| 2:00 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I know - we shouldn't rely on Google so much but after all the work I, and probably many other people put into their site, it knocks you back when you see your site slide down the rankings suddenly without knowing why...
| 2:10 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I quite agree. It's disappointing, frustrating and you feel like you can't resolve the issue, as it's out of your hands. But let's hope there's light at the end of the tunnel, and things work out favourably :-)
| 2:10 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Indeed, today i made so far not even 1/5 of what i normally make at this time of the day.
| 2:19 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yikes! Well, i hope you get some better results soon. I can't judge in terms of money, as my site was launched in April, and is free right now, but hopefully it'll be in for some profit in the months to come!
But my viewing stats have increased considerably of recent, so I guess its OK.
| 2:40 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
A little bit better but still a lot of directory sites in SERPS on top. And i think thats not what the users are looking for.
| 3:09 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>No need to report spam yet the update is not over.<<
Actually GoogleGuy encouraged the Folks to report spam already now and not to wait. Take a look ;-)
view member profile
joined-Oct 8, 2001
msg #:324 9:15 am on Oct 26, 2005 (utc 0)
McMohan, if you see spam, I'd report it now with jagger2. If it's canonicalization or ranking or supplemental, I might hold off to see how jagger3 looks for you.
| 3:44 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Does anyone have any idea of how much of Googles total traffic would be represented by a class c set of data centers .. ie - 66.102.9.x?
| 4:13 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> Does anyone have any idea of how much of Googles total traffic would be represented by a class c set of data centers
I think you're trying to see how your total traffic will be. I'd wait a few days till they all spread out.
As for my site: I will have to wait longer I guess. I had an issue with a link from another site of mine (mod_rewrite error and Google made it look like it was 8000+ links) and I guess I was penalized for a set amount of days.
I removed them via Google remove on or around the 10th of this month. Let's hope that it's only a 30 day period as I don't even rank for "domain.com," and got about 5 obscure google referrals yesterday ;).
Just need to get the motivation to update a site daily that is not ranking...
| 4:25 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Is it standard to have the query site:mysite.com
return many URLs only?
When I add a word to the query as in this:
I get full listings.
| 4:52 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing the new results on google.co.uk now.
| 4:54 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
And also on this dc: 188.8.131.52
| 5:03 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This is terrible for me - I hope these results change fast!
| 5:12 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
We are in hotel/travel business, where the word 'widgets' is more important than destination name.
We offer stuff in small places, where large widget engines have no more than 3 deals. We offer up to 30 deals per small place - we are simply much better.
my quality site got hardly hit by Jagger1.
Jagger2 SERPs look even worse.
Time to become Adwords king ;)
| 5:13 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I agree, i am absolutley lost at this point. some pages have not moved, but others have plumetted to the depths of dispair. No difference in concept between the pages that have moved and the ones that have not. To make matters worse, i am being asked to make changes to a couple of domains and I do not want to until everything settles down, but the person that signs my pay checks thinks i am out of my mind, because he feels that this is 100% my doing. I am hoping in time he will understand that this is a series of updates and all of my work was white hat, but who knows, i guess i will have to roll with the punches for a little longer before he beleives me. 2 sites have taken HUGE hits and i just want to pick up the pieces, but i have no idea what to do at this point.
| 5:16 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This is what I have noticed in my industry - I seem to be the only site moving (but for the worse). I don't do anything I shouldn't do on my site, all my HTML is validated etc and I only have a small link campaign - specifically with related links?!?!
I wish I knew what I could do as after Jagger1 my traffic was down 50% - if things stay like this they will no doubt be down by around 70%!)
| 5:18 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I find the new serps a bit cleaner in the sector I look at.
There are still a few black-hat sites that need wiping out but so far Jagger2 is an improvement.
| 5:23 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
One thing that confuses me is that i made 200 or so sub pages over a 4 month time frame and missed the last pr update by days, this time for one of the sites that was harder hit, almost all of the pages that used to do very well in the serps now have a PR of 5. This is what is making me pull my hair out because i just can not understand why a site that is plummeting in the serps since last weekend is getting such a high PR for its first go around. The site has been active for at least 5 or 6 years too. I guess i would have one question that i have right now.
