Care to get together to decipher this? :)

[dazzlindonna]

http://www.threadwatch.org/node/7258

pacemaker-alarm-delay-in-ms-overall-sum 2341989
pacemaker-alarm-delay-in-ms-total-count 7776761
cpu-utilization 1.28
cpu-speed 2800000000
timedout-queries_total 14227
num-docinfo_total 10680907
avg-latency-ms_total 3545152552
num-docinfo_total 10680907
num-docinfo-disk_total 2200918
queries_total 1229799558
e_supplemental=150000 --pagerank_cutoff_decrease_per_round=100 --pagerank_cutoff_increase_per_round=500 --parents=12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23 --pass_country_to_leaves --phil_max_doc_activation=0.5 --port_base=32311 --production --rewrite_noncompositional_compounds --rpc_resolve_unreachable_servers --scale_prvec4_to_prvec --sections_to_retrieve=body+url+compactanchors --servlets=ascorer --supplemental_tier_section=body+url+compactanchors --threaded_logging --nouse_compressed_urls --use_domain_match --nouse_experimental_indyrank --use_experimental_spamscore --use_gwd --use_query_classifier --use_spamscore --using_borg

noncompositional compounds (anyone know what this might be?)
compactanchors...hmmmm
indyrank
compressed urls
domain match
spamscore / experimental spamscore
pagerank cutoff increase / decrease
parents (related sites? links?)
and of course borg (which i think is a "place" - a datacenter probably)

[skitzzo]

This has got to be HUGE... but I have no idea really what it means. I gathered that this is taken from a cashe in google but the site it was from and when etc etc would be useful. I think I'm over my head on this one.

[Wit]

Indyrank - must be some cyclic, iterative process to determine the 'rank'
Domain match - hmmmm, could have something to do with 'judging' a complete site instead of just the different pages
Spamscore - hehehe the number of dashes in the URL
Borg - 'should' be a collective rather than a single datacenter, at least for Trekkies.

</speculation>

Of course it could all just be a prank by someone who knows how to cloak a page and then supposedly "leak" the info....

[earlpearl]

That Borg actress was one of the all-time hot TV space girls. Bring her back!!!!

[skitzzo]

In all seriousness, without further details what does this tell us? (assuming this is legit)

That google classifies searches (we already know or at least suspect this eg: sandbox affecting competitive vs. non competitve terms).

That google has an experimental spam score it assigns to sites. (Trust-Rank anyone?).

I'm sure there's more in there (dont have time to dig too deep right now) but to me it doesnt seem all that groundbreaking. Am I missing something? (as I said in my first post in this thread, I'm likely out of my league on this one)

[dazzlindonna]

Oh, it may tell us nothing. But let's say we all put our heads together and tried to come up with theories on what "compactanchors" means, for example. Sometimes, understanding the terminology, can help us figure out how to do something different/better.

[mvandemar]

OMG I KNEW IT!

--phil_max_doc_activation=0.5

I have theorized about this for ages now, never had any proof. Here it is! That one value tells me all I need to know. "phil"... obvoiusly, referring to Dr. Phil... it's a score on how the page makes you FEEL! THAT'S how they're ranking!

Doubt me? Yeah? Ok, smarty, then why the reference to "borg" if they don't have human brains wired into their mainframe? Huh? Huh? Explain THAT one!

-Michael

[dazzlindonna]

Dr. Phil...ha...snort...snuffle...giggle... That's a good one! I bet Oprah is involved somehow too!

[Wit]

Yeah, I was wondering about Dr. Phil, but I've never seen an episode so I couldn't comment.

Compactanchors... dunno... looks like a way to represent a 'hit' on the serps, rather than an actual ranking mechanism....

</speculation type="more">

[skitzzo]

 cpu-utilization 1.28
cpu-speed 2800000000
timedout-queries_total 14227

To me this implies that a site that loads quickly and without using up too much CPU would be better.

 num-docinfo_total 10680907
avg-latency-ms_total 3545152552

Could this stuff be the number of pages on your site and maybe how new they are? We've all been told fresh content is a must.

 e_supplemental=150000 --pagerank_cutoff_decrease_per_round=100 --pagerank_cutoff_increase_per_round=500

Would suggest to me that PR (google's kind) might still play a roll in rankings.

--sections_to_retrieve=body+url+compactanchors --servlets=ascorer --supplemental_tier_section=body+url+compactanchors

more proof that meta stuff is ignored?

</speculation type="Wit's">