Wondering why your site is not indexed in Google?
www.1-script.com
These search results below are ridiculous but worth seeing for yourself,
try it in Google. Kudos to the Webmasterworld fellow who dug that out:
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/34760-3-10.htm (middle of the page)
[quote]
After 5 minute investigation we have:
site:cgq7wm.org 56100000
site:eiqz2q.org 3010000000
site:t1ps2see.com 1260000000
site:etlz8o.org 80800000
site:viwhha.org 42900000
site:qge6f7.org 69000000
site:rfni70.org 252000000
site:jkthy0.org 27400000
site:geku8h.org 62700000
Giving a grand total of 4,860,900,000
[/quote]
That's four billion eight hundreds sixty million nine hundred thousands!
I am getting different yet no less staggering numbers here, so try it
yourself for a little Friday fun.
--
Cheers,
Dmitri
See Site Sig Below
--
+------------------------------------------------+
| Follow alt.internet.search-engines threads |
| with your Firefox Live Bookmarks! Set it up at |
| http://www.1-script.com/forums/ |
+------------------------------------------------+
Darren Tipton
(www.1-script.com) wrote:
<snip domains>
>That's four billion eight hundreds sixty million nine hundred thousands!
>
>I am getting different yet no less staggering numbers here, so try it
>yourself for a little Friday fun.
Yes, I get similar results.
And if you look up the IP's of each of those domains and rearrange,
you'll see some are related, either by being on the same machine, or
even on the same Class C block.
I thought Google were hammering down on this kind of thing?
Host name: cgq7wm.org IP address: 87.248.163.58
Host name: geku8h.org IP address: 87.248.163.58
Host name: viwhha.org IP address: 87.248.163.58
Host name: eiqz2q.org IP address: 85.17.7.178
Host name: rfni70.org IP address: 85.17.7.178
Host name: t1ps2see.com IP address: 70.87.73.35
Host name: etlz8o.org IP address: 70.87.73.33
Host name: qge6f7.org IP address: 70.87.73.33
Host name: jkthy0.org IP address: 70.87.73.33
--
Darren Tipton - Remove the fruit to reply by mail
Google DC Checker: http://www.tippy.co.uk/google-datacenter-check/
Advanced PR Compare: http://www.tippy.co.uk/page-rank-compare/
Be an Advanced Driver: http://www.advanced-driving.co.uk/
Ignoramus15879
get some hits and show banners? Or are they some sort of SEO ploy.
i
JimD
I think I may have posed this question before. Why is there so much
fuss about Google in China, Google Spreadsheets etc in the media and
nobody is reporting that their search engine is bust?
www.1-script.com
> Hm, what are these people trying to do, stuff google with keywords to
> get some hits and show banners? Or are they some sort of SEO ploy.
Well, that sounds like a reasonable plan to me ;-) These are classic
cloaker sites. Whatever their business objective is, my understanding was
that Google cracked down on those few years ago already. Why they start
popping up again - I have no idea. Additionally, it is all more ironic for
me when I lost nearly all my pages that these guys somehow managed to get
their 10+ million useless spam pages indexed.
There is something that stands out about their indexed pages. Note that
none of them have cache. Well, that's what cloakers do, but the point is:
Google might (this is purely my speculation here) be preferring pages that
require no cache because they take so little space compared to a regular
cached page. In view of recent "Google resource crisis and Google run out
of space" talks it would provide at least an illusion of some explanation
to what's going on.
Harlan Messinger
> Ignoramus15879 wrote:
> There is something that stands out about their indexed pages. Note that
> none of them have cache. Well, that's what cloakers do, but the point is:
> Google might (this is purely my speculation here) be preferring pages that
> require no cache because they take so little space compared to a regular
> cached page. In view of recent "Google resource crisis and Google run out
> of space" talks it would provide at least an illusion of some explanation
> to what's going on.
Since caching everything was Google's idea and they're under no
obligation to cache anything at all if they don't want to, this seems
unlikely to me.
Ignoramus15879
> Ignoramus15879 wrote:
>
>> Hm, what are these people trying to do, stuff google with keywords to
>> get some hits and show banners? Or are they some sort of SEO ploy.
>
> Well, that sounds like a reasonable plan to me ;-) These are classic
> cloaker sites. Whatever their business objective is, my understanding was
> that Google cracked down on those few years ago already. Why they start
> popping up again - I have no idea. Additionally, it is all more ironic for
> me when I lost nearly all my pages that these guys somehow managed to get
> their 10+ million useless spam pages indexed.
Maybe they are not popping up in any searches, they simply exist in
google (or maybe it is merely aware of the URLs).
> There is something that stands out about their indexed pages. Note that
> none of them have cache. Well, that's what cloakers do, but the point is:
> Google might (this is purely my speculation here) be preferring pages that
> require no cache because they take so little space compared to a regular
> cached page. In view of recent "Google resource crisis and Google run out
> of space" talks it would provide at least an illusion of some explanation
> to what's going on.
Google may also choose not to keep them in cache, as well.
Thanks, it was fasinating reading.
i
Big Bill
wrote:
I've wondered that. Given the importance online everything has these
days you'd think it would be on the nine-o-clock news.
BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/ansel-adams-prints.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/all-gods-children/index.html
Darren Tipton
>Google might (this is purely my speculation here) be preferring pages that
>require no cache because they take so little space compared to a regular
How would google determine that a page doesn't require cacheing?
www.1-script.com
> Since caching everything was Google's idea and they're under no
> obligation to cache anything at all if they don't want to, this seems
> unlikely to me.
It is so very true that they do not owe anyone anything, especially free
traffic. However, caching of the pages is the essential part of the algo
(even if minor as on-page parameters are inferior to links in Google's
algo as it's publicly known) and so they basically need to cache in order
to function like they have up to this point. If they are drastically
changing the way they operate - then they could drop caching. I simply
don't know. One thing I know though is if they discount on-page parameters
even further, it will be detrimental to search results quality as links
are as easily doctored as the pages. Another side-effect of not caching
would be huge increase in bandwidth required for Google to keep the pages
properly indexed and it will lead to freezing the search results in place
for months. This is not what we are observing these days.
Harlan Messinger
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:36:11 GMT, info_at_1-sc...@foo.com
> (www.1-script.com) wrote:
>
>> Google might (this is purely my speculation here) be preferring pages that
>> require no cache because they take so little space compared to a regular
>
> How would google determine that a page doesn't require cacheing?
>
>
www.1-script.com
> Maybe they are not popping up in any searches, they simply exist in
> google (or maybe it is merely aware of the URLs).
Maybe. Maybe not: there is also such Google flag for a page as
"Supplemental result". Those results in question are NOT supplemental!
Additionally, they cover a hugely broad array of themes and they just have
to come up from time to time. Not SERP #1, I agree, but you never know -
it depends on how weird the search query is.
> Google may also choose not to keep them in cache, as well.
Google is in a business of Web search (or so we are told) hence the only
reason to keep the pages in the index would be to eventually show them
when the search query is right. So, all in all, these pages are deemed
important and most pages of my sites are not, which pisses me off.
As for the actual lack of cache - they are doing IP-based cloaking, so I
cannot be 100% sure but I think they just had their <META NAME="GOOGLEBOT"
CONTENT="NOARCHIVE"> up. The cloaking pages redirect via 302 to the target
pages, so if it wasn't IP cloaking (and if we can trust what Google guys
are saying) this was fixed in Big Daddy and only target URL should have
showed up in Google search results.