I have several large sites on programming languages. Sites have been up since for 6 months now. Each site contains between 30k to 70k articles, precisely selected from very large archives. Full XML sitemaps were submitted to Google months ago.
These sites are visited by lots of programmers every day including Google, Microsoft, HP, Intel, Sun, Oracle, and other major players in the industry. Some people do as much as 300 page views in a single day. In plenty of cases, a single individual does upto 30 page views in a single session.
Before the index drop, the server log contained about 5k page views from all sites.
At some point, some of these sites were indexed to about 20k articles per site. But then, about 2 months ago, index started steadily declining and a couple of weeks ago, it felt down to 600 articles on some sites.
Then, it started slowly coming back up again, but at no point it went up above about 2k articles/site.
Strangely enough, just a couple of days ago, on one site index went up to 59,600 from http://mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com from 1410 the previus day. But on the next day, it went down to even lower, 1,060 articles. How THIS kind of thing could happen. Actually, 59,600 articles sounds reasonable for that particular site.
Something similar happened on all other sites and indexed now stands at between 300 to 3000 articles per site.
Is there some new set of rules on Google that allows for this kind of index fluctuations?
Also, are all the articles unique? Is the content unique and not found anywhere else?
I often see big fluxuations in Google when the site is fairly new and doesn't have an earned/established value OR if something has gone awry (like the site sometimes not being reachable, etc).
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
As far as sites being interlinked, that is the way it was from the day one and nothing changed in the main index page that lists all the sites and mirrors to different collection.
The sites are related. They are basically sub-sites of the parent collection, which contains the information on various languages. Secondly, MFC/VC and C++ sites are both related to C++ language, only slightly different environment. Furthermore, quite a few programmers use all of these languages and they are related, all derived from the same parent language. These are just basically different flavours of the same thing, even though some may argue that they are very different.
The articles are unique. In some cases, some articles are included in more than one chapter because they contain the information on several different issues. So they need to be accessible from a different chapter index. But each chapter contains different articles (guaranteed) on a specific chapter topic, just like any other book.
Btw, there is a correction for the following statement in original post:
"Before the index drop, the server log contained about 5k page views from all sites"
That was meant to be 5000 page views per day.
But what is most intriguing is a sudden increase on the http://mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com site up to 59,600 articles indexed and as sudden fall to even lower number than before the increase, all within a single day.
Why would THIS kind of thing happen and how is it technically possible? I happen to be a software engineer with lots of experience and can not come up with a single explanation for such a behaviour in ANY kind of system I know of, especially if you consider google allegedly uses AI (Artificial Intelligence) to do its indexing, and I happen to have plenty of experience in AI and Expert Systems.
From the behaviour of google index, and I watch it constantly, I can only make a single conclusion: Google is manipulating the index artificially to keep the page view count low, so these sites never have a chance to be widely known and get too much prominence. I just can not imagine any other reason for such a behaviour of index.
It was interesting to see that while google index dropped about 30 times, the page view dropped only by 3 times, and even now, while these sites are indexed to only about 3% of what the correct index should be, the page view count is still relatively steady, which I could conceivably see as google's main indicator to keep the site index at particular value to cause the daily page view count to never increase to "dangerous" values.
The correlation of daily page view count and total index count on google is just way too perfect to be ignored, especially in the context of that sudden jump in the index by 50 times, and its drop to even lower value, all within a single day.
So, google DID index these entire sites and it does have all the pages from these sites. If you do a particular search using search_string site:mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com, you will see a totally different index count than the same search only without specifying a search string for the same chapter articles. The whole behavior of index is way too fishy and way too unexplainable.
Also, I know of no way for the index to drop by factor of 30, especially considering that information on the sites did not change.
my bad with the improper verbiage. Didn't mean to call a fish a bicycle.
domain farm could be part of the issue.
Just because it was that way from day 1 doesn't mean that it is impossible that it started affecting your results today. If they are all subsets of one main "idea" or site - why not make them subfolders and sections on one big, useful, central site? That might be Google's argument (and the user's as well).
Google is not a person, it is an algorithm and has no incentive to try and keep your page count low.... so those conspiracy theories cannot possibly be well grounded here. Algorithms change constantly, so does your competition and your site. There are MANY reasons for major fluxuations including issues with your sites being properly accessed (have you checked your server logs recently?).
I'm still feeling fishy about the content - how is all of this possible 100% unique? Did you write it all?
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
Phil Payne, why is this idea of "stolen from the Library of Congress" is the first thing that entered your mind?
Are you a theaf?
Or are you obsessed with guilt manipulation techniques?
What does this have to do with the issues at hand?
These sites are probably the best sits on the net related to these particual languages and that is precisely why the collections are name Goldmine, and that is precisely why these sites are visited by the cream of the crop, the leading world software related corporations, banking industry, governments, educational institutions, leading manufacturers, such as Sony, Panasonic, Seiko, GE and others.
According to correlation between the google index drop and actual page view drop, this simply indicates that many of the pages from these sites are already bookmarked and I know for fact that these sites are by now a recommended research material for several universities and other educational institutions.
Just within the last 24 hours, there was a sudden hit on the http://jsgoldmine.uuuq.com chapters from Navy Network Information Center (NNIC) in Norfolk, Virginia; Virginia Beach, Virginia; Chesapeake, Virginia; Waldorf, Maryland; and Greenbelt, Maryland, all within 1 minute interval. Why would THAT happen, especially considering that site was put up within the last 24 hours. But that is entirely different matter indeed.
There IS a reason of not making them just subfolders of the same site. Apparently, there is plenty of hateful feelings between different languages, just like with any other different opinions. Putting them in the same place is like putting cats and dogs in one cage. Secondly, I do not see what does it change from ANY point of view? C++ guys, being purists, have their own sandbox to play in. Java guys, who consider themselves pure blooded, have their own pure, unpolutted environment. They don't even need to know that C++ still exists. MFC/Visual C, which is associated with the most hated name in the world, Microsoft, have their own site and do not have to mix with those arrogant Java and holier than thou C++ guys.
The way the world works is strange and does not always makes much sense, but that IS the way it works.
Ashley, as far as "Google is not a person, it is an algorithm and has no incentive to try and keep your page count low....", I can only tell you this: Algorithms do not behave this way. If google index jumps by a factor of 30 back and forth within a single day, it is not an algorithm. Even if that algorithm is adoptive, which it looks like google algorithms are, that can not happen like this.
From the behaviour of google index and my own counter stats, I can tell you this: from what I see, google is using adaptive algorithms that go over your site within 30 to 60 days period of time. Say, for example, your server has problems and is not accessible for prolonged periods of time for all sorts of reasons.
If algorithms are too fast, you could loose your entire site in a single day. If they are too slow, you could see all sorts of garbage articles that do not exist any longer on the site. Secondly, if google starts banging on some very large site, it may simply choke it to death. So, a special algorithms calculates the frequency with which your site is visited by google to update its index soone enough on one site, and not to overwhelm the site on the other site.
" so those conspiracy theories cannot possibly be well grounded here"
What "conspiracy theories"?
Can you sustantiate your claim with ANY kind of evidence? Why do you need to concoct this kind of thing to justify something away, even though you have not presented a single fact on the matter?
