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

Re: A possible theory of pages dropping

On Wed, 24 May 2006 10:06:10 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>__/ [ Paul B ] on Wednesday 24 May 2006 09:15 \__
>> Hi all
>> This is just a theory and just an idea I am throwing into the pot, but
>> it could be a reason why pages are being dropped.
>They are not being dropped. The "site:" operator is broken. See the latest
>parent thread/post from 1-script.

Yes, but pages are becoming de-cached, and one or two pages have even
lost their PR.

>> A while ago I looked at my sites with and without www
>> The www address showed PR and the non www didn't. This is correct as
>> far as I was concerned.
>Dmitri said something about that. According to WMW, it is important that the
>two URL's are 'merged', using PHP or whatever....

I did mention it myself in here over a week ago AFAICR.
( and I don't use PHP - just static html )

>> Now when I check, both www and non www both have the same PR.

>As it should be...

It never use to be. - even after they "fixed" the canonical issues.
I also use LPC to check backlinks and it *never* used to show IBLs for
the non www addresses - now it does.

>> Obviously something has changed and possibly made calculating PR
>> impossible, so google are back tracking and in the process of working
>> out the PR again from scratch.
>That sounds like an intersting possibility, but somehow I doubt it. One needs
>to know how they build their data in order to understand what broke, how
>serious the consequence is, and /what/ the consequences actually are. I am
>clueless, but we are all just making observations and share some
>speculations. I think it helps...
>> I may be totally off the mark, but I could be spot on.

>I am not growing impatient, but I am filled with anticipating, still waiting
>for that day when things return to 'normality'. It is not a new status-quo,
>that's for sure. After all, a few Google engineers have already confirmed
>that there were unexpected, unintentional errors. If these cannot be fixed,
>however, this may lead to a new status-quo indeed.

or they will have to rollback to when it was okay and have a rethink
on their algo's.

>Best wishes,



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

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