| 6:13 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>jd01: The *relevance* of a page has everything to do >with the text on the page...
That hits the nail on the head and is definitely the only thing one can do to get more visitors from Google and other engines: increasing the relevance of a page.
And how good - the users will also benefit from this :-)
Btw: I like to mention that I am quiet happy with this update so far. My traffic went up significantly during phase I, went down a little with phase II and I hope it will go up again with phase III. I have found more URL - only pages after phase II. Hope they will be read from Gbot and dissappear with phase III.
| 6:14 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|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?" |
Just as badly as this update is hurting us that have dropped, I'm sure G is not liking this type of comment either. Believe me, my site dropped and my sales have taken a dive. I'm waiting for Jagger3 before I start panicking. I do believe that G is not trying to purposely hurt the little guy, and that they're honestly trying to improve their "product".
| 6:18 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I thought is was strange but my traffic from msn and yahoo has gone crazy since the update as well I think that shows me the general population are really not going for this new update and looking for better searches. They don't have a clue on the update just goes to show this is really a bad update and Google search has really missed it's mark
| 6:26 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Spam is not a problem in the main keywords that I am tracking. In fact, it's spam free with no scrapers.
It's more a problem of relevance. Granted that we were previously #1 or #2 before (now we're #12 in our main keyword), but those that moved up are big corporations that have little to do with the 2-word keyphrase "red widgets". It's just that the word "red" and the word "widgets" are found on the new top sites, with "red" a very common term used by every website on the web. I don't mind being pushed down if I know that those sites are more relevant to the keyword, but these are just big corporations that have little to do with "red widgets"
| 6:41 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The latest SEO and Spam Patent [appft1.uspto.gov]...judge for yourselves who it's from!
[edited by: tedster at 9:33 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]
[edit reason] fix side-scroll [/edit]
| 6:41 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
We have also seen a large increase in traffic from MSN and Yahoo while Google Traffic has gone to zero.
Interesting to note that (flawed as it is) the number two and number three increased sites on this list:
are Matt Cutts site and searchengineworld.com which are both providing update info.
| 6:55 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well its kind of bad search experience when you do a search for real estate in your area and only 3 realtors come up in the first 5 pages. compared to Msn that has over 40.
| 6:56 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have a question... Coincidentally, we began a face lift on our site beginning of September and are about to launch it in the coming days. Granted, the URL/links are all the same, however, anchor text, page titles, and more sections have been changed or added. Jagger hit right in the middle of our work. I am now challenged with the idea of launching the new make-over of the site before Jagger has settled down. The make-over is not SEO driven, and it is designed to give the users a better experience. I know G says it's all about the user, however, quite frankly I do not believe them anymore.
If we launch this make-over, I am wondering if it will raise the G flags as if we are tweaking our pages to better our SERPs (chasing the update sort of thing). Our site is clean and does not exercise hardly any SEO (if anything white hat)... Just lots of content that generates plenty of user clicks. I strongly believe the truth will set us free, however, G is playing too much godmode these days.
What do you guys think? Launch or wait?
[edited by: Yippee at 7:05 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]
| 6:57 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Heh, what a great way to game Alexa then: have a large community and on a weekly basis change the base domain name for site usage, and redirect the other one - then the following week swap it back as it was. Then Repeat.
| 7:04 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|and searchengineworld.com which are both providing update info |
Maybe it's related to the temporary relocation of WW?
| 7:14 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have some fun checking the french SERP since this morning (since I reported a so called SEO company overther)
When I look at most competitive terms on Google.fr I find REALLY a lot of cloaking pages and keyword stuffing.
For example "voyage pas cher" (cheap tickets) or "agence de voyage" (travel agency) #1 looks like cloaking as far as I'm concerned and extending research throughout the french competitive terms I find a lot of those.
I wonder if spam report works over there in europe? Maybe googleguy can tell?
| 7:25 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> Maybe it's related to the temporary relocation of WW? <<
Of course, and next week WebmasterWorld.com will be in the top 10 movers...
| 7:35 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I thought is was strange but my traffic from msn and yahoo has gone crazy since the update as well I think that shows me the general population are really not going for this new update and looking for better searches. |
How does an increase in MSN and Yahoo referrals indicate that people are using Google less? What's more likely is that it's either chance or they are fiddling with their backlinks or algorythm at the same time Google is and if you check the other forums here at WW you will see that they are doing some of their own updating. People giving up Google is way down at the bottom of my list of explanations. The general public doesn't even know about these updates and if they did they could probably care less.
| 7:52 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
yahoo has been working pretty aggressively on their algo in the last few months, it's much better now than it was, although I have to admit I really don't use yahoo except to check search terms etc for clients, so I don't have that daily feel for it.