"There are MANY reasons for major fluxuations including issues with your sites being properly accessed (have you checked your server logs recently?:
Sites are accessible and they are constantly checked, especially after major updates.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think you are being at all receptive to the help that you are being offered.
Here's the thing - you have reasons for setting things up the way that you did. Google has reasons for tuning its algorithms they way it does. Did you come here to justify why you did things on your site your way or to learn more about how Google may interpret this and what you can do to better accommodate its algorithms?
You have to be open to making some changes. Every site has individual reasons for doing something this way or that way - Google can't determine that (it just isn't a scalable OR fair way to do things). So, Google standardizes stuff based on what it thinks is the best user experience and then provides documentation and resources to help webmasters take advantage of this structure.
So, you can stomp your feet and say you're brilliant (you probably are, I'm not debating this), but if you want to show up in Google you have to play by Google's rules (and put forth half an effort to better understand how Google works - its actually pretty neat you know. I bet you'd be into if you put down the arms and started learning).
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
Ashley, well, you brought up a very interesting points and I hope you don't mind me getting into it to polish some interesting issues. It could be better to start a different thread, but just to keep the context, I think it would be more beneficial to see all related posts together.
As far as "reasons for doing things go", yes, everybody has his reasons.
As far as "I bet you'd be into if you put down the arms and started learning", well, let us see here.
First of all, I did so much learning as far as information goes, I am not sure there are many that could comrehend that. But, from the very start, you make certain assumptions: google is "right", and you are "wrong". Well, how do you know?
Sure, I am not here to teach google how to do things. They are welcome to do anything they please with their sandbox, called google, except for one fine point, and that is: Google is a sole global information monopoly and its impact on every single thing that is going on in the world, is such that by simply pushing a single red button, they can literally annihilate you for all practical purposes.
Every single aspect of the way the world works depends on google in today's information driven world. There isn't a single thing we do without making a google search, more or less, even if you sell candies.
This brings a slightly different twist on the whole issue. You see, being in the position google is, it seems like it is long due google would open up its principles, "rules" and variables to public scrutiny by the international committee. Because google is no longer just some innocent business, trying to make a buck. It is something that affects the very life on the planet Earth in nearly all its manifestations.
So, principles of: hey, this is my business and I do what I want, and if you don't like it, "switch to a different channel" do not quite apply. Why do you think Microsoft was forced in the courts to open its Windows source code to public scrutiny? Well, the same exact reason.
Why do you have to waste months on guessing games as to how google works, when you can eliminate most of your pitfalls if you knew some of its principles, rules, etc.?
Why doesn't goole implement some kind of Expert System to answer questions of some webmaster as to the best way to built his own lil toybox on the global ocean of internet?
What is your estimates on the time to implement such a system in terms of time and resources versus benefits to everyone? Well, in MY estimates, and I happen to know what I am talking about, building and expert system for this purpose is a relatively small project considering the size of google operation, and it would take somewhere between 3 to 6 months to implement. The initial version could be up withing a couple of weeks LITERALLY.
The benefit? Can you even BEGIN to comprehend the benefit, at least to those poor webmasters, that waste months if not years trying to guess how google works? What is this whole INDUSTRY of SEO?
Do you understand? The INDUSTRY, not just a few guys, trying to make a buck. The industry trying to cheat the google bot and get you higher in the search result list. Is this some kind of a joke? And basically very few of them even know what they are talking about, primarily because google keeps its "rules" hidden under 12 foot armor, probably worse than CIA keeps ITS secrets.
What is this whole giant trip of futility is all about? Ever thought about this? When you have to go hire some pardon for expression, ...., (I don't even want to write it), just for you to exist in the global scheme of things, even if you have the most brilliant piece of information that could benefit the whole would?
What is this trip again? Is it some kind of a bad joke?
Secondly, why do you assume that I have to start learning how google works? Do you know how much time I have already wasted on google and reading all your guessing messages of someone, who is with a blindfold?
How many hours did I have to waste, yes, waste, more or less reading all the "official" abstract nothings or watching those slow torture movies about nothing specifically, or of lil value, more or less?
I could probably write a pretty powerful program in that time.
Sure, it would be englightening to see some of your views. But you know what? I basically already know most of what you are going to tell me, and even if you have a fair clue of what you are talking about, all what you are saying is just your opinion and your own guessing game. Unless I see the "official" "rules" and principles, which in no uncertain terms outline how google indexing works and what are the specific criteria that may go as far as getting your whole site dumped, or index to drop like a rock, and what are those things, that would make your site shine, all it is is just a fairy tale, or rather hairy tale, singnifying nothing at the end. And I say this after woring with google for quite some time and wasting countless days, waiting for the next goole web master page update.
And, the ugliest thing of all, you can not even do much, becasue google artificially delays certain events, such as web crawler charts. Just recently, you only had to wait a week to see what your last change did to google bot. Now it is TWO weeks. Why? What are the TECHNICAL reasons for it? And I tell you: NONE whatsoever. Zero, zip, zilch.
How come google sometimes crawls your site at about 1000 pages/day, and then, out of the blue, it does 2-3 pages a day? Do you realize what it means for a site with about 50,000 pages? How many lightyears is it going to take to index your site?
And how come some of your sites are not even crawled during the last month, while mirror, with the same exact information do?
What kind of google magic makes your index to jump about 40 times up and down in a single day? What kind of algorithm is this? What kind of AI can POSSIBLY do such a thing?
Do you have answers to ANY of these questions?
Yes, I AM going to read what you are going to say. But chances are, 99% of what you are going to say I already know. And most of it is just a guess. I bet none of you can state anything with certainty, with very few exceptions of the most trivial things, which I ought to be able to learn by reading a single well written page representing the "official" position of google.
Ok - I got to the 2nd paragraph and gave up. (I did see this gem too: "But chances are, 99% of what you are going to say I already know.")
Google isn't right universally - but for their search engine, yes: they are right.
Yahoo is "right" for their search engine, etc.
Google is a free service. You're not required to be listed on play by the rules. You're right, I don't KNOW any of this. No one does. The business model is opaque. But if you cool it for a minute you could capitalize on loads of experience and willingness to share here....
I appreciate your tenacity. I wish I had the patience to comb through this right now but I have a handsome husband and hot dinner waiting for me.
Good luck & Cheers!
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
Ashley, have a nice dinner with your nice husband. :--}
And I DO appreciate your willingness to "share", whatever that means. :--}
And I already know: google is ALWAYS "right".
And I know, poor google is "providing these great services for free". Wonder how they made that $80 billon bux though, doing all this "free" great service for humanity. Nothing new to that one.
And yes, tell me about Yahoo and Pahoo. I REALLY need that valuable information.
Ashley, are you cheating again? You said you only got to the 2nd paragraph and gave up, probably implying the whole thing is so... you know what, right?
But...
That 99% number comes at the very end of my post. Zo... :--}
Ashley, are you cheating again? Have you even seen the site before you start making things up?
And you happen to be in SEO business?
Sorry, I did not know that initially, and, luckily, did not type that word. Lucky me. :--}
Would be curious to know that high powered SEO people have to say about this google magic, which I am having a hard time to classify as anything else.
Also, kinda interesting to see the SEO people on this forum to begin with. Are you also providing some "free service to humanity", just like Google does?
