homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.237.213.31
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
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 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 31 > >     
Update Jagger, Google Update Oct 18th, 2005
When can we expect a new PR update?
jretzer

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 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?

 

johnhh

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 11:08 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

2by4:
"While I'm not fully clear on your last sentence's meaning" ah know I should not drink malt scotch!

I have recovered from may 21 disaster most likely thanks to some help from people here to "clean" things up server side - so not going the heavy seo has an adverse effect route.

The point I was trying to make was whether the links in to your "affected" sites all go to the index page, and links in to "unaffected" sites are spread around to other pages within the site and these are being given a heavier weight by Mr and Mrs Google (and all the little googliers )

Only those with a mix of effected and uneffected sites will know the answer.

On the other hand as so many variables are at play - who really knows...

johnhh

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 11:13 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Kangol
All the same for my keyword watch 66.102.7.104 and 66.102.9.104.

Goodnight...

2by4

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 11:15 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

john, far be it from me to suggest you shouldn't drink malt scotch, personally, scotch never really did it for me, but I view that more as a personal failing on my part than a criticism. I thought that's what you meant, but I wasn't positive.

However, what you are seeing is exactly what I saw on the first run throughs of this update in the data centers, and this was being discussed fairly coherently in a previous thread, but unfortunately that discussion ended when everyone started looking at what was dropping instead of looking at what wasn't. To paraphrase an old wise man: if you want to know what an update is, it's much more useful to look at something that is not updated than something that is.

Unfortunately, this update is so hard to pinpoint that any single factor cannot be seen as the unique determining cause of a failure or success.

[edited by: 2by4 at 11:19 pm (utc) on Oct. 26, 2005]

Kangol

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 11:17 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

On one DC I see my site on #19 and on another on #50. Also I see a 100.000 difference in the Results number.

Good night and good luck.

Atomic

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 11:21 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

The point I was trying to make was whether the links in to your "affected" sites all go to the index page, and links in to "unaffected" sites are spread around to other pages within the site and these are being given a heavier weight by Mr and Mrs Google (and all the little googliers )

I wouldn't know about the site that have been hit by this update but I have few incoming links to my home page but a good number spread out among articles. Doesn't linking directly to the content make the most sense?

Traffic today has not only increased but sales are up. Maybe it's luck but I can only hope that the quality of traffic is improving. PPC traffic is better than none at all but I've always preferred organic traffic when it comes to conversion.

nzmatt

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 11:29 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Backward links have reverted back to the old figure for a couple of sites I know.

Is this just for these sites or across the board right now?

GoogleGuy

WebmasterWorld Senior Member googleguy us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 11:41 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

texasville, we're paying special attention to the Jagger spam reports. Sounds like we took action on your complaint to remove the site for 30 days, and if they still have the stuff on the site, it may go for a permanent removal next time.

If you do a spam report, please include your nick (texasville); I'd be curious to see which site you're talking about.

edd1, we definitely are paying a lot of attention to the Jagger spam reports.

GoogleGuy

WebmasterWorld Senior Member googleguy us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 11:42 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Oh, BTW: Dayo_UK, I think the 66.102.9.104 data center has fully settled at this point within that one data center (we talked about flux within data centers earlier).

Atomic

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 11:46 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'd be curious to know what percentage of spam reports are frivolous attempts at hurting the competition or are just a different view of what constitutes a spam site than the official Google "spam site" guide.

patc

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 11:54 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

GG - Is that 'fully' as in Jagger2 fully or Jagger123 fully? :)

frances

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 12:04 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Dont know how helpful this is, but I manage a number of sites. All white hat optimised. Some have been completely unaffected, and two have been affected - not terribly, just dropped a couple of pages for all search terms.

And the main thing I can see that differentiates them from the others is a higher proportion of perciptible reciprocal links - approaching half of non-reciprocals in both cases.

Anyone else?

Hollywood

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 12:08 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am seeing ip addresses in search results with forwarded redirects, this is no good... reported many times, still there.

==Sample==

Select and Go
This page has moved. Please go to:. [11.111.111.1...]
home.sample.de/sample/dir/ - 1k - Cached - Similar pages

==End==

Hollywood

Atomic

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 12:10 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have reported some wrongdoers. Now let's see what the sherrif does!

texasville

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 12:14 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Reseller-
Obviously you did not read my entire post. You seem to be pushing this spam report stuff. I still say it is only LIP service from Google. Google Guy is just espousing it. I have seen no results from it.After TWO reports-nothing done. NADA...zip...3 months. One gone for a few weeks. Back in top positions with nothing changed. These are on line sites for commercial businesses. Not big businesses. Medium. Garbage blackhat. One seo/web design is making good money doing this with several sites. storefront sites. Not adsense sites.
Google doesn't really care and I suggest you not waste your time.

texasville

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 12:18 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google guy I just saw your post. Skipped the previous page after being gone- I will redo the reports right now. Interested in your reaction. Also like to know why they were reincluded after not cleaning up. Seems that should have happened first.

2by4

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 12:21 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

texasville, I think this is different, this isn't the standard spam report, that is as you note not useful, google admits that themselves, they've said many times they only collect that information to build up general looks at the problem, not to remove the offender. Submitting in that previous case, that's a waste of time.

This case is different, as googleguy has said, google wants feedback because they need eyeballs, they are actively testing a new way to do this stuff, this isn't your generic spam report, at least it doesn't look like it from where I sit, they want to determine as quickly as possible what other methods might be succeeding right now, with these updates in place. But again, it doesn't mean that they will drop the site, it means they want to build up enough examples to be able to automate the detection process, that's my guess anyway.

