Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: HU - DC update

  • Subject: Re: HU - DC update
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 03:43:16 +0100
  • Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <acud829cl4euv97vrp4l03kvf582tev7nt@4ax.com> <JbHhg.18672$Az2.4550@fe10.news.easynews.com> <vfge82pkfpf5u6h69kfif8ihc2kh7ke9pj@4ax.com>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [ Paul ] on Wednesday 07 June 2006 22:21 \__

> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 21:04:42 GMT, info_at_1-script_dot_com@xxxxxxx
> (www.1-script.com) wrote:
> 
>>Paul wrote:
>>
>>> They have now updated the following DC's
>>
>>> 64.233.161.99
>>> 64.233.161.104
>>> 64.233.161.147
>>
>>> 'bout bloody time.


I see no change. You got my hopes high(er) in vain. *frown* All the sites
which reside on the same IP (Web host) lost pages quite arbitrarily.


>>Na-ah. None of my sites moved a slightest bit there. Additionally, the
>>site:operator is still broken on those DCs as well as all the others.
>>Google was acting a bit weird yesterday here in NE US. Delayed queries,
>>once didn't even respond. I thought it could be a sign of datacenters
>>exchanging a big chunk of data and using up the bandwidth, but it must
>>have been something else 'cause I don't see any change at all today.


Would it be safe to say that the 'site:' operator is not broken? I mean, the
pages are obviously not there. They must have been lost whilst the
datacentres were exchanging data and Big Daddy 'poisoned' many of the rest.
It's part of the algorithm which shares the load and balances things so that
one crawler complements all other storage houses.

 
> Are you using Tippy ?


Even tried Darren's tools; not close, and no cigar.


> I have been watching it for weeks.
> 
> First
> 64.233.167.99 41
> 64.233.167.104
> 64.233.167.147
> came and went, came and went, then stayed as they are.



I'm not sure if this is indicative of anything...

> Then came
> 64.233.179.99
> which has been there for about 1.5 weeks.
> 
> Today
> 64.233.161.99
> 64.233.161.104
> 64.233.161.147
> 
> These three show slightly different results than the other 4
> mentioned.
> 
> Agreed, some keywords have not altered much from before to after, so
> you may not notice.


For me, this is not a matter of SERP positions. It is about having Google
(which still crawls my sites) actually add the missing pages to the index.


> If you want to keep an eye on it, then the keywords I used was :
> beaded jewelry
> 
> for the site : http://www. houstoncrafts.com
> 
> I've been watching it like a bloody hawk.


*sigh* Try 'bloody hawk' with http://www. houstoncrafts.com and you will
always see the same outcome. *smile*

Best wishes,

Roy

-- 
Unisys: open source software set to have a similar impact as the Internet
http://Schestowitz.com  |  GNU is Not UNIX  ¦     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  3:35am  up 41 days  9:08,  11 users,  load average: 1.49, 1.63, 1.10
      http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index