Ashley, well, I'll take your word for it. Would be curious to see that google magic checking the http://cppgoldmine.by.ru that is not even indexed by super AI google bot during last 2 months.
Guess how far its index has fallen? Lemme see here at this very moment...
Oh, great improvement, I tellya: Results 1 - 10 of about 329 from cppgoldmine.by.ru. (0.10 seconds)
That is 7 more pages indexed out of well over 100,000 on that site! Yupies. Just a couple of lightyears, and we're going to get that site indexed by about 1% of its actual size.
Never mind that some these sites are on "top 10 outgoing sites" on Microsoft list.
Now, we are not even talking bout google ranking. ALL LOW, as low as it gets. Next to none existant. Now, do you want me to give you are snapshot showing what kind of people and from what kind of places view these pages by the truckload? And I don't mean to give you snapshots when His Royal Highness, Da Google visited these sites.
Anyway,
The last report was:
June 29 2009 23:25 ------------------ 1,060 from mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com 1,570 from mfcgoldmine.by.ru
2,890 from cppgoldmine.uuuq.com 322 from cppgoldmine.by.ru
3,190 from javagoldmine.uuuq.com 14,300 from tarkus01.by.ru
You know how many pages are on these sites? Guess!
(Well, over half a million. Just don't tell anybody. Cause I will be ashamed of my dismal "google performance" despite the fact that some of these sites are there for more than a year.
Now, the knockout is this one: http://javagoldmine.by.ru
You know what kind of Google magic happened to THAT one?
Well, it was COMPLETELY dropped from Great Google Index. Why? Well, with your connections to Mr. Google, I bet it is going to take all the 5 seconds to figure that one out.
Interestingly, I even submitted on my knees prayer to google: Wouuld you kindly look at these sites and see what kind of magic made google bot to stop indexing them, and I even received His Royal Answer: Your sites WERE considered. If they don't show up in Great Google Index, you know what to do, right?
(Nope, do not think of jumping from the Golden Gate bridge. That is San Francisco, not Mountain View)
Well, OK. Let us start disassembling Da Google Phenomenon.
Now, according to my information, Google uses "500,000 rules and variables" to do its indexing magic.
Right from the start, and with full confidence and authority of about as high level, as it gets, I can tell you this:
There exists no single individual on the face of the whole planet Earth, or a machine, including the "Big Blue" from IBM, that can possibly predict the outcome of such a system, ESPECIALLY considering that some of these rules and variables are hand tweaked.
And I suggest Google Grand Architects look at the above statement REALLY carefully.
To all those, who have a slightest clue of what we are talking about, this something equivalent to hand tweaking the Back Propagation model (AI, Artificial Intelligence) by HAND, and hoping to eventually make the model to converge. In how many light years?
So, from the very start, there exist not a SINGLE Grand Architect at Google, and I personally challenge ANYONE from Google, including the Grand Fathers of the project, started at Stanford, that can possibly predict the outcome of such horrendously complex model.
Because it is not humanely possible. Even if you throw a Big Blue at it. It will simply deadlock within seconds and will start smoking in all the infinite sets of contradictions.
Seconly, the blip in Google index from 1400 articles indexed to 59,600 (on http://mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com, June 28 2009 06:48 GMT) and than its subsequent drop to even lower value of 1,060 articles within a single day, could possibly happen in following two cases:
1) The Google AI does not work and the indexer is broken, and in the most profound ways, affecting millions of sites worldwide.
2) Index was artificially manipulated and forced to get reduced to even lower value than it was before the blip.
And there are reasons to make such a statement. First of all, it is quite conceivable that that interactions between certain rules in the rule base would suddenly release a very large number of indexed links once some "quarantine" period expires. This behaviour was observed and logged on several occasions, where Google index would suddenly jump, like a step function, to mugh higher value in a single day.
But, the subsequent drop from 59,600 to even significantly lower value of 1,060 (as compared to 1410 articles before the blip) can not be easily explained. If it was a rule in a ruleset, than it would be logical to expect some other rule might reverse the action, overriding the effect of the 1st rule, as a result of rule conflicts in a rule set.
But...
Why would that index drop not back to 1410, but to 1060 in a SINGLE day?
Does any expert at Google have any answer for that one?
Yes, it is understood that google index is not perfect and there are fluctuations on a day to day basis upto +/- 10% of index value, depending on a site size.
But these kind of fluctuations simply indicate the system is unstable. Meaning, millions of sites worldwide may experience dramatic and unexpected value fluctuations of their index within any range conceivable and for any length of time, and there exist not a single person in the whole world that can prove with certainty that such fluctuations are NOT possible.
Well, that is good enough for starters. We'll have a chance to talk about more of this Google Phenomenon dynamics as things unfold.
Top Contributor
Webmaster Help Bionic Poster
7/1/09
2
people
say this answers the question:
> But these kind of fluctuations simply indicate the system is unstable. Meaning, millions of sites worldwide may experience dramatic and unexpected value fluctuations of their index within any range conceivable and for any length of time, and there exist not a single person in the whole world that can prove with certainty that such fluctuations are NOT possible.
We don't need to prove it. Simple numeracy tells us this is an unusual phenomenon. There are around sixty million indexable domains on the planet. If 1% hist such problems we'd have 600,000 aggrieved webmasters posting here and in every newspaper that's printed.
The simple fact is - you're all on your own. One in sixty million is fifty times less likely than winning the UK's national lottery.
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
Well, let me comment on this one from one of our "high powered" SEO, who claims to have a direct phone line to Dr. Google himself.
Ashley, I am talking to you personally now, and all those, who eat this giant thing yammy yam yammy.
"So, you can stomp your feet and say you're brilliant (you probably are, I'm not debating this),
[Yes, you ARE. Just look at your posts]
but if you want to show up in Google you have to play by Google's rules
[Is Google some kind of mafia?]
(and put forth half an effort to better understand how Google works -
[Can you even BEGIN to comprehend how much effort have I put into "trying to understand how Google works"? Now, I challenge ANYONE from Google, including the Grand Architect, to come forward and speak in public on these very forums and we will discuss the Grand Google Architecture to any degree of detail and precision.
Sorry, but I do take this statement as a personal insult. You don't even know who I am and start give me these kind of kindergarden level suggestions.]
its actually pretty neat you know.
[Oh? Yes, it IS pretty "neat", you know...
I bet you'd be into if you put down the arms and started learning).
[What? ME and PUT DOWN THE ARMS? Sorry, does not fit in the same sentence if you knew me at all.
Nope, instead of putting down the arms, we are going to throw a BOMB on the table. Not even a bomb, but we will engage The Diamond Sword.
Ever heard of The Diamond Sword?
Well, in a few words: It cuts through all the matter in the physical domain like a paper. And that is all I am willing to tell you about it at this junction. ]
Yes, shorting is not such a bad idea at this junction. I'll take 10% of profit for a deal of your life and I will take your word for it and your honesty. It is a long trade. Not a daytrade, and not an intermediate trade. Nor it is a pattern trade. There will be no double or triple bottoms on this one.
And now da credits, just to make sure we understand each other really well.
Well, it is time to collect at least a part of that $200 mil I personally and single handedly saved for one of the top players on the sofware industry, and I mean the very top.
It was me that made the initial release of their product fly like a bird instead of the whole grand TV presentation on some major TV networks fall flat on its face, that would immediately cause their stock decline by at least $200 mils according to my estimates.
