homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.197.66
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 930 message thread spans 31 pages: 930 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 31 > >     
Update Jagger, Google Update Oct 18th, 2005
When can we expect a new PR update?
jretzer




msg:815226
 5:33 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Continued from here:
[webmasterworld.com...]



Anyone have any guesses as to when we can expect a new systemwide PR update?

 

JuniorOptimizer




msg:815227
 5:39 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Within the next 48 hours for sure.

mack




msg:815228
 5:41 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

What makes you say that?

Mack.

skipfactor




msg:815229
 5:43 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Matt's blog...what does this have to do with AdSense though?

photo200




msg:815230
 6:06 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

and why do you care at all about this little green bar update?

oddsod




msg:815231
 6:07 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

with a lot of link exchanging/selling etc being based on PR why shouldn't he care?

Brett_Tabke




msg:815232
 9:48 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

The Stones are playing Vegas [ticketmaster.com] the week of PubCon and Matt Cutts was recently called the Mick Jagger of search [usatoday.com].

DeepSearch says PR update within 48hrs.

ps: Don't miss Matt at PubCon [pubcon.com] where I am sure we will be talking about update Jagger...

skipfactor




msg:815233
 9:55 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>The Stones are playing Vegas the week of PubCon and Matt Cutts was recently called the Mick Jagger of search.

Nice one Brett. :)

Crush




msg:815234
 9:57 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

wow, named now. I think Matt Cutts is more like Alan Greenspan than Mick Jagger. Took your time naming it Tabke :)

zeus




msg:815235
 9:57 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hmm what update I just see a little shuffle in the site counts, but that has been on for a long time, the serps looks the same as for month.

reseller




msg:815236
 10:00 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi Folks

The name is:

Update Jagger

I like it. As good as Bacon Polenta :-)

2by4




msg:815237
 10:01 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

zeus, yes they look the same, if your site was not affected. That's what makes this an interesting update.

Re some stuff in the closed thread:

"<div id="Layer1" style="position:absolute; left:205px; top:156px; width:16px; height:16px; z-index:-1; overflow: auto;">"

I was virtually positive that google wasn't processing css library files, now it looks like they are likewise unable to process reasonably clever onpage css, notice no triggers here, not hidden, not display none, not negative positioning, off view window, just small. Not bad actually, now we know, google cannot interpret most css, unless it's really really obvious. That's from the site mentioned earlier, car wraps etc.

I'm seeing little or no changes in the serps that are changed [what is being named 'update jagger' now], same as they were testing a week ago, same as went live yesterday, if google is testing something, and they turn it off and on, then finally release it system wide, I'd call that an update, even though following the strict interpretation, which no longer really applies, none of these things are updates, they are just adjustments of the dial, quote unquote. Note steveb, I didn't say that Matt C etc did, the dial is new, updates are old. Updates are a physical change or addition to the algo, thus the term : update, whereas what we're seeing now is an adjustment of a setting/s.

Since it doesn't matter what we call it, why not just call it an update and leave it at that, everyone whose sites have been affected know they are affected, people whose sites haven't been affected can provide quite valuable comparisons to try to determine just what this change actually looked for, trustrank is what I'm seeing, high trustrank sites, no change, low trustrank, change. Spammy sites can have high trust rank, I see a few, but they did some stuff over the last year that made that happen.

FattyB




msg:815238
 10:09 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Jagger eh, well let us hope for 'A Bigger Bang' shortly.

Also a rolling stone gathers no moss, much like an everflux search engine...in theory.

I won't mention satisfaction, mars bars or neocons.

I am hopeful of further changes over the next few days. I have a funny feeling our site will see a lot of pagerank increases...though that would be at odds with traffic decreasing and with the whole visible PR reflect changes that are already in place...be interesting few days.

[edited by: FattyB at 10:14 pm (utc) on Oct. 18, 2005]

steveb




msg:815239
 10:14 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I like the Stones, but...

why did my mind immediately link the Stones to the word "Supplemental"

Instead of the Stones playing Las vegas, Google is lobbying to have a cache of a 1974 performance played...

2by4




msg:815240
 10:22 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

"why did my mind immediately link the Stones to the word "Supplemental""

I'd guess because you're spending too much time thinking about that term, try as I might, I couldn't come up with any workable relation between the stones and supplemental, and I actually tried. I don't see much point in worrying about what is just a side affect of a bigger change, that's all that makes that interesting. The bigger change, that's much more interesting, all those dials, it's like a new toy, let's play with it, no? [note: new meaning 1 year old or less]

[edited by: 2by4 at 10:23 pm (utc) on Oct. 18, 2005]

walkman




msg:815241
 10:22 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> I like it. As good as Bacon Polenta

I vote to make that B#*$!x Pxxxxxx automatically next time one enters it here.

Jane_Doe




msg:815242
 10:23 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

high trustrank sites, no change, low trustrank, change.

I almost agree with your 2x4. Except I'd say high trust rank sites went up, instead of no change.

zeus




msg:815243
 10:24 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

2by4 - well I have not looked at my own sites yet I just typed a few search wich I do everyday and nothing.

Steveb - maybe it should be cald supplemental update, because I have seen more of those.

2by4




msg:815244
 10:24 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Jane_doe, yes, I'm sorry, that's what I see too, although I didn't want to put too much into my limited sample, the move up however is much more subtle than the drop down.