If I were you I'd rereport the spam stuff you're seeing, I think it might be worth it, if it's actually real spam.
<added>oh, you saw googleguy's post, nevermind</added>

texasville

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 12:34 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well we'll see. I just did two reports-one reporting two sites. both by the blackhat seo firm. We'll see if anything is done.

2by4

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 12:39 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

yeah, let us know what happens, it will be interesting to see, you put in jagger2 in the spam report right? We should probably do the same, our sites are out, and a few of the sites left are doing the same junk.

WebPixie

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 12:44 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

GG.. What types of spam sites? The terms "spam" and "black hat" seem to mean many things to many people. You just want the over the top cheaters that are ranking? Or spam sites not ranking and ranking sites with more subtle spam and black hat?

I'm not even sure I understand my post, I hope you do. ;)

texasville

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 12:44 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I put update jagger in the query line and I addressed it to GoogleGuy in the first sentence and I put Texasville in the body.

"it means they want to build up enough examples to be able to automate the detection process, that's my guess anyway."

Yea but this is really simple stuff. I can't understand why the simplest algo doesn't pick it up.
Hidden text? Using a 1x1 trans gif to point hidden links at?
But the one that really chaps me is one that google let back in without cleaning up. Google indexes 111 pages and they have about 9. All the rest are just js redirects to the index page. plus several bogus site maps. a two word query brings them #1.

stevexyz

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 12:52 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Its noticeable that "home pages" have decreased in PageRank - looks like G has implemented something in their algo to make SERPS more specific to a page - IE more on page relevant content.

I really wondered why Matt didn't use his home page for his blog - it seemed strange when I first saw it but maybe there is a good reason for this?

walkman



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 12:54 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

to report or not to report?
I know of two sites that use obvious linking schemes. One with counters (he got PR7 this time, and all his internal pages are PR6), and another just has sitemaps on dozens of other sites. I think I will not though. If my site wasn't slammed, I would've probably done it. Now it looks vindictive, so I'll wait till I come back. I hope it's just a month: I rank around #50 for "domain.com"...imagine the rest.

Looks like Google just wiped out everything when doing the SERP calcs because it detected something fishy (all fixed now). Robots can't tell intent as someone said.

[edited by: walkman at 1:01 am (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]

WebPixie

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 12:55 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

"I really wondered why Matt didn't use his home page for his blog - it seemed strange when I first saw it but maybe there is a good reason for this?"

I seriously doubt he's worried about the PR of his blog.

WebPixie

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 1:01 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Now it looks vindictive... "

I'm in the same boat, Walkman. There are a few sites in my market I could report. But I can't help but feel petty in doing it. None of them are wearing midnight black hats, but their tactic are outside Google guidelines.

ltedesco

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 2:07 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Bad results. Only a miracle on Jagger3 to save Google.

Ankhenaton



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 2:27 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have understood the following about what will happen in Jagger1-3:

bharatbista

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 2:31 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google gone crazy!

Yippee

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 2:34 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

You know, it is soooooo useless to sit and talk about an update that is sooooooo not over. In the mean time, I suggest you all look into your DNS records. Make sure G has your blessings on that (perhaps Google's 3/31/2005 patent might shed some light). I commented on Matt's blog under the name Mojo (my original name) in the DNS for Dummies Book post. I think you will find some useful info there.

You guys are arguing good points, but they are fruitless until old hag Jagger is over (DNS, get it?).

joeduck

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 2:42 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

GG -

Some day I hope you or the guidelines will clarify to a greater degree what types of NON deceptive practices Google still considers spam, and also why severe downranking is not considered a penalty by support.

In a recent thread somebody was complaining that the "top listing is spam" when in fact it was an excellent user review site.

One person's spam is another's caviar. It's not an objective measure so the guidelines should elaborate more about good vs poor content. I think this would push people here to create better sites more than thwart the process.

walkman



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 2:57 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> Some day I hope you or the guidelines will clarify to a greater degree what types of NON deceptive practices Google still considers spam

I doubt they ever will, and I don't blame thems since no two sites are equal. For better sites they will allow more, for bad sites, you just gave them an excuse to nuke you. I'm pretty confident that counters with
2 0 2 0 5 4 5
keyword here

cloaking, hiding text, and hiding links are black hat.

[edited by: walkman at 2:59 am (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]

CafeSelect

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 31688 posted 2:58 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've been reading WW for a few years now and this is my first post. This is my first post. I've followed both the latest updates very closely.

I've made changes, yes. Starting with the redirect problem. All my sites now answer to www only as of last month. Most all duplicate content returns 404's now as I have removed anything remotely redundant according to the nature of the site for the users benefit as of today.

When checking the lastest DC's I with a query like link: www.mysite.ca I still observe and spam report an amazing amount of scraper sites. This is no small problem when I have over 300 concantations of my domains (Just chopped 115 last night that were redundant) that are geologically based based on domain focus. Each site has as much original content as I have time to write about and used to rank predominantly top 10 but I never monitized until this April.

Need I fill in a seperate spam report for each and every website I have? Is anyone else seeing the 302 redirect problem still with this update for specific link: www.yoursite.ca queries?

My serps dropped with burboun and never recovered fully. I did a wholesale name change accross an entire domain that matched the domain and was hoping for better results. I see this was a good call as my old keywords are thrashed by scrapers.

Does this happen to anyone else - You get a referral from google and you feed it back into the search box and your site isn't there? This has happened countless times for me and IMHO is definately replicatable. Feedback and stickies appreciated. TIA for allowing me to post and be a member.

This 930 message thread spans 31 pages: < < 930 ( 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 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