And, instead of getting me a brand new pink Rolls Royce Silver Spour, they kicked my butt. Because my dinky manager got freaked out when I managed to get the director of development fired by sending a SINGLE email, that was 100% "right on the money", that happened to have gone to all the top guns from several corporations involved in that initial release.
You don't need to know their names or company names. But I am willing to substantiate my claims in any court of any land.
And I happened to have studied the Google architecture so well, not sure there are many top architects at google that know it to this extent.
And, just to top it off, do you hear that thing, spinning in your box, called a hard drive? Well, guess what, and how many billions were made because of some things I have done for some companies, and again, the very cream of the crop, the biggest and baddest names in the industry.
So...
We are ready to have a friendly chat about the Google Internals.
[I know that. Do you think I can rely on people like YOU? Why would I do so?]
One in sixty million is fifty times less likely than winning the UK's national lottery.
[Hey, sounds like pretty good odds to me. After all, they DO advertise these "outstanding opportunities to win a gazillion bux, don't they? And peddle it on all the major networks too!
"There are around sixty million indexable domains on the planet. If 1% hist such problems we'd have 600,000 aggrieved webmasters posting here and in every newspaper that's printed".
Not necessarily. First of all, they were all told and MANY times over, to the point of being zobified, that Google does NOT guarantee anything and their index MAY and DOES fluctuate, no matter what they thing is reasonable.
Plus, how many webmasters do you think are willing to rock the boat and tell the business owner he is loosing millions because of those wild fluctuations? Why would anyone in his clear mind do that? You see, it is much profitable just to keep quiet and pretend you did not see any of it, cause there is nothing you can do anyway, instead of rocking the boat and possibly loosing his job, if boss learns that he lost millions "because of this clueless bozo, who calls himeslf SEO".
Get the picture?
Finally, how many webmasters even participate on these forums? According to the way you do YOUR statistics, it is less than 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 % of all the webmasters in that huge ocean called Internet.
KevinKatovic, it was a good odds bet, and you won.
Ashley:
"Sorry about that...
I just got off the phone with Dr. Google and your sites will be Number 1 tomorrow. All tied for Number 1. And no, I'm not cheating. It's for REAL!"
"Do you think this answers the question? YesNo"
Not yet, but we are waiting for Grand Entrance here.
KevinKatovic:
"maybe we should short bio tech and google tommoro if it doesn't happen ashley."
Latest statistics update:
(Notice the same blip on http://cppgoldmine.uuuq.com below. A jump from 2890 to 32,480 in a single day, Then after repeated refreshes, going back to 2890, exactly the same stats as on the previous sample.
So, these blips are not some kind of "something went wrong somewhere" penomenon, but quite repeatable, and, considering the statistical sample density, indicate either some definite instability in the system, or deliberate manual manupulation of the index.
Or does Google has some explanation of this behavior? )
July 1 2009 12:05 GMT ------------------ 1,170 from http://mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com 1,580 from http://mfcgoldmine.by.ru
32,480 from http://cppgoldmine.uuuq.com (flashed once, but after 3 page refreshes went down to:) 2,890 from http://cppgoldmine.uuuq.com 329 from http://cppgoldmine.by.ru
10,200 from http://javagoldmine.uuuq.com (after doing a page refresh went down to:) 3,190 from http://javagoldmine.uuuq.com 14,400 from tarkus01.by.ru
Your search - site:http://javagoldmine.by.ru - did not match any documents.
Now, that site was submited for His Royal Reconsideration how long ago by now? And what was the exact working from The Google Commisioner on Site Affairs? Does anyone know?
who cares. any domain with "goldmine" in it should be avoided anyway. That's one of the many secret keywords for spam/affiliate/never-gonna-find-anything-on-this-site for a domain.
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
JohnMu
(Google Employee)
+
2
other people
say this answers the question:
Hi pgelqued and welcome to the forum!
I have trouble following all of this thread, but it appears that you are comparing the numbers shown in site:-queries, correct? Keep in mind that these numbers are very rough estimates that can change at any time depending on the kind of approximation that is used. For better estimates I'd recommend using the indexed URL count for Sitemap files that contain the URLs that you find relevant for your sites.
If you find that Google is not indexing as much of your sites as you expect, it may make sense to verify that your sites comply with our Webmaster Guidelines. In particular, and I assume this is by far not representative and just based on a bad sample on my side, but the pages that I checked appear to be mirrored in Usenet groups. If you find that users are duplicating your content, it may make sense to take appropriate steps such as requesting removal of this content in the various Usenet archives.
Hope it helps! John
References:
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
"For better estimates I'd recommend using the indexed URL count for Sitemap files that contain the URLs that you find relevant for your sites."
Well, I am aware of that. Unfortunately, I can not agree with you on that one. But I have no evidence to substantiate which way is "better" to look at.
What I found it that index as shown on a sitemap is often a number of times lower than the actual index, returned by site:yoursite.domain, I have reasons to believe that the site:... is more correct than index on your sitemap.
As far as fighting with anyone for anything, or demanding anything from anyone, sorry I am not interested in any of this stuff. All I know is whatever is on my sites is cream of the crop of what is out there and for more than one reason.
Lysis, I just want to understand what we are taling about here.
Are we talking about the content censorship for whatever reasons?
Or, are we trying to define which version of the same content is "better" or more "valid", like a paperback is always worse than the hard cover, or 19xxx edition is better than 20xx one?
In my view, internet is a giant virtual distributed system, that contains just about any and all the information you can possibly need. There is not much point of regenerating a slightly different twist on the same information. The main issue, as I see it, is being able to find something that fits your needs and desires AT THE MOMENT, and corresponds to your competence level on certain subject, area, or you name it.
This IS the key to the whole game. Not those "rankings". Because just be mere fact that lots of people talk about Gerorge Bush, does not mean George Bush is "quality material".
As I said before: "Majority opinioni does not define quality. EVER".
Simple as that. Think what it means. Who knows, revelation may come down upon thee.
I can tell that http://cppgoldmine.uuuq.com is an awesome resource by the whopping 21 links pointing to it - I have more links pointing at my twitter profile!
I've rarely seen such a pompous display of arrogance in this forum, especially from someone so utterly inept at search.
I'm sure this will cause you to go on another long rant that no one in here will bother reading, well except possibly John Mu who has the patience of a saint, but I'm done. My time is to valuable trying to talk sense to someone who is not willing to listen - I have a 14 year old who fits that bill already.
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
"I can tell that http://cppgoldmine.uuuq.com is an awesome resource by the whopping 21 links pointing to it - I have more links pointing at my twitter profile!"
Impressive. And I don't even have twitter profile. You know why? Well, for one thing, why would anyone in his clear mind want to be followed by people like you, for example?
"I've rarely seen such a pompous display of arrogance in this forum, especially from someone so utterly inept at search."
:--}
Well, when google can produce a more precise search than I can, then you might have some point. How about orders of magnitude more precise?
And, gluing it together with your first sentence? Why would I want to be on twitter? Just to see 'such a pompous display of arrogance'?
"especially from someone so utterly inept at search"?
"I'm sure this will cause you to go on another long rant"
Yep, I know. Anything else new under the sun?
Or the same ole guilt manipulation tricks in your worn out bag of tricks.
