| 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.
| 3:02 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
post number 51 I made on sept 16th 2004
"Massive swings in the algo will be constant now to stimulate adwords sales which is there sole source of revenue.
They have a billion and one risks and need to post profits as large as possible to maintain growth in there stock"
Judging from there recent earnings I will still stick by this statement.
| 3:06 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Now if we could only get people to stop using adwords.!
| 3:12 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Now if we could only get people to stop using adwords.! |
Stick with something easy like quitting smoking
| 3:19 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|no two sites are equal. For better sites they will allow more |
I think you are probably right Walkman but I think they should reconsider the mostly "black box" approach, where we all spend too much time trying to figure out what improvements to the site will improve organic search placements. Better would be to spend all that time working on improving the site with user experience as the only factor. User experience and rankings don't coincide well in the Google (or any other) search environment.
I'm not asking for an algo blueprint (well, OK, we'd all like to see that), rather for guidelines regarding use of CSS, buying/trading/selling of niche-relevant advertising/text link ads,etc, etc.
But I should stop complaining, Jagger 1 brought back some of our traffic - perhaps due to resolution of 301 redirection fixes we did a few months back. Not seeing much change with Jagger 2.
| 3:26 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Just checked one of our competitors on Alexa they have a 1/3 increase. Not that they [one of the worlds largest publishers] wouldn't be already rich enough buying half the planet.
| 4:06 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Now if we could only get people to stop using adwords. |
It's possible, but not probable. If someone put out a mass email and it started going out to webmasters telling them to boycott AdWords because of how Jagger hurt them financially - it could work. It would be no different than what Google did with Jagger. They boycotted our websites because they want more of our money. If we boycotted them, we would be playing their game. They threw the first punch.
| 5:01 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
people who rely on natural search and people who use adwords are sometimes very different.
A lot of them will be very glad that you've lost traffic and will spend more on adwords not less as a consequence.
| 5:22 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Personally I think the best way is to not use adwords -- you'll get too dependent on pulling out wads of cash just to keep your traffic going. I think a consistent flow of traffic through other means is better - then maybe use adwords as an extra.
| 5:29 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I agree. I put my AdWords on pause today as a protest of the Jagger boycott of my websites. I am going to use Overture from now on.
| 5:37 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I notice significant overall loss in pr on homepages of sites in the genres I work in. Could be you are right Steve, that on page factors are weighing in more heavily, and it could also be that Google is (winkwink) displaying this as the TBPR to attempt to put a damper on trading across unrelated themes.
I see this whole update in stages as:
Stage one: Determine authorty seed sites and aged link / aged sites based on the factors in patent.
Stage two: Rank indescriminately based on that seed and on other factors. Put out and push spam report to attempt to filter off scum.
Stage three: (Hopefully) fix issues with 302, 301 / canonical issues, then do a deep crawl and open the flood gates.
| 6:12 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Obviously you did not read my entire post. You seem to be pushing this spam report stuff. <<
You are absolutely right ;-)
But should I need to explain why I'm supporting Google WebSpam Team in reporting spam? shouldn't all of us whitehat webmasters do the same?
Those filthy spammers have been killing our sites, stealing our contents and preventing legit sites of ranking and spam is poisoning the serps.
And yes I both know and agree, that Google WebSpam Team didn't treat spam reports seriously in the past. And you can read several war stories of our kind fellow members who reported spam in the past with no proper actions from Google WebSpam Team side.
But recently I sense from reading our kind members GoogleGuy posts on WebmasterWorld forums and Matt Cutts posts (on his blog) that they really mean business this time. And I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Therefore fellow members:
Please start reporting those spammers here:
In the "Additional details:" section, you would use the keyword "jagger2" (that's "jagger" and the number two with no spaces in between).
And listen Matt and Google WebSpam Team:
You take prompt actions on my fellow members spam reports, or else ;-)
| 6:19 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think I will keep using AdWords because it works so well and the more of you that pause your campaigns the cheaper my bids will be. Google exists for the people doing the surfing, not the webmasters. Our sites may go up or down and we can cry about it all we want and decide to quit. No worries for Google because there are 8 billion web pages waiting to take up the slack. Talk about boycotting Google is a little silly. It's almost as if you think they did something wrong. It's their search engine and they run it the way they think is best. So what's the plan? Boycott Google until food and water run out and then try to negotiate their surrender?
| 6:45 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>I see this whole update in stages as: ...<<
Good morning CainIV
And I see Jagger stages as follows:
Jagger1 : PR & Backlinks update
Jagger2 : Spam Terminator
Jagger3 : Dealing with canonical and supplemental issues. In addition to 301/302 redirects (as you mentioned).
Flux : Tweaking..tweaking...tweaking :-)
| 7:06 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think G really mean business this time on getting rid of spam sites.... but they need our help to do it.
It looks like whatever they have done so far is like cooking minced beef. You boil it up and simmer it for a while and the scum rises to the top. You skim that off and leave the succulent tasty meat behind.
According to Matts blog last night, there's just two days to have your say on the spam sites
|if you do a jagger2 keyword spam report today, someone might read it today. Probably the earliest round-time reaction where you might see spam going away would be late Friday, Iím guessing? |
Time to get those reports in.
| 7:06 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I wish Google had a dedicated team for treating these site that are not spamming and were caught in the cross fire.
I own a legitimate rich content site that has no spam in it. I took a nose dive this update.
If they had such a team and a form to fill I guess they will be dealing with only honest webmaster Because I don't see any Black hat SEO flagging Google with its crappy site.
| 7:16 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Just a side note - my wife made an interesting comment yesterday, potentially related to Jagger. She is not tech-centric or web-centric at all, she works in financial investment sector and is merely an end-user. Here's what she said: "Today I was really annoyed by Google, I did not find anything I was looking for. For example, I was searching for the homepage of a well-known industry event and Google just did not manage to find it, at least not on the first few pages. Gosh, what's going on?"
That is the second comment of this nature, coming from two non-web persons, both complaining about the SERPs quality. Interesting.
| 7:21 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I personally would like to address something to GOOGLEGUY:
- I know of a company, a major Spammer...I mean they do everything: cloaking, hidden text, stuffing etc...
- 95% of their backlinks are from....Cloaking pages!..placed on their clients' websites....and trust me there are 1000's of these pages
Their results: a PR7 and a few great rankings
I have reported these guys here and there for over 6 months but nothing seems to affect them not even the Jagger stuff. They are in Europe though but I've never seen such spam throughout the net and find amazing that Google is still buying it.
Should I keep on report them? (I can send the info by PM...not nice but they deserve it in my opinon:))
| 7:28 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
So Jagger 2 is percolating on the 22.214.171.124 datacenter, but it will stay there until after Jagger 3 is finished?
Or will the results on 126.96.36.199 roll out to google's other datacenters before Jagger 3?
| 7:30 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
RE: Canonical URL problem and supplemental issue
Report: Problem with index.html file
In Jagger3 when your team work on Canonical URL problem and supplemental issue, could you please take into consideration the problem of index.html as well?
Normally Google can resolve www.yourdomain/productnames/index.html correctly to www.yourdomain/productnames/ but this time it seems that Google consider them as duplicates by pushing www.yourdomain/productnames/index.html into supplemental result and making www.yourdomain/productnames/ as url only. (Because we use relative url so we points internal links to ../../index.html)
Moreover, non-www and www versions adds to the problem. Because I did not use 301 redirect (mod-rewrite in .htaccess crash with FP extension), thus Google has another copies of the above as non-www version line with either or both yourdomain/productnames/index.html and yourdomain/productnames/
Therefore, I believe that G has about 3-4 copies of that index.html in the databases and that trigger duplicate content issue while infact there is only 1 copy in existence. As a result, most of the pages are wiped out.
| 7:46 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>Should I keep on report them? (I can send the info by PM...not nice but they deserve it in my opinon:))<<
Of course. I would report them now..today as per my msg #:492 on this thread. And "I wouldn't be surprised if" Google WebSpam Team will take care of the rest very soon.
