homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.163.91.250
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
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 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ... 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?

 

DanUKSW




msg:815766
 11:30 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've been using this format which seems to work for UK listings although I may be completely wrong!

[66.102.9.104...]

Dan

DanUKSW




msg:815767
 11:34 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Just pinged google.co.uk from BTCONNECT:

66.102.9.99

and from Freeserve:

66.102.9.104

<sigh>..if only it were the Freeserve serps that were staying...lol.

Dan

Dayo_UK




msg:815768
 11:38 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Those two dcs should be the same as they are on the same C-class (occassionally they may not align though)

Updated DC C-Classes seem to be:-

66.102.11.* (104,106,107 & 99)
66.102.9.* (104,106,107,147 & 99)
66.249.85.* (104&99)
66.249.87.* (104&99)

Not that I can really see much difference - but there is a site I am tracking that does look like it has been effected by Jagger2.

Moving a bit quicker than GG expected? - Comments was to expect on 1 or 2 dcs for a few days.

asher02




msg:815769
 12:00 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

A suggestion for Google:

Since there are thousand of website owners who did nothing wrong and just got caught in the cross fire between Google and spammers I suggest that Google will enable a paid service for re-inclusion or human check.

I will be happy to pay a considerable amount of money just for a person in Google to actually see & check my site to see that I did nothing wrong which takes 3 min. and I don’t see any spammers throw out money and flag Google with their site. It’s a win win situation for both Google & site owners.

Eazygoin




msg:815770
 12:11 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thanks guys for the IP info...much appreciated :-)))

davew999




msg:815771
 12:15 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've just noticed that the site now with the top ranking in my sector has no <"description" tag>, <"Keywords" tag> or <"abstract" tag>.

The top sites have been changing over the past week or so but how can a site with no tags rank so well?

vBMechanic




msg:815772
 12:20 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>The top sites have been changing over the past week or so but how can a site with no tags rank so well?

Because using meta-tags to determine ranking went out of style about 8 years ago? :) (and welcome to Webmasterworld!)

McMohan




msg:815773
 12:21 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

davew999
The top sites have been changing over the past week or so but how can a site with no tags rank so well?

Title attribute is the most important. Other tags have nil to low weightage.

Eazygoin




msg:815774
 12:29 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thanks foryour help on UK IP for Google, but these just show results for .com [the world]. Any further suggestions on a UK Google IP address forthe current update?

peter andreas




msg:815775
 12:51 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Perhaps other tags (besides title) have a negative weighting now?

anttiv




msg:815776
 12:52 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

asher has a point but GG or MC haven't commented on the problems White Hat sites have had since the updates begun.

Shouldn't Google be reading feedback from webmasters and act on them and not just concentrate on spam reports? After all, it's when you lose your WH sites that you start thinking about the dark side.

I am fed up with these updates and Google in general.

Site #1 - new hand written content everyday since 1998. No SEO, I don't even follow Google traffic. 95% of visitors come from bookmarks because they like the website so much. Survived all updates until now. Dropped nowhere in Jagger 1. No change in Jagger 2. Possible canonical url problem. Feedback sent to Google. No answer, not even the automatic response.

Site #2 - clean clean clean. Dropped September 22 and dropped even more with Jagger 1. High budget Adwords campaign for brand awareness only. Google traffic close to zero. No change with Jagger 2. Manually checked by Google but still being filtered out of the results.

Five weeks of pure hell. I have two websites that people know well so they enter the site name to Google but find nothing but - if they're lucky - pages that link to my site.

RussellC




msg:815777
 1:09 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

anttiv, I have a clean site as well and it's almost like it is back in the sandbox like it was over a year ago. However, I survived Jagger 1 but got hit in Jagger 2.