So, about the only response that is worth anything in my view, the response from Google employee, JohnMu, not responding to my last question, IS "the bottom line".
That simply means to me one of three things:
1) Google could care less of what anybody thinks about anything.
2) Even Google employees do not know the reason for such a blip.
3) Theu do know, but to open it up in public could mean some quite unpleasant consequences, not necessarily "in the interests or benefits" of Google.
And where did all those omni-potent SEO experts? This thing is not significant enough? Not quite "typical case"? Some unexplainable aberration? Has little or no impact on overall Google operation or performance?
Seems to be a trend with all the other sites mentioned as well, uuuq.com seems to have a copy of everything in a subdomain. Lousy idea.
You said something about having mirror sites - too bad, that's way too much redundancy. The consequences are neither gets indexed well, all perform poorly.
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
Hi pgelqued As I mentioned, the count shown in a site:-query is a very rough approximation. It's very possible that you are seeing approximations from different datacenters, meaning that these numbers are absolutely not comparable.
Instead of concentrating on this number, I would work hard on making sure that your website and the content you are providing is as unique and compelling as possible. In the long run, the site:-query count is not going to attract more visitors, the content you show on those URLs is the important part.
Hope it helps! John
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
I AM aware about discrepancies between different data centers, especially during the transitionary stages.
What I am seeing here is totally different and it can not possibly be explained by variations in state of particular data centers. I could give you my estimates on what "normal" or expected variations ought to be in the context of how google does indexing, and data center updates.
There is sufficient hard data to correlate different things, but this is way too technical for a general purpose forum discussions. Plus there are other considerations...
Now I see only 333 - and that's actually the true state of affairs. The site: search is NOTORIOUS for giving bad numbers on the first few frames - it always has done and it probably always will - it's used so infrequently and it's so little use that Google has no incentive to make these early "guestimates" any better.
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
July 2 2009 12:03 GMT ------------------ 1,160 from mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com 37,900 from mfcgoldmine.by.ru
3,190 from cppgoldmine.uuuq.com 315 from cppgoldmine.by.ru
3,100 from javagoldmine.uuuq.com 15,400 from tarkus01.by.ru
Note: numbers may differ as it appears datacenter update is in progress (as verified by repeated page refreshing and seeing drastically changing stats).
Numbers should settle down within a several hours from the moment of this publication.
I have reasons to believe that following stats correspond to true state of affairs. Numerous links were verified to be valid and pages did exist and they did refer to a particular site.
Note: the following stats were produced by performing a google search on a site by entering domain name without specifying site:... This stat sample was produced within the last 24 hrs.
Results 21 - 30 of about 1,030,000 for mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com
Results 1 - 10 of about 826,000 for mfcgoldmine.by.ru
Results 1 - 10 of about 459,000 for javagoldmine.uuuq.com
Results 1 - 10 of about 471,000 for javagoldmine.by.ru
Results 1 - 10 of about 680,000 for tarkus01.by.ru
Results 1 - 10 of about 543,000 for cppgoldmine.uuuq.com
One more time: ALL of the pages with larger number on stats were indexed and they do correspond to rough estimate on the number of pages on the sites, including some older versions for which the sitemap was removed from webmaster pages and sitemap files were physically removed from the server.
These are not mistakes or some phantom, unpredictable results.
In my view, it is long due Google produces a validation site where users could enter the URI of the page, hit the "validate" button, and get a detailed description of the Google's view of that particular page in clear and no uncertain terms, including how this particular version of the page may or may not impact Google indexing, or, in extreme cases, may even result in a site being completely de-listed.
Such services are available for HTML/CSS and other types of validations.
Instead, what we are seeing is some non-authorised individuals making all sorts of unverifiable recommendations including running some page via 3rd party services, trying to guess what Google would do, if they dealt with this page, which is UTTERLY inappropriate and could never be viewed as having been authorised by Google and to comply with Google's Internal Regulations and Procedures.
Furthermore, it is long due, Google puts an end to all this rumor mill and publishes the exact and specific guidelines, describing the appropirate use or misuse of certain practices, procedures, layouts, use of Frames, Tables or what have you.
This has to be done in EXACT, CLEAR and DEFINITE terms, so there is no possibility of multiple interpretations of the same thing. After all, Google does use some algorithms to do indexing and datacenter updates.
One more time: Since Google, at this junction, is THE sole information monopoly affecting the very life on the planet Earth, in any conceivable manifestation, a totally different set of rules, procedures an principles of international supervision ought to apply.
And those rules are to benefit the mankind as such, and not some limited group of businesses or individuals, who can muscle their way into top ranks with the power of the dollar bill.
Just like the case with Microsoft shows in no uncertain terms.
Does this guy know that the days of the typewriter are gone and it's pretty simple to just let the words wrap? This page would be about about 1/3 shorter and 7,000 times easier to read.
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
And it is in my view, it is LONG due Google implements an Expert System or equivalent thereof, that queries various parameters from users, possibly including a sample of one of his pages, and then produces a detailed report of what Google considers to be appropriate or inappropriate parctices, and, during the expert system query, ask specific questions in current context.
Such systems are widely available for at least a generation, and again, my own estimates on the amount of resources and a time frame for implementation of such a system, that will put an end to this horrible rumour mill, is negligible in the scheme of things.
Time frame for such project is within 3 to 6 months. Initial beta version could be easily implemented within a two week period, considering the level of competence of Google technical personnel.
As to the benefits, especially to those poor webmasters, who end up wasting months, if not years, trying to guess what would google do, and often meeting some new twist on the matter, they can not be underestimated.
Why would they give you a report on your site when they give you 10 versions of what Google considers appropriate and relevant every time you perform a search? I examine what's working for my competitors, then just do it better.
And they've actually produced such a document and given you insider information: it's called Google Webmaster Guidelines and Google Webmaster Tools. If you want Google to comb through your site and tell you every nook and cranny that you need to update so that you'll be #1, then what's the point of the web? What's the point of options if every single site is given the same keys to the kingdom? All they'd need is 1 site for each industry and the rest of every single site would be excluded. That sounds about as intelligent as your demands listed above, really.
My suggestion, take a deep breath and really, I mean really listen to what the people here have advised. They're professional, polite, and extremely helpful. If you don't find it helpful, maybe some other web resource will be of benefit to you but I've seen the usernames here help countless websites with advice just as they've given here. But if you want to continue your temper tantrum and list of demands, I suggest hopping a plane to Mountain View, California and stand at the gates with a picket sign. That's right, that'll show the multi-billion dollar industry leader: one man, pissed, holding a sign, at the gates of Googleplex. You tell 'em "I'm angry and I'm not going to take it anymore!" While the rest of us continue our successes.
- Or -
You can do some more research and site relfection and see what you can do and change to improve your site and take the advice of industry professionals like those listed here.
References:
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
July 2 2009 14:52 GMT 61,800 from mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com
This particular is totally inconsistent with average or mean sample distribution, such as:
July 2 2009 14:22 GMT 1,160 from mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com
Would be interesting to see the opinion of competent representative from Google.
And YES, I DID read ALL of the Google guidelines, at least those, that seemed to have lead to something that is relevant and makes sense in particular context.
And no, I did not find much useful, specific and to the point information in vast majority of cases. It is all mostly moral judgements of "be nice", "make it valuable to your clients", etc. etc., etc.