But I have been seeing some jumps in yahoo referrals, as noted above, that can simply mean you are ranking better on more pages in yahoo than you were.
I've seen no increase in yahoo or msn at all, percentage and absolute count wise.
Although in a week or so maybe there will be some changes, we'll see how the real world users (otherwise known as people who do not know seo exists, non-webmasters) respond to these changes, that's what google is watching with eagle eyes, they know what happens in real time, and they know when an update has worked in terms of catching seos by reading these threads, the more annoyed people, the more it's worked, if the real user numbers do not really change but WebmasterWorld posters flip out, the update is a success. If user numbers drop, then they'll roll back the update, or parts of it. Complaining about the serps is pointless, google knows what is happening with its traffic, you don't.
If we could get this thread back on track, compare notes, see what is making sites drop and not drop, that would be great.
| 7:56 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Matt's blog is #2 on movers? Hah hah, BUSTED!
He screwed up on the algo not to increase G's adwords, but to increase his Alexa ranking ;), knowing that we'd flock to his blog seeking an answer.
| 7:58 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|The general public doesn't even know about these updates and if they did they could probably care less |
A few days ago I would have definitely agreed. But since then two non-technical persons independently complained about bad Google search result quality wihout being asked! And I noticed some questionable results myself, especially with Jagger2. If this is the upcoming quality, we will see and hear increasing complaints.
For certain niches, or if searches repeatedly fail, I imagine that people indeed try "something else".
We as webmasters know that we should try to increase our sites' stickyness with our quality services and/or unique quality content. Otherwise people will not return to our sites for about 4 to 6 months. Why should Google be any different? If SERPs quality is way below average, people WILL look somewhere else.
And, let's be honest, yahoo.com is as easy to remember as google.com
| 8:01 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I also believe "...that G is not trying to purposely hurt the little guy, and that they're honestly trying to improve..."
GoogleGuy's effort to open the door for communication and share information with webmasters is a clear indication that they are actually willing to help the little guy, as long as they donít reveal secrets that black hat SEOs can use to spam them even further.
That's why I'm taking the time to report spam sites, as GoogleGuy requested in an earlier post. There's just no way that they can see all of the "black hat tricks" that we see in our own "network neighborhood" and I recommend that all of you other webmasters in this forum do the same. It may take them a while to automatically filter out all of the spam, but it can only help to improve things in the long run.
I have been lurking in these forums for years, trying to learn as much as possible about SEO/SEM, while working at perfecting my ďwhite hatĒ skills. This is my first post, and unless you all flame me mercilessly, I will begin helping you out with advice that I have learned from many years of experience in this field. We all might learn something in the process.
So, if your site has been hurt in the jagger update, then itís time to stop whining and learn why, fix it, and move on.
P.S. Thanks, GoogleGuy!
P.P.S. Let the flames begin!
| 8:02 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"...I imagine that people indeed try "something else"..."
Yes..it's called Adwords...
| 8:03 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
on 'add to favourites', I have a 5% success rate. Is that normal, low or high, in your opinion guys?
| 8:05 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|if your site has been hurt in the jagger update, then itís time to stop whining and learn why, fix it, and move on. |
Ummm ... I don't think I've whined here, it's just that nobody as yet could give an answer as to the whys and hows of jagger. Everyone says to wait till the 3rd phase ends before doing anything. It's hard to fix something when you don't know what's broken - as many white hat sites here have said
[edited by: alika at 8:05 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]
| 8:05 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think that for Google to start losing market share the other SE's are going to have to demonstrate that they have better search results and maintain obviously superior quality for some time. I don't think Yahoo or MSN are better than Google at this point. Different but hardly better.
| 8:09 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|It's hard to fix something when you don't know what's broken - as many white hat sites here have said |
There may not only be nothing broken to be fixed but nothing at all to do. Why not just explore alternate traffic generating methods whether that means AdWords or something else? It beats checking for Google traffic that's not there day after day.
| 8:10 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
alika, the point he's making is that we have two choices.
