Matt Cutts might have knocked them out temporarily with his acceptance of the name of the update and pointing to them for more information. Or its just coincidence
hehe I've just been doing all my rounds on the forums to check for replies and post some website reviews and found that it was down.
Seemed to of been down for the last 2 hours or so, I first checked at about 8:15am and it was down then.
forums.searchengine.watch is intermittant. Sometimes I get a database message, sometimes not. What are the odds that all three have issues?
Maybe it's tied into the Googlem update. Google updates they get 3-4 times more traffic than they are used to and BOOM the server doesn't like it. Might be the case with threadwatch...... I doubt WMW.
I really dont like WW. I am registered there but have not even made a post yet. (yeh, a bit offtopic there)
So it's not just me. I'd assumed I'd been booted again for not having the right IP address. Or maybe for posting about "Update Brett". Hopefully some time we'll be able to get back in again and I can blog some more about "Update Mick". So all those guys have the same server company? Does anyone know what's happening over there?
Something tells me Brett Tabke is really POd right now for the site not being up while the PR is going on!!! There probably losing 100 posts per minute right now due to this!!
it's the kind of forum where you go to find out what you want to know, not a place to really hang out. heck, you're prolly not allowed to ... they have some kind of loitering laws over there
Looks like they are having routing issues to me... A traceroute: traceroute to www.webmasterworld.com (64.33.51.156), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 5.144 ms 0.821 ms 0.803 ms 2 ppp-71-136-47-254.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net (71.136.47.254) 7.270 ms 7.929 ms 7.850 ms 3 dist1-vlan50.sndg02.pbi.net (63.200.206.130) 8.123 ms 8.497 ms 7.785 ms 4 bb2-g5-0-2.sndgca.sbcglobal.net (66.121.119.34) 7.906 ms 8.582 ms 8.177 ms 5 bb2-p11-0.lsan03.sbcglobal.net (151.164.241.133) 12.322 ms 13.167 ms 12.931 ms 6 ex1-p3-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.40.226) 13.226 ms 12.831 ms 13.061 ms 7 sl-st20-la-4-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.154.229) 13.046 ms 13.326 ms 14.071 ms 8 so1-2-0-2488m.ar1.lax2.gblx.net (208.50.13.1) 13.496 ms 13.309 ms 13.553 ms 9 so1-0-0-622m.ar2.bos1.gblx.net (67.17.70.170) 86.716 ms 87.022 ms 86.296 ms 10 axxs.t3-2-0-0.ar2.bos1.gblx.net (208.50.59.138) 78.927 ms 78.637 ms 89.693 ms 11 172.16.101.4 (172.16.101.4) 83.961 ms 83.617 ms 83.971 ms 12 172.16.101.5 (172.16.101.5) 82.671 ms 83.972 ms 83.484 ms 13 * 172.16.101.4 (172.16.101.4) 88.587 ms * 14 172.16.101.5 (172.16.101.5) 86.342 ms * 87.973 ms 15 172.16.101.4 (172.16.101.4) 91.530 ms 223.374 ms * 16 172.16.101.5 (172.16.101.5) 96.719 ms * 95.475 ms 17 172.16.101.4 (172.16.101.4) 98.197 ms * 87.752 ms 18 * 172.16.101.5 (172.16.101.5) 94.658 ms 100.335 ms 19 172.16.101.4 (172.16.101.4) 93.525 ms 225.263 ms * 20 172.16.101.5 (172.16.101.5) 100.979 ms 104.102 ms * 21 172.16.101.4 (172.16.101.4) 94.953 ms 80.849 ms 79.538 ms 32 172.16.101.5 (172.16.101.5) 102.132 ms 93.145 ms * 23 * 172.16.101.4 (172.16.101.4) 104.738 ms 106.994 ms 24 172.16.101.5 (172.16.101.5) 101.371 ms 124.172 ms * 25 * * 172.16.101.4 (172.16.101.4) 83.847 ms 26 * 172.16.101.5 (172.16.101.5) 118.986 ms 119.917 ms 27 172.16.101.4 (172.16.101.4) 215.291 ms * 117.022 ms 28 * 172.16.101.5 (172.16.101.5) 120.573 ms 118.583 ms 29 * 172.16.101.4 (172.16.101.4) 125.801 ms 106.493 ms 30 172.16.101.5 (172.16.101.5) 113.463 ms * * 31 172.16.101.4 (172.16.101.4) 126.450 ms * * 32 172.16.101.5 (172.16.101.5) 131.153 ms 92.474 ms * 33 172.16.101.4 (172.16.101.4) 123.732 ms Code (markup): Notice traffic is being looping back and forth between 172.16.101.4 and 172.16.101.5. But even more interesting is 172.16.*.* is a non-routable block of IP addresses. I'm not even sure why those addresses are responding to pings, because they should not be (and certainly no public traffic should be routed through them).
Weird... first he said this Then this Now I can't get to the site again EDIT: never mind... thanks for that link, Jim