Very little of that information is useful. Furthermore, the 30 character "feedback" field appears to be like some kind of a bad joke, if not an outright insult.
What kind of feedback you can POSSIBLY provide in a single 30 character text field?
That's the beauty of the web, the parity, the extreme level playing field that everyone plays on. Anybody, you, me, the man in the moon all have the same opportunity to develop a quality resource. You're obviously smart, really, really smart and frustrated. I don't blame you, you've got a question and a concern and you want an answer. But everyone on the planet, you, me, and the man in the moon included, all play by the same rules and Google is more than generous enough to "frame the house" so to speak on what to do for success, but it's the individualism that allows for some resources to perform better than others. It's up to use to carve out our own stake in the world wide web. That sounds a lot like democracy and equal opportunity if you ask me.
If you're looking for more definitive answers as to why you're not performing as you think you should, if you've compared your site against Google's Webmaster Guidelines, the Starter Guide, I'd suggest hiring an SEO consultant to get a fresh perspective on your site. Of course, you gamble paying for the same info you might have already been given here, but maybe they'll find something else.
But if you think that Google is going to break down every aspect of your site for you with regards to the 200 metrics they consider, then you think mighty highly of yourself because Google doesn't do that for anyone. At all. They do, however, give you a top 10 list to compare your site against as well as Webmaster Tools that let you see your site from their perspective. All of that is more than helpful and beneficial to all users, especially since they give that info to all users at no cost. It doesn't get much better than that, unless of course you can get a Google employee to personally review your site - something that's pretty hard since Google employees are notoriously loyal to Google, and rightfully so.
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
I'm pissed? Not hardly. I'm not the one that's so frustrated I'm hitting the Enter key every 43 characters and using capital letters for em-pha-sis all over the place. I'm just trying to enlighten you as to the parity of the web and the fact that Google goes above and beyond the call of duty to help web developers find viable, helpful information about their sites so they can improve upon their successes accordingly. Those that choose to ignore it can wallow in their misery.
Tell you what, I'm done. Best wishes. The people that have tried to help you have done a great job and if you find what you're looking for, congrats. If you don't, it's not because you haven't been provided with a map and a flashlight.
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
Are you calling JohnMu incompetent? He did make more than one comment in here - more than most folks get. And he's a qualified Google employee.
When you just enter your URL in the Google box that is a broad query. Try typing in site:url.com (with your url - no spaces). That actually shows what Google has in it's index. I think you'll find those numbers to be a bit more consistent.
If you (or anyone else doing this search) finds those numbers to be lower than satisfactory, then there are a number of factors to examine: - Is your site inadvertently blocking the bots in any way? Have you checked your server logs to ensure the bot is reaching the pages? - Are all of your pages full of relevant, unique information? - Are there links to all of your pages (from your site (internal linking) and from other relevant sites (external linking))? - Is your content crawlable? - Is your code clean and valid so the bots can get to all pages? etc etc etc etc etc.
Just because you have pages and even put them on a sitemap, doesn't guarantee indexation. I stress again that just typing your URL into the search box is not an indexation query! That's why you are seeing funky numbers!
Also, Google is a private business and has the right to keep proprietary information private. All business do. It's the "secret formula". Wendy's doesn't tell you how they make their spicy chicken sandwhiches so delicious, Mac doesn't tell you what makes their computers so damn fast, Callaway doesn't give away how it builds and balances its irons. Get it? It is a private business. It is precisely it's dynamic algorithm that makes the business successful - so no, they aren't going to give you the blue prints.
That said - Google does give you a plethora of information and resources. More than any other search engine. You have this forum, which when used properly can yield loads of great advice for free. There is also an SEO Starter Guide, Webmaster Guidelines and tons of documentation on SEO and site crawlability as well as Webmaster Tools which allows you a dashboard view into just how Google is crawling your site. Got questions - why don't you try checking there first. Have you even bothered to check there?
You have shown much energy and dedication to this topic, but without direction I'm afraid that your efforts won't yield the results that you want. You have so many resources at your finger tips - again, much MORE than any other private business gives out.
So let's recap: - You are likely not even using search properly to gauge an actual site index. Try it with the site:url.com. - You aren't checking logs and other areas to make sure that your site is of proper format to crawl and index. - You aren't taking advantage of the intelligence that Google is offering. - And, Google is a private business and isn't putting its secret-sauce recipe on this forum just for you.
That stuff all makes sense right?
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
"So let's recap: - You are likely not even using search properly to gauge an actual site index. Try it with the site:url.com."
Incorrect. The search is performed by entering site:mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com I am fully aware of the difference between entering site:..., or just domain without site:
"- You aren't checking logs and other areas to make sure that your site is of proper format to crawl and index."
Incorrect. Site pages are validated under HTML 4.01 Strict. Chapter pages under HTML 4.01 transitional.
Sites ARE crawlable, and ARE FULLY indexed by Google, as those large numbers show. Furthermore, the large numbers to correctly represent the estimate of a particular site.
There IS a very clear way to index the site, despite the fact that the 2nd level index page does have an option to be used with Frames version. But the 2nd option is frameless.
XML sitemaps were submitted without even warnings.
Google does have every single page on these sites indexed.
Sites are up for more than 6 months.
There are millions of references to various pages on these sites on the Internet. Just verified within the last 24 hrs., and if there were errors you are talking about, there would not be such a large number of external links to articles.
"- You aren't taking advantage of the intelligence that Google is offering."
Whatever THAT means.
"- And, Google is a private business and isn't putting its secret-sauce recipe on this forum just for you. "
Are you dully authorised to make such a statement on behalf of Google?
I think part of the problem here is that pgelqued thinks the people in this forum are conspiring against him.
He seems very defensive when someone points out that http://mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com is all duplicate content.
He seems angry when someone says that http://jsgoldmine.uuuq.com is part of a giant domain farm in violation of Google's guidlines He seems to think that calling something "Programmer's Goldmine
Collections" means it's worthy of something more than it really is.
Maybe, and just maybe...
Programmer's Goldmine Collections is just a collection of crap scraped
from other sites and cobbled together.
Maybe...
The author of Programmer's Goldmine Collections is a blowhard who
should be ignored.
Perhaps...
PreciseInfo presents an alternative approach to search engines because
they don't understand the normal approach.
Some people may think...
That the guy who runs Programmer's Goldmine Collections is a troll who
doesn't actually understand what he writes about.
Now, personally, I don't think that, but it's possible that doing a
Google search for Programmer's Goldmine Collections or PreciseInfo or
even pgelqued might show that type of information.
Just my two cents, but I'm happy to continue this thread
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
Just because we've all grown tired trying to help someone who should obviously running Google, I hope no one plans on submitting a spam report to Google about the domain farm being run or the duplicate sites and pages.
That would be catastrophic if 6 or 7 people all filed reports about a spammy site, let's hope that doesn't happen.
References:
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
"if 6 or 7 people all filed reports about a spammy site"
wink, wink
"That would be catastrophic"
You forgot to CAPITALIZE that one.
:--}
Lying and fabricating again, as usual?
There is no "spammy" site in site. And the content is probably one of the best collections on the net, as evidenced by the traffic, REGARLESS of Google indexing, just as correlation between the google index drop and page view drop. Sorry, too late. A substantial part of traffic by now comes from bookmarks.
