google guidlines, maybe you're a spammer, who knows... but one thing is for sure.... everyone is entitled to post their own findings and opinions.
What are you trying to accomplish by accusing these people of whining about SPAM? Are you trying to discourage anyone reporting spam results to protect your own duplicate domains and doorways? Are you trying to mark these people as complainers so that others won't share their findings and opinions?
just wondering....
My3Cents
Let's pray for an early reply from GoogleGuy
Ummm?
C
Must be something going on (perhaps leading up to the dance) at a datacenter that we do not know about
I am clueless how it got these results. Thus why I am hoping that it is not the new update or at least a finalized version, since the results, in this site's case, do not make any sense. The rest of my sites are ok in SJ... but this original site of mine's results truly have me puzzled.
[edited by: chrisnrae at 11:46 pm (utc) on May 4, 2003]
2) Is it possible that the sj data center is simply part of an equation of data centers (that combine to form the real results)?
But yes, the results on sj would be an almighty downturn in quality for Google. I have seen sites rightfully banned reappear and Hormel for breakfast, lunch and dinner sites ranking well.
But, I don't think these will be the results. I have watched via anonymizers (so I can see results from around the world), and have not seen sj results at all. Which is why my theory about cookies.
I tried a couple of random words (pick your own), and there's changes now in .va, .dc, .ab, and .in. These are different from the changes in .sj.
Curiouser and curiouser!
Which is why my theory about cookies
Nope that is not it, I have disabled & cleared cookies, it does not prompt me to set one.
I hear ya! It seems that if this really was a just a glitch and googleguy was checking into it - I'm sure it would have been corrected by now.
Maybe this is part of the update but this months PR and links haven't been factored in - which might explain why pages with shady "onsite" optimization have risen to the top.
I mean could google have really lost that many links?
Maybe once they refactor the PR and links for this month it will resemble an algo that we reconize? - I hope ;)
Peter
Some people will always be self-absorbed and derail threads like this with nonsense comments about how everyone else is just as self-absorbed as they are. I'm pretty sure most of though are capable of actual rational thought.
Google executives read this board. Rational, helpful feedback does influence them, we've seen that. They have solicited such feedback here. Sensible people should use this thread to point out (if they agree) that (a) the -sj results are not an improvement over the www ones, and (b) why. "My site dropped five slots" is pointless and silly, as are criticisms that this is the content of all the posts here.
My own observation from the area I monitor is that guestbook links and linksmanager sites -- basically sites with worthless links -- are doing dramatically better on -sj. Certainly this is something Google doesn't want to intentionally do. I speculate that -sj is a database (given its freshbot content) that tries to rank sites with PR diminished in the algorerhythm. Thus these sites with many garbage links rank higher, while sites with higher PR links who don't do free-for-all junk are getting a lower rank.
I believe Google will look at that and think, "Hmmm, we don't want to reward junk links", and continue to tweak accordingly.
Google wants to provide the public with good results. Spammers of course hate that, but those of us who also want Google to value good content should post whatever neagtives and positives we see on -sj, or Google in general for that matter.
The sj results are much improved over recent www.
So there is nothing unusual at all in sj index results appearing on www.google.com off and on.
To me, this one look rather difficult to interpret. Things do seem to be all over the board, but I have noticed that PR is less important. There also seems that sites that have 100's of links from numerous domains do better than those with 100's of links from only a couple domains. Anchor text is important as always.
Then again, they could be just seeing how well the spammers do with this algo. Who knows?