[edited by: reseller at 7:48 am (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]
| 7:47 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well update 2 came and went without any real changes in my sector. I did not really expect anything big.
I have come to learn that the first changes in an update are usually the important ones and the flux that comes afterwards is just a little tweak here and there. Jagger seams is no different from the rest so far.
I also believe that the "there, there, if you wait a couple of weeks it will all get better" line from Google is just PR to stop us screaming all at the same time and rocking the Google boat. That, among lots of other things, is what I suspect Googleguy's job is, pure PR.
What I really cannot understand is why they have gone so over board with the penalties they hand out. I am not a SEO expert, I freely admit that. I never really understood why my sites were so liked by Google in the past, just as now I don't understand why they have been suppressed so completely.
Of course I have read the guidlines a thousand times.
I have also sent a reinclusion request to Google but have had no reply.
If Jagger 3 changes anything significant I will post humble pie here, here's hoping.
| 8:00 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well, just submitted couple of spam reports. For starters I chose to report some obvious cases with hidden links and hidden text.
It was quite amusing to see a site which had a hidden link "For Search Engines Only" and linked to a keyword stuffed Sitemap ;) Kind of a thief wearing a T-shirt with "I am a thief" printed on it :)
| 8:20 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>Well, just submitted couple of spam reports.<<
And I have submitted a spam report yesterday about a site which containes almost all the ingredients of keywords spam. Actually very primative spam methods. Maybe the current filters/algos only cautch advanced spam ;-)
| 8:24 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
finally decided to post after reading for a couple of years, I'm a bit shy. This is what I see with my site we have disappeared to 300+ for most of our keywords
we have been steadily trying to add useful original content for our users over the last few months, a slow process since are a small company
we are in travel when I type in city hotels site name for many of our locations I don't get our page. In one case I get the page of a site that has copied a significant amount of text ( as far as I'm concerned) from our original reviews. I also get a page that has been gone from our site for at least a year and it is marked supplemental which I knew from months ago when it still showed in the index. This page has not been in the index since about January.
we don't have a www non-www problem
on data centre 66.102.9* I have not seen any changes with regards to my site and what looks like only minor flux for the words I watch
So needless to say I am stumped, I can't figure out what has caused such a drop
anyway if anyone has any comments on my observations I am all eyes and ready to read them
| 8:28 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Ok, the DC is settled.
Did not notice hardly anything in my sector :/
I am very much guessing it is a spam filter by GG comments, eg - collecting spam feedback, someone mentions directories still ranking well - G want feedback.
Obviously there is probably more to it than just that as some are seeing improvements in positions which probably would not be caused by the removal of X many spam sites.
Roll on update 3 ;) - That is the biggy - G got it right or not - we will see.
| 8:33 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>anyway if anyone has any comments on my observations I am all eyes and ready to read them<<
You may wish to wait until Jagger update is over and see whether something posative happen for your site.
Otherwise, I suggest you file a reinclusion request later as per the procedure which Matt Cutts posted on his blog.
| 8:46 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>Did not notice hardly anything in my sector :/<<
I asked my site this morning; Site! how is life during Jagger1 & Jagger2?
My site smiled and said; Who is Jagger? Never heard about it. Is it something one can eat like for example Bacon Polenta? :-)
>>Roll on update 3 ;) - That is the biggy - G got it right or not - we will see.<<
Dealing with ranking issues e.g. canonicalization would be very exciting for you, I guess ;-)
| 8:51 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing slightly changed results 188.8.131.52 for one of the phrases I watch.
Are these results rolling out to all the dc's now?
| 8:55 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Maybe the current filters/algos only cautch advanced spam |
lol. Looks likely.
|In one case I get the page of a site that has copied a significant amount of text ( as far as I'm concerned) from our original reviews. |
In that case, you may want to spam report about that site, quoting your site which has the original content.
| 8:55 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
followgreg, I would take this opportunity to report spam that you see; it's a really good time to get the report in front of someone who can act on it.
walkman, I'd say the same about the PR7 spam site you mentioned.