Finally, mirror sites are used to increase reliability of information delivery. That is its single purpose. It only adds more work to maintain the sites and there is no other benefit from all that work.
Hope this make you happier.
:--}
Btw, what seems to be the problem here to begin with? All of a sudden, all of the "high power SEO" and assorted consultants just jumped into this thread like Google life depends on it.
Seems strange.
Are you OK, people?
Just relax. This isn't the end of the world. Everything is nice and kosher.
I am enjoying this thing. Who knows, someone who really knows what he is talking about may even popup any moment. That would be cool.
Sure, I understand, that customer support personnel is not as qualified to understand the internal issues of indexing, and it is a long shot to hope to see anything that actually makes sense eventually.
But you never know, you never know. I am optimistic in that regard.
In fact, I already have a pretty good idea of what is going on. But it would be interesting to see the view of some competent individual, who is talking about things that are beyond simple screwups by the newbies, who do not quite know what they are doing.
Btw, I challenge anyone of you to find a better collection of information on the subjects covered by collections, ANYWHERE on the net, in the context of chapter topics, depth of coverage and competence of writers.
Comprehende?
And by now I have seen plenty of things on the net.
But...
That is ENTIRELY different matter, and is not a subject of discussion. Are we discussing QUALITY of information on the sites? APPROPRIATENESS of a given article to corresponding chapter? BREATH of coverage? The amount of GARBAGE, that does not exactly correspond to the issues, covered by some chapter?
The EXPERTISE of the authors you wish to challenge?
The ease of viewing articles and clarity with which you can separate different writers within the same article?
The navigation aspects?
The amount of CODE examples and practical tips?
The ability to extract the code examples from the raw information streams?
I know I said I was done, but the Enter key hitting never ending continuation
and the PISSED OFF CAPS USAGE kept catching my eye. I felt drawn to this thread, like a moth to the flame...
If you've got all the answers and you've got everything figured out, then why are you still here? What more can you ask for than getting 70+ comments about your concern in an authoritative location from people with DECADES of development experience and one of them is a Google employee, all for no charge? It doesn't get any better and free-er than that! Why don't you put your $ where your mouth is and hire someone you feel is credible. Someone not like the experienced professionals found here. That way, you'll pay for the advice and you may be inclined to listen to more than argue with (that's me ending a sentence with a preposition).
Experienced, knowledgeable, helpful people have offered you legitimate advice that if you would listen to it would benefit you and your sites. But if you feel your side of the argument is worth your current ranking and indexing situation, then by all means, keep going at it your own way - it's obviously working, right? Right. I mean, you're doing it all the right way so you don't have any issues, right? Right. Everything's perfect? Perfect. Chryastal clear? Chrystal. Developers are flocking to your resources, right? Right.
(record scratching)
Or, maybe not.
If your sites are so authoritative and set up so perfectly and are such an invaluable "gold mine" then why aren't the tech savvy people using your site linking to it? Then why are you even here? If your site is SO fabulous and SO wonderful and SO helpful and SO great, then why does mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com have ZERO inbound links from any site other than your announcement of a major update? Surely to God Almighty some of the tech savvy folks using your site would link to your site if it's the next great thing. Or maybe, just MAYBE it's not. Or maybe, just MAYBE something is wrong or broken or flawed. It happens. People make mistakes all the time. And the only way to get it resolved is to listen and try to find a workable solution. You haven't listened to ANYTHING anyone has said in this thread; all you've done is be combative and argue which will do nothing but keep you in your current situation.
Nobody is hating you. That's not Google. That's not nice. And Google is nice, so Google is not hating you. Bottom Line: helpful advice is found on this page from knowledgeable exerienced people. It's your choice to heed their advice or stand there and hold your breath and stomp your feet in frustration.
References:
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
You guys are totally off-topic, haven't you noticed?
Why are you spamming the important user support discussions?
Are you trying to hijack the thread, by ANY chance?
Ashley, is THAT the reason you demanded I stay on a single tread?
Don't you realize it produces NOTHING of value as far as YOU are concerned, including your reputation and your place on user support forums?
Just to remind you what this thread is about: "Question: Google index drops like a rock"
Have you noticed?
Btw, ALL the detailed information was provided. So far, not a single competent anything, related to the specific information regarding this specific situation, has been provided, by you, oh great "volunteers".
So, again, what is that you are doing here on these forums? Cause the way you talk does not quite look like ANY kind of "positive environment for EVERYONE".
Top Contributor
Webmaster Help Bionic Poster
7/2/09
1
person
says this answers the question:
Oh, I'm so tempted to blow this whole damn thread to smithereens.
It would be so easy and painless ....
But I'll leave the pleasure to Google staff or the other TC's who've invested more of themselves and suffered more of this BS than I have, at least in this thread.
It's got to the point where everything this guy says is just slipping right off into the bottomless BS bucket I keep handy. Makes for great compost.
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
When you say. "mirror sites are used to increase reliability of information delivery" you are admitting that you are knowingly going against Google's quality
guidelines
(http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769)
which says, "Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with
substantially duplicate content." On Google's Spam Report page, "Duplicate site or pages" is specifically stated as a deceptive practice.
What does it say about your site that not one real link is pointing at your information? No blogs, no other programming pages, no whitepapers???
I think the reason your site has slipped in Google is because it's not good, not relevant, not usable in violation of Google guidelines and all based on sub-domains of a weak main domain.
"You only need to submit one of these, they are all the same and are all broken in the same way, and I for one consider supplying many almost identical sites for review to be spamming.
Come back with one of them when you have finished it."
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
I told some of you already: I am not interested in your guilt manipulation trips and finger pointing. There IS a SPECIFIC issue on the table, and that is ALL I am interested in discussing.
Furthermore, I am only interested in hearing the opinions of those, who are technically competent in these specific issues.
As to your fabrications and all that time you have wasted, trying to dig up at least SOME dirt, I can just tell you one thing: that "independent" opinion is the same kind of opinion as YOURS, and that is TOTALLY biased. The sites are up at this very moment, and, instead of looking at the real sites, you wasted how long, trying to dig up some of the lowest grade crap there is?
Yes, at the moment that particular individual was talking about "all these sites are broken", it is possible that ONE of the servers was down, and these things happen. This, by itself signifies nothing.
As to to "lies as to the amount of traffic", here we go:
http://tinyurl.com/nvcowk
(454 pages/day)
Mind you, this is AFTER this tremendous, more than 40 times fall in Google index. On the top of it, vast majority of traffic does not even show on counters (about 90% as last server logs study shows) because on old versions of the pages, that are still on google, despite the fact that old sitemap and sitemap files were removed MONTHS ago, there are no counters. On the top of it, in those browsers that have 3rd party images disabled (counter image), those page views do not show on the counters.
But ALL of this has NOTHING to do with the subject of this thread.
ALL your futile efforts trying to discredit something that has gone through test of time and, by now, a recommended study/research material in several universities and other educational institutions, are just that, attempts at futility.
So, instead of using your experience and trying to identify the problem, you waste HOURS, trying to dig up some of the lowest grade crap. And for what?
Is THIS what you call "positive environment for everyone"?
One more time: are you a pervert? Sadomasochist?
:--}
What are you doing here anyway?