Leosghost




msg:815778
 1:26 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Was off line due to moving house and the new ISP screwing up for over one month..so didn't know that WebmasterWorld was down ..nor that the usual pre xmas optimess had gone into warp drive at the plex ..
At this stage ( from here )waaaay to much reliance on links from the same geo region as the domain ( I'm seeing some instances of "you link to me ..I'll link to you ..and see you later in the bar or supermarket " ..ie linking from sites owned or operated by the same outfits in the same region being considered to be more relevant than links from actual "historical authority" sites )..

In one particularly laughable instance ..the same person is paying for the first 5 adwords spots on the page returned for a one word query ..plus they are also in the blue band ..and they and their friends and family are at numbers 1 to 5 in the "organic" serp slots ...and every site has amongst it's backlinks the same interlinked spam directories and link farms...

Add that to the clumsily applied geo targeting by "g" and soon I'll only be able to see ( for any given query ) sites owned by folks who live in the same village as I do!

Ah well! back to the cartons :)

BTW .."H" ...Your literary style is showin'...as are the insights ..;)..

g'night Brett ..
g'night lawman ..
g'night vitaplease ..
g'night johnboy ..
g'night gg ..!

What happened to make it so folksy and Walton world all of a sudden ...? ACK! ..i'ts an update fer x sake! and "G's" PR guy is being thanked and tucked up for the night 'cos he saw your emails?!..we are all just considered as potential collateral casualties in "G's" pursuit of a good bottom line .. pre xmas adwords shakedown ..just like last year ..! and some folks are still swallowing the line about how they cant find spam and hidden text etc unless you tell them in an email ..!
Those who can ..take out your checkbooks ..those who can't ..cross your fingers ..and look out for "G's" 4th quarter 2005 figures when they come out next year ..then bring it on with the talk of "conspiracy theories" ..

"Sympathy for the devil" ..:)
always did say that the stones were the best background music for coding

finer9




msg:815779
 1:36 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

GoogleGuy - I just followed your exact instructions on submiting a 'dissatisfied' query with keyword 'jagger2' in it.

I too am a single site webmaster since 1999 with no SEO, nothing funny at all, and not even showing for the brand name that WE created....

Appreciate your time and help.

Ledfish




msg:815780
 1:37 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I would really like to see Google acting on spam reports. I have one site in my sector I have reported several times for spamming via the <noscript> tag to hide text and links for no apparent reason, other than to bait the search engines.

I have also filed a Jagger 1 and Jagger 2 report on it now, so I hope the spam team is paying attention, because this sites abuse of the <noscript> tag is just unbelieveable. (e-mail me for the url if you want to see some amazing use and reward for spamming this way)

For some reason, I thought Google previously dealt with this common form of spam, but for some reason, they have never touched the site I'm reffering to.

[edited by: Ledfish at 1:38 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]

texasville




msg:815781
 1:38 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

As for the comments about the meta tags, I believe that yahoo and msn both rely on them. I have good reason to believe this. If they are done properly. As for google- it uses my description tag for the snippet describing my page. I like that.

300m




msg:815782
 1:39 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I would like to know why there is such a heavy emphasis on submitting spam reports during this update. What I mean is, its clear that the spam needs to go, but it also looks like the are putting a large focus on spam reporting for jagger 1 and 2. I have seen it stated a few times about the spam sites being pushed to the top and I kinf of wrote that off as nonsense, but at the same time I wonder if they are putting such importance on spam reporting because they suspect thats what is happening? It would make more sense that could be happening because why would so many white hats be affected and be placed on a lower priority with regards to dissatisfied index submissions?

Of course, all I can do is speculate the things I am see and I know this does not affect all industries, but I see it happening to mine and many others from what I am reading.

Maybe GG could touch base with that and rule out that this is not the case? that way we can at least be 100% certain that is a myth.

[edited by: 300m at 1:42 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]

walkman




msg:815783
 1:42 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

well, I reported one person. I feel a bit like a rat, but then, he was really pushing the envelope. Wanted to wait till my site comes back, but GG said report while someone is reading them, so I did.

Many of his (500+) inside pages have like 100 or so unique backlinks from counters, and no Google update touched him. How can you compete with a person like that? We (well most of us) do a thing here and there (directories, maybe ask for a link, position keywords on page), but this is wholesale cheating.