Is it at all possible that g is giving heavier concequences to domains that have all of the subpages interlinked with anchor text throughout the site? I almost want to say yes, but then i see pr5 on a large amount of those sub pages. Sorry if i sound confusing, it is not intentional.
| 5:38 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
What I don't get is why does Google persist on implementing these lethal updates at such an important time for online businesses? This is two years in a row now. I understand that the intention is to improve the serps but legitimate businesses, such as mine, will always suffer for no explicable reason.
Come on Google, sort it out and put our hard-worked and honest sites back where they should be. Some of us cannot wait "weeks" for this all to settle down, if it ever does.
| 5:38 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
thecityofgold2005, now is a good time to mention any spam sites with the jagger2 keyword if you see them. Operators are standing by to read your feedback. :)
Markoi, I would give us index feedback on Jagger2 if you think there are ranking issues. We'll be looking more closely at spam feedback, but some people will be reading the index feedback already, and we'll really pore over it starting with Jagger3.
I gots to head into work. Everybody knows how to give us spam feedback (spam report form) and index feedback (dissatisfied link) with jagger2, I'm hoping.
| 5:40 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Spanish_eye, I believe Florida rolled out in mid/late November of 2003. I'm trying to press everyone on my end to get changes out sooner rather than later--but we can't put a hold on launching changes for ~3 months in a calendar year, unfortunately. That would keep us from launching things 1/4th of the time.
| 5:46 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This is getting somehow better in our industry but there are still Amazon and .gov results at the top which are REALLY of no use to the visitor..
| 5:50 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
How do you send a message with regards to being unsatisfied with the SERPS? Sorry if I am being thick - can't find it anywhere...
| 6:01 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I was penalized by Alegra or/and had a 301 problem. I've fix them, added content, rewrite all the site.
Jagger placed me on #20, now I am on #50. 5 blog spam sites are in the first 20 SERPs but overall the results are better.
Should I expect to get back in the first 20 with Jagger 3?
| 6:14 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I like the 66.102.* dc's. Overall results for my niche are spam and scraper free (at least on the 1st page).
I've been virtually untouched throughout Jager. Have to say that the results on the 66.102.* dc's (Jager2) are very kind to me. This is the kind of update I love to see, sans flux :)
| 6:18 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Kangol, can you please direct me to abc instructions on how to make a 301 redirect? I am not very knowledgeable and with this update my non-www url turned PR6 (was PR2), just like my www. url (was PR5). I don't know who is linking to my non-www url - as far as I know, only a handful of sites. I have NEVER used it for anything!
I am using plain, simple html, no css, no scripts, don't know how to use any of that stuff. I only see that the code is validated, that's all.
| 6:21 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Operators are standing by to read your feedback"
That's nothing but malarkey! I have reported 2 sites in the last 3 months! One has hidden text and links. I even said how to find this stuff in their pages.
The other has js and non=existent pages that direct to their index site. Several baloney sitemaps. It was gone for a month and it is now back with top positions.
I am NEVER wasting time with reporting again. It does no good and wastes MY time.
| 6:23 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
And to be clear- that site that is back DID NOT clean up a thing!
| 6:32 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
After further research in regards to external links pointing to a specific page I noticed that yahoo and msn are showing the accurate numbers. I.E. 10 external links pointing to a specific page.
However, google is showing me 1 external link for the specific page in question.
Would I be correct to assume if the pages that I have linked to are showing in full on yahoo and msn, and google is only showing 1 external, google is considering the pages that i am getting the links from are bad sites?
| 6:34 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|How do you send a message with regards to being unsatisfied with the SERPS? |
Using the "Dissatisfied? Help us improve" link in the bottom of search result page.
| 6:43 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have to agree. I've done about 10 spam reports this past week. I still show the same stuff in the top 10. On specific searches (reported to google). The same site (using 5 different domain names) has spot #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10.
On another search, I can show: Affiliate links (not an affiliate site mind you, an affiliate link) ranks #5, a 404 page ranks #7 . A forum user ID ranks 3 & 4 is a forum page totally unrelated to the search (username happens to be the particular search).
For one keyword that I actively monitor, a user profile on slashdot (again a forum username) ranks #4, behind some very legitimate, relevant sites.
Jagger 2 ain't lookin much better.
| 7:07 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
300M - Google only ever shows a representation of links when checking link:www.yoursite.com . In reality they index many more.