Do you want me to give you a hook so you go away, trying to dig up more garbage?
One more time: there are several millon references to these sites on the net. Secondly, it has no relevance on the issue on the table one way or the other.
Now, whatever they are doing to cause this magic, there is a bug in this seemingly working thing that causes this, and the way it behaves, it is an ugliest hack conceivable, and there are traces of it all over.
If these issues are of no interest to you, go find some other places to harass people. But not hear.
This is a thread for specific issue, to which there is no competent answer to this very moment.
If none of you are interested in either trying to identify such an issue, or at least proposing some hypothesis, then there is no need for you to waste your time trying to attack someone, who is interested in finding out the real and exact answer on a real and exact question, and who provided plenty of hard data.
Web has one major weakness, and that is a single point of failure, the web server. If web server is down, for whatever reason, be it a hacker attack, a DOS attack, SQL injection attack or simple flood, the whole site becomes inaccessible, and sometimes for prolonged periods of time.
Now, since there is only one copy of information on a single site, such information collection becomes vulnerable.
There are some other schemes on the Internet that provide MUCH better "survivability", such as NNTP protocol, where servers are distributed all over the world, and there are hundreds of thousands of those carrying the same exact information. Such a system, just like Internet itself, is virtually undestructible. Even if half of all the servers on the Internet are taken out, the system will still function perfectly well, except it is going to have a slower response.
Having mirrors is a common practice on many different distribution sites.
If Google starts penalizing mirrors, it is going to be a disaster to the world of information distribution in all of its manifestation.
Sites or systems that are subject to single point of failure MUST be protected with AT LEAST one mirror, the more mirrors, the better, except management becomes more complicated.
Secondly, as far as indexing goes, there is no advantage of having mirrors. It does not provide you more page views. It MAY be used as some kind of imaginary "advantage", just to pump up your chest, but in essense, it does not give you any advantage whatsoever.
Google should be able to easily identify which sites are some kind of a trick to pump up the ratings or what have you, and which are the sites that are mirrors. It is one of the simpliest things to do, ESPECIALLY if those mirrors provide links to other mirrors, and ESPECIALLY if those mirrors have common elements in domain name.
For example: http://javagoldmine.uuuq.com and http://javagoldmine.by.ru are EASILY distinguishable as mirrors.
If google decides to penalize such sites, it will only contribute to weakening of the whole underlying structure of information and associated security related aspects.
Simple as that.
Related issue is content censorship and identification of the "original" content in the context of pub domain information.
The way you consistently behave does not indicate mere innocent curiosity.
Read the log information above, or, better yet, ask Dr. Google, as you have claimed to talk on the phone with the other day. He can get you all those references in a wink of an eye. Actually, just tell him not to use that shadow datacenter, very few know about.
Well, it was 5000 page views/day from ALL sites. That was BEFORE the 40 times decrease in the Great Google Index.
Plus, the information provided just above, explains the specifics.
Can you put it all together? Simpliest thing in the wold. Even a 5 year old can do that.
Considering the "fact" that you are some kind of "consultant" here, what can you tell me about independent counters and 3rd party images? Do they affect the counters?
And, after ALL this time you have wasted, trying to sniff something up again, that is ALL of your "argument"?
Did I come here to solve the problems with my counter numbers?
You are kinda funny, I tellya.
Just one more time: WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE YOU DOING ON THIS THREAD?
Does it look clear enough?
Why are you wasting your valuable time?
Well, do you want me to show you one REALLY impressive counter page?
I bet it'll blow to pieces even experts of YOUR caliber.
Nah, I don't think you deserve to see such a thing. Too much fun.
1. Take the page view count (100) 2. Take the numbers of pages indexed on a site count. 3. Calculate the ratio. You know what means ratio?
Then, take the best site you know (besides NY Times, the US government, Microsoft and Google).
See if THEY can generate that much traffic, even with these "dismal" numbers as a ration of their Google index.
Or would that be too complicated for you to figure out?
Here is another one, just to keep you busy with something creative for once in your life time.
Look at that counter page again, and estimate the percentage of commercial customers, and note what kind of organizations they are coming from. (And I can give you a MUCH impressive sample, if I wanted to bother).
What kind of ration do you see in that? Do you see ANYTHING?
:--}
That'd be sufficient to keep you busy till the rest of today, I hope.
Good luck with your homework.
Btw, do you have ANY clue of what we are talking about?
Otherwise, this place may not be exactly fun for sophisticated individual like you. Why waste your royal time unnecessarily?
How many times do I have to ask you the same question?
You said earlier: I am sorry, but I am only interested in talking to authorised Google representatives.
Yet you continue to talk with people who are not authorised Google representatives, why is that?
Are you trolling this forum so that you finally may possibly get someone to write something terrible about you?
Most of us now agree that...
Programmer's Goldmine Collections is just a collection of crap scraped
from other sites and cobbled together.
The author of Programmer's Goldmine Collections is a blowhard who
should be ignored. PreciseInfo presents an alternative approach to search engines because
they don't understand the normal approach. That the guy who runs Programmer's Goldmine Collections is a troll who
doesn't actually understand what he writes about.
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
Hi pgelqued You've received some good, actionable advice from me and from others here in the thread. Please refrain from posting personal attacks. Your sites have a lot of potential, build on them instead of attacking well-meaning users here.
Thank you for your understanding.
Cheers, John
References:
Do you think this answers the question?
Report abuse
Sorry to tell you, but what it looks to me, is just another way around. As for the "useful actionable advice", than you very much. I have read plenty of things including google guielines.
RIght now, I have a very specific issue, and that issue is not how to make my site BETTER indexed, but how come counters jump as bad as they do. Simple as that.
Another thing that is a little suprising, especially to hear for a respectful individual like yourself, is that you seem to see only one side of a coin. Why don't you ask these people why are THEY attacking me?
Does it even enter your mind?
I told them repeatedly, I am interested in discussing a very specific issue. I did not ask anyone "how to improve my site in order to get better ratings", or DID I?
So, I'd appreciate if we stay in the exact context of the thread. Also, could you please ask these people to stay on a subject of a thread instead of engaging in insults, ridicule, fabrications, mud slinging and things like that. I think it would be MUCH more productive.
Plus, it would much more in line with "friendly user experience for everyone".
Otherwise, this looks like some kind of a torture chamber.
People come here with all sorts of not so relevant information, and I happen to know what they are talking about, even though I do not claim I know every trick in the google index book. And I keep telling them: sorry, first of all, I am looking for competent opinion and specific technical details, and not guesswork.
I specifically ask you to take appropriate action regarding this kind of treatment of the issues:
1918,
"Programmer's Goldmine Collections is just a collection of crap scraped from other sites and cobbled together. The author of Programmer's Goldmine Collections is a blowhard who should be ignored. PreciseInfo presents an alternative approach to search engines because they don't understand the normal approach. That the guy who runs Programmer's Goldmine Collections is a troll who doesn't actually understand what he writes about."
I do not recall seeing ANY remarks on your part toward this particular individual.
Ashley: "At least we're not the only ones dealing with his rants"
Is THIS called for?
And what is this one:
Ashley: "I just got off the phone with Dr. Google and your sites will be Number 1 tomorrow. All tied for Number 1. And no, I'm not cheating. It's for REAL!"
Feed
