__/ [ Borek ] on Monday 12 June 2006 10:55 \__
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:32:41 +0200, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I don't know if it means anything, but Google's crawling is on the rise
>> in my main domain.
>
> chembuddy:
>
> $ egrep googlebot.\*ooglebot statslog.200602* | grep -c googlebot
> 1490
> $ egrep googlebot.\*ooglebot statslog.200603* | grep -c googlebot
> 1908
> $ egrep googlebot.\*ooglebot statslog.200604* | grep -c googlebot
> 1590
> $ egrep googlebot.\*ooglebot statslog.200605* | grep -c googlebot
> 1082
> $ egrep googlebot.\*ooglebot statslog.200606* | grep -c googlebot
> 661
>
> June monthly spidering estimated at 1802
>
> pH meter:
>
> $ egrep googlebot.\*ooglebot statslog.200602* | grep -c googlebot
> 241
> $ egrep googlebot.\*ooglebot statslog.200603* | grep -c googlebot
> 356
> $ egrep googlebot.\*ooglebot statslog.200604* | grep -c googlebot
> 88
> $ egrep googlebot.\*ooglebot statslog.200605* | grep -c googlebot
> 135
> $ egrep googlebot.\*ooglebot statslog.200606* | grep -c googlebot
> 62
>
> June monthly spidering estimated at 169
>
> Both estimates higher than May, lower than March.
I really appreciate it, Borek! You also gave me that short giggle of hope
when you suggested that Google's gigantic-scale architecture had gone AWOL
without an idea what had happened, let alone how to fix it. It at least
reassures that steps /might/ be taken to rectify this. _Perhaps_ it is a not
a reality that is here to stay, for good.
I believe that the regularity of Google Images referrals (Paul can testify to
confirm this; I still get about 30k referrals per month) /suggests/ that no
penalty took place. Google Images is a rather separate algorithm with
separate storage and fetching methods (cached thumbnails, captions and so
forth).
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
10:55am up 45 days 16:28, 10 users, load average: 1.58, 1.42, 1.37
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