We can compare notes, learn, find out if we can get a better sense of the issues, technical factors, etc. We can look at sites that have not changed. We can check out allegedly whitehat sites that have dropped. My guess is that almost all whitehat sites that dropped had engaged in some type of link development scheme, that's a guess, because too few specifics are being given.
Or we can complain about stuff we can't change, that we don't know, that simply doesn't matter in terms of getting our sites fixed.
There's always a lot of good insight in these threads, but it gets buried in prophecies of google's impending demise. For those of you who don't follow update threads through the years, all big updates feature this prophecy, it's like clockwork. As I noted, despite years of such prophecies, google has posted record income and profits this quarter.
I'm with Brian_M and reseller [post 518 I think it was] on this one though, I want to see junk seo go, I hate it, it's time for halfwit seo work to vanish from the web, and its time for that sleazy industry to suffer a serious hit. If google is even hinting at being serious about doing that, then good for them.
[edited by: 2by4 at 8:15 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]
| 8:11 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have a site that appears to be coming out of "the mechanism within the algo which causes new sites to not be ranked for an extended period of time, until sufficient data can be collected to determine if it is authoritative enough to enjoy being displayed in the index." (Formerly know as the sandbox.)
The pages/content of this site (it's large) have been mostly static for ~6mo., and the rankings on the jagger2 DCs are solid. The biggest change in the last 4mo's is the number of solid one way back-links (~50).
I expected it to make an emergence soon, but not where it is... I thought it would take some more time to be in competition with some of the other large sites in my niche.
So, my speculation, is my one way links are counting for more than some of the well-aged BLs the other sites in my area have -- they have a greater spread and age in quantity, but the quality of the ones I have seems to be playing an important part...
OR maybe GG got my reinclusion-request/suggestion and is way cool =)
| 8:17 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"but the quality of the ones I have seems to be playing an important part..."
jd, I've seen the same thing, congrats on your site getting desandboxed by the way.
| 8:21 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
did you really send a reinclusion request?
| 8:22 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am still seeing fluctuations in the SERPs for 18.104.22.168. One of my sites just gained 10 spots. I believe phase 2 is still not over yet.
OMG - I just realized something. I have turned into one of those SEO guys who checks the SERPs every half hour for various datacenters! Anybody know how to get this monkey off my back?! :-)
| 8:26 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There will ALWAYS be people who will do nothing to complain during these updates. And yes, the doom and gloom scenario :o)
For us, after holding the top spot for years and disappearing in many keywords, one of the first things we did was to stop linking to others. We removed our Add URL page. After years of not engaging in exchanging links, we started again -- only to disastrous results. We also stopped accepting article contributions (we use about 5 a month at most) so the site will purely be original content.
But it is difficult to watch your site pushed down, especially if it seems that YOU'RE the only site being pushed down in your sector.
| 8:32 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
A quick observation:
There's a certain keyphrase that I monitor daily. This phrase always returns 4mazon for the first two links followed by hundreds of its affiliate sites. Today, on my standard google.com search, the affiliate sites have completely vanished. The same search on 22.214.171.124 still shows the affil sites---still in the same position---but marked as supplemental. The changes for this type of site surviving in the G index are looking very slim.
| 8:32 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|did you really send a reinclusion request? |
Yes, it was actually more of a thought, that had to do with links that cannot be bought. When I said the links I picked up were strong... that was not a joke, I actually have more of them than anyone else in my niche, except .gov sites, and major organizations.
I did not know if G was already taking into account the fact that to have a link on some sites (or sections of sites), you have to be correct in what you present or they can't link to you -- not that they may not want to, but really can't.
The only way I knew to get the message anywhere was to send it in a reinclusion request.
Added: I would guess they already did this, but was not sure.
Added2: Thanks 2by4 =)
| 8:46 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"After years of not engaging in exchanging links, we started again -- only to disastrous results. We also stopped accepting article contributions (we use about 5 a month at most) so the site will purely be original content."
This is what I'm talking about. I'm seeing a definite pattern here, it's not the only pattern, other people are seeing other things, that are also highly relevant, but this one, I'm seeing it too much.
So the question is, does anyone out there run a site that has ZERO link development work done on it, no link directories, no link exchanges, nothing, that has seen a major drop? And that has good quality, real, ontopic, backlinks that are created in exactly the way jd said, naturally, slowly, and pointing to real content on inner pages.
I realize that at most a handful of readers of this thread would have sites like that, but I'm curious.