[edited by: walkman at 1:48 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]

Essex_boy




msg:815784
 1:48 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Seem to have done quite well so far from this. Which is odd.

aeiouy




msg:815785
 2:00 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

n 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.

This is a significant issue.. Some people are claiming they keep reporting spam sites and nothing gets done, yet we have no idea if they are actual spam sites by Google standards or just something a particular webmaster has an issue with..

On top of that this is probably the least objective audience possible as everyone has a horse in the race and all of us believe OUR pages should rank in the top 20 even if there are millions of other relevant sources.

So all complaining has to be swallowed with a healthy dose of salt.

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.

Of course your prediction would be more useful if you actually could prove that there was an increase in adwords revenuue directly tied to algo changes. As others have noted, some sites go up, others go down. Just shuffling the rankings don't necessarily mean an increase in adwords. It could just as equally mean a decrease.

Leosghost




msg:815786
 2:07 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Of course your prediction would be more useful if you actually could prove that there was an increase in adwords revenuue directly tied to algo changes.

As previously said ..read the quarterly earnings ( G gets its money from adwords )reports..see how they correlate to algo changes /updates ..since the IPO ..

"it quacks" ..n'est ce pas ;)..donc?

300m




msg:815787
 2:09 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

aeiouy

Interesting comments.

I can not speak too much for PPC as we have someone who only does that, but I still see the cost and revenue from that ppc work daily and because I took such a large hit in natural rankings since jagger1 and 2, the ppc side has most definatley increased because the natural rank is no longer ther.


BillyS




msg:815788
 2:12 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I feel a bit like a rat, but then, he was really pushing the envelope.

I just reported two sites (but forgot to include my nic). I also feel bad, quite frankly these sites make sense for the query, however, they are using spamming techniques.

One site was using hidden text, while the other was just chock full of keyphrases at the bottom of the page. Niether of these sites even needed to use these techniques, but they're not playing fair. They are ranking for other terms because of this technique.

mzanzig




msg:815789
 2:17 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

As others have noted, some sites go up, others go down. Just shuffling the rankings don't necessarily mean an increase in adwords. It could just as equally mean a decrease.

That's the big question. I could imagine that AdWords revenue goes up...

1) ...if end consumers are not satisfied with results found on page #1 (like, "heck, I'll just click the links at the right side - at least this looks relevant to my search")

2) ...if quality sites that relied on their "free traffic" supplied by organic SERPs suddenly realize that they better advertise using AdWords to get traffic

But this is a very short-sighted and dangerous path for Google. Both end consumers ("can't find what I want"), publishers ("I can't afford ads") and advertisers ("It's getting too expensive") might turn to Y! or MSN.

Then again, the pressure to provide growth in revenue and (more important) profit must be HUGE at the Plex.

[edited by: mzanzig at 2:18 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]

finer9




msg:815790
 2:18 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I just did my first spam report too, GoogleGuy. I did it as neatly and properly as I could, just as you described.

The site is a bit ridiculous in their techniques - very 1999 SEO, surprised Goog hasn't found it on their own...white/hidden links and keyword stuffing...

suggy




msg:815791
 2:47 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

You're all a bunch of grasses ;-)

WebFusion




msg:815792
 2:50 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

As previously said ..read the quarterly earnings ( G gets its money from adwords )reports..see how they correlate to algo changes /updates ..since the IPO ..

By you reasoning then....if sites that go down in rankings suddenly decided to spend more on adwords, wouldn't sites that rise spend less?

Or do you assume that those gaining rankings will continue to spend, so eventually all sites are paying for their traffic?

This is far from over folks. We've also had a large, old (circa 1998 - my first site actually) content-only site (adsense added less than 9 months ago just for kicks) that had been sitting with hundreds of top 5 positions take a nose dive in favor of ebay/amazon/dealtime/epinions and other major players, but I don't think that will last (unless google is shifting to favoring major commercial players over informational sites). I've been on "vacation" since this started, and it looks like I'll get another week before anyone can draw any concrete conclusions.

marketingmagic




msg:815793
 2:54 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Do you all consider this update, done and complete, or are you expecting to see more shuffling over the next week or so? (just curious)

aeiouy




msg:815794
 3:04 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

As previously said ..read the quarterly earnings ( G gets its money from adwords )reports..see how they correlate to algo changes /updates ..since the IPO ..

"it quacks" ..n'est ce pas ;)..donc?

Some very primitive logic there.. I imagine that as Google has indexed more pages their revenue has gone up. I also believe that as they have added more employees their revenue has gone up... As far as that concerned, I could draw a correlation between Google's purchase and consumption of staples and their revenues.

Sure their adwords revenues are going up... their business is growing at a fantastic rate. To demonstrate a connection like the one suggested you would actually have to show that the people who got dropped spent less on adwords than those who got to stay, and that those who got dropped then increased adwords revenues in order to contribute to Google's growth. Short of that it is just wild-haired speculation with no foundation.

Right now you are labeling anything with wings a duck.

Leosghost




msg:815795
 3:24 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Or do you assume that those gaining rankings will continue to spend, so eventually all sites are paying for their traffic?

Taken as a whole...meaning if one regards many, many different areas of the serps ..that has indeed been the trend over the last two years..

If you want to be consistantly at the top of areas in which there is adwords money spent ..you must be prepared to join in the spend ..or accept periodic wild fluctuations in your hit rate and thus your earnings ..

So as good Pavlovian Dogs ( or maybe a better simili would be addicts if ones income depends entirely on the internet serps like many adsense publishers ..once hooked )..One is trained to buy the oppertunity to access the traffic pages ..or one is forced to spend the money on valium ..

They aren't the only "traffic for sale" outfit out there ..but they may have done the best job in convincing some that if you even say that it is so that they will somehow penalise you ...

whence I presume cometh the plethora of "bless google guy and all who sail in him" type posts and promises to email spam reports to help "him" better to eat you with grandma
The basic reason that "G" does not like SEO is that to encourage it directly contradicts it's business / economic model ..or they could go PPI ( in effect adwords always has been PPI ..just with a smaller payment required to sit at the table ..once at the table how you play your hand is , as in poker , upto you and your talents etc in coding , display , conversion etc ( basic oldstyle ad business skills married to coding ..BTW take a look at the backgrounds of the admins and most mods here and you'll see the mix ;)...

BTW ..I'm not complaining about their business model ..after all it is pretty standard for most of you ..the inclusion of the system of high page rank for educational institutions etc is and always has been good for PR ..( public relations ) ..and has made many beleive that "do no evil" was always the object ..

The object was always ..make 2 guys lots o' money ..and now it is make the companies shareholders lots o' money..

Just like newspapers are there to sell ad space ..not to provide news or info ..

manipulating search engines is / was always most efficiently done with money ..the other techniques we all use / know / do are merely distractions and wall paper..intellectualy stimulating ..and especially if our pocket books are limited maybe the only way to attempt some sort of damage control ..sometimes ..

The really big SEO houses are not here posting about this ..they are busy telling their clients "increase your budget"...

The small SEO people have always told their customers that it wasn't just money ( if they said it was that easy the customer might just read how to do it and do their own adwords management ) ..so for them life is much harder to explain to clients just before Xmas ..

Anyone here who spends over 100,000.oo$ per month with adwords just slide off of page one in the organics ..?

Don't all shout at once ; ) QED

[edited by: Leosghost at 3:33 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]

discobiscuit




msg:815796
 3:29 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Do you all consider this update, done and complete, or are you expecting to see more shuffling over the next week or so? (just curious) "

We're in the middle of Part 2 of a 3 part update. the third part may or may not start next wednesday according to Google bloke.

This 930 message thread spans 31 pages: < < 930 ( 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ... 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