It's good to see someone else finding the same thing though. On sites that seem to be benefitting from this improvement, traffic has been inching up all last week, this weekend, slowly but surely, higher and higher, but not overwhelming, just what you'd expect from an improved trust rank rating, little boosts here and there, some big boosts.

Zeus, if I only had one group of sites I do, let's call it niche x, y, and z, I would see no change at all. Well, no, that's not true, I see some moves up in almost all of them, but they aren't that major.

However, once I add topic z to the mix, that's a competitive, hilltop type thing, lots of adwords etc, I see really big changes, things have been rolling around there for a month or so, but it finally all kicked into place. Big drops.

[edited by: 2by4 at 10:29 pm (utc) on Oct. 18, 2005]

skipfactor




msg:815245
 10:28 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>I vote to make that B#*$!x P#*$!xxx automatically next time one enters it here.

Matt's Googlebombing. ;)

voltrader




msg:815246
 10:28 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yep, exactly: high TR no change, low TR much, much lower.

- The era of the mom-and-pop shop with a quality website ranking-well is over -- unless it can afford a swath of links across high TR pages. Bottom line as it appears to me: The rich get richer and the barrier to entry much higher.

- If the subjective seed is n-links away, isn't a poorly selected seed's detrimental effect that much greater when it finally reaches the SERPs?

zeus




msg:815247
 10:30 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

2by4 - ok maybe this is just so early in the begining, but for this update I realy hope they fix:

supplemental results,
hijacking,
302 link bug,
301 issue
and the extreme dublicated filter.

walkman




msg:815248
 10:32 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

GoogleGuy,
you need to unleash Googlebot and grab ALL the files again, supplementals included. Many should not be there, something is seriously wrong. I can send you a search if needed

2by4




msg:815249
 10:32 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I disagree, mom and pop can still succeed, but they have to be willing to put in a lot more work creating unique quality content, in new unique or improved forms, think of our local pop for example, brett. Nobody gave him his success, he made it happen. Google made their's happen. You can still get trustrank, but you have to work really hard for years to earn it. That's why I like it, it kind of works, if you are willing to do the work. As brett noted years ago, 26 steps, I'd add one or two, take one or two away, but it's not that different, it still works.

So what if affiliates fail, who cares? I don't.

zeus, Matt C has clearly said that the idea of an update perse where things get 'fixed' is not where it's at, it's tweaking of dials, everflux, updates that are not updates, etc. However, within that central machine the bugs have to get fixed, that's for sure, I've found some pretty serious ones, others have found more, so that's another question altogether.

I'm sure that will happen though in the next year, but I really doubt it will be called an update, supplementals will just one day vanish, 301, well, they work fine as long as you don't try 301ing a phantom image of a phantom page, I've had nothing but success with massive 301 projects, so I'm not going to ask it to be fixed when I think it works really well. Now if you try to 301 a ghost, it won't do much I'd say.

Hijacking will be interesting, that's for sure, we'll see how that goes, it's complicated though I think.

But my real hope is that google managed to automate directory spam detection, drop all credit for all directory spam links, that more than anything else will help the mom and pop shops who are actually trying to build a real web presence, long term, they won't have to compete with those guys who build 10s, 100s of thousands of backlinks at a button click, that's the number one problem I see on the web today, and I think it's a major issue at google currently, or it should be.

[edited by: 2by4 at 10:38 pm (utc) on Oct. 18, 2005]

skipfactor




msg:815250
 10:33 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>The era of the mom-and-pop shop with a quality website ranking-well is over

Not by a longshot.

zeus




msg:815251
 10:42 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

2by4 - the 302 issue is only a issue when you have been hit by the googlebug 302 or been hijacked, because in that situation you are filtered for dublicated content.

A site which did not have any troubles or a whole new site will see there 301 work within 3 weeks, thats correct.

2by4




msg:815252
 10:48 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yes, the 302, but I think that's actually much harder to correct than we realize, because of how 302s actually need to work. That's my impression anyway. I don't think this issue is due to any incompetence to be honest, I think it's simply very complicate to resolve, at least within the structure of the algo that has that issue.

Sort of like making Windows secure for example, easier said than done. Not to say the google OS/application layer is as bad as Windows of course.

301s I'm seeing work within days, no matter what the scale, full correction though as you noted in under 3 weeks, it really impresses me.

bears5122




msg:815253
 10:58 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Oh crud, I thought it was Jager, not Jagger.

voltrader




msg:815254
 11:05 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>The era of the mom-and-pop shop with a quality website ranking-well is over

Not by a longshot.

I should've qualified my statement further by adding:

- for competitive terms

- starting from now

I've seen an home-grown shopping comparison engine just as good or better than the major engines that occupy the top spots. I don't think they have a chance in heck to rank on the 1st page for 'shopping' unless they receive the same amount of legacy links which have had the benefit of time to accumulate. Hence my quips.

By the way, type in 'shopping' and the 6th result on the 1st page is a government statistical agency. Doh!

novice




msg:815255
 11:06 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Update Jagger

I wonder if I will be singing "I Can't Get No, Satisfaction" or "Jumping Jack Flash" :)

This 930 message thread spans 31 pages: 930 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 31 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved