Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary. Now with pictures!
- Posted on
- Will Spencer
November 9, 2005, 11:53 am
rate this thread
- Roy Schestowitz
November 10, 2005, 11:21 am
It reflects on what could be seen across a few datacentres earlier this week.
It often tends to reflect on pre-Jagger results, but just as often it makes
irrational prioritisation, which is worrying (if not to me, then to Google).
I'm all for giving smaller and new sites a chance and all, but for the love
of it... I'm starting to see pages last updated between 1999 and 2003, now
how relevant can these page be? How much weight does Google/Jagger place on
You think they might reverse it if it turned out a severe mistake?
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:18:30 +0800, "Timmermans"
Absolutely. My understanding is that's partly why they're doing this
thing in stages, so they don't unintentionally leave a shell-shocked
client-base when they're done.
It would be useful if someone with more daylight hours than I have
could read Matt Cutt's blog and report back. I've had my night-time
snooze, I've had my morning snooze...synchronise watches, kids, I'm
feeling kind of stretchy-yawny...
The buffalo have gone
Re: Senior Pages (was: 220.127.116.11)
You mean like this ?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----