homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.110.222
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 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 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?

 

reseller




msg:815886
 11:04 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yippee

>>What do you guys think? Launch or wait? <<

I suggest to wait few weeks more until Jagger3 is over.

twalton




msg:815887
 11:09 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

2by4 said "It's just possible that the sites I'm seeing left in the serps that have heavy link building work on them have simply done the work consistently over the years, that's just a guess, and have avoided bursts, or other signs of unnatural link growth."

My site is an example of this, launched in 2000. At first I didn't know enough to do SEO, and as the business has grown I haven't had time to do it 'properly'. I just do the basics like keyword research to try and make sure content can be found by those who'll find it useful. The nature of the site means that we get a lot of feedback on what people want to know about in the field that we're in. The content is of high quality much of it written by qualified professionals who can write well in 'layman's' terms.

I have beat myself up in the past for not devoting enough time/resources to 'link building' for the site. Now I'm breathing a huge sigh of relief! If anything we have seen a slight benefit from Jagger so far, but not really a huge movement. (site averages 18,000 visits a day).

I think it is this mixture of quality content, and SEO that would probably be seen as 'inadequate' by professionals that has protected us from Jagger fallout.

stinky




msg:815888
 11:12 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

reseller - the affiliate's vendor/merchant site has not moved much, they are doing good. Is this good/bad news for me?

nzmatt




msg:815889
 11:13 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thanks reseller - very interesting thread on "Gaming Google".

Thanks Atomic.

It would appear there is ongoing evolution and flux with respect to googles treatment of changing title etc.

It may well be fine, but I think I will wait until after the update, at least.

zeus




msg:815890
 11:18 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have noticed the update is on a little holde the last hours.

sailorjwd




msg:815891
 11:24 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm very please to be back in G good graces.

I put up two small programming example pages last weekend with plain vanilla SEO and today they are #1 and #2 out of 100 mil and 50 mil respectively.

Now I can go back to writing pages without spending all my time tinkering with possible problems that probably never existed in the first place.

reseller




msg:815892
 11:30 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

stinky

During an update, its hard to draw conclusions. Better wait until Jagger is over. Your site situation might change. Who knows ;-)

Erku




msg:815893
 11:37 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Do you know when the Jagger 2 will be fully visible?

Is it in progress? Or only in few datacenters?

How many datacenters does G have?

walkman




msg:815894
 11:41 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

whether G penalizes for too many changes:

it's an interesting thing to think, but I honestly hope that they don't. I have a "related" feature that picks up a few related products (same category) each time the page loads. Why should I penalized for that? What's the reason from G's point of view? Just because some spammers do it?

Almost all news sites run "Related Stories", Latest Stories, Most E-mailed etc that definitely change between Google visits.

Leosghost




msg:815895
 11:44 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

2x4:...I promise to do my best to keep the "chat dans le sac" if you promise to try to stop making I larf ..
re #'s..600 and 614
follow greg #611..bonsoir ..ça va ;)..même chose ici ..I suspect we get it later ..like most things..

currently full of fake directory crap made for adsense ..deja vu ..no out bounds ..apart from the adsense that is ..
circa 2003

just noticed where previously I was showing 117 hard wired links to a small niche site ..now showing 7 incomings ..of which ..numbers 2, 3, and 4 are from a google groups thread from over 18 months ago ( running of course adsense all down the side of said thread ...sorry H ..I know I sort o promised and all but like I said I have no basic disagreement with policy at the plex ..just that being kinda old fashioned in some ways I like my PR men and women to say thats what they are ..and my enlightened self interested capitalistic companies to be open about their primary motivation ..that way I can pretend the world is "does and bunnies"....

maybe it's all just flashback ..

am I glad I don't depend on L and G and mr pension fund for my beer ( in my case vin rouge ) money ..

djmick200




msg:815896
 12:03 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

One thing at this point I feel I have to say, and i apolaogise if some of you are unfamiliar with this saying - the guys from the UK will definately know it:

"Barking Up The Wrong Tree" springs to mind.

The sector i watch is celebs; names, pictures & wallpaper. Probably rubbished by most of you who read this and put it down to "fodder sites" as someone once told me i ran (not on WebmasterWorld).

Anyway the point of this:

www.some-diet-works-.com (fake) ranks #1 - daily cache
www.celeb-name-pictures.com (fake) ranks #30+ - whenever cache

diet site - bs, spam ibl's
celeb site - quality content, 90% that rank above it, link to it.
diet site - buy this, buy that, clickbank special, spam this, spam that.
celeb site - more on site pics and wallpaper than any above it. network ads + amazon.

I have 100+ sites. My main one got the chop on sept 22 for a filter (guessing) that i finally worked out yesterday (i hope). All my other sites so far still sitting as they were.

My main observation is that some things that seem to be true to one sector are blown out by another.

Ive seen a few guys talk about the travel sector, Im just not sure we can tie what they
are seeing to other sectors. I have chatted and discussed points with other WebmasterWorld members and what seems to affect one sector isn't another (Above observation)

They all seem to have their own set of rules / guidlines / policies - call them what you will.

My two cents aint worth much but feel better for saying it.

Carry on......... ;-)

[edited by: djmick200 at 12:06 am (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]

driwashsolutions




msg:815897
 12:05 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

maybe it's all just flashback.

I totally agree. I've seen the same things, with old posts (in a G group) along older sites that have not been updated in awhile covering the 1st two pages of my SERPs. I wonder if G rolled back the algo on purpose, in order to try and let the "crud rise to the top" so they can be skimmed off.

Yeah, that's it - so the further down you are now, the better once Jagger3 rolls on in and skims off the top!

2by4




msg:815898
 12:14 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

that's not the kind of flashback leosghost is referring to.

walkman




msg:815899
 12:23 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm going to just wait and see, before making too many changes or believing all kinds of theories. I went nuts last fall and paid dearly--with more delays in coming back. I promised myself to chill next tiem it happens. Many sites go out and come back within an update, or slightly after. Google changes something, gets some feedback and then losens the filters; it happens every update.

We could think of 4000 things, but just one or two could've caused the drop. Many of those things that Google has on the patent can't be implemented, at least not with the "drop the site to page 15" certainty. You might rank #2 instead of #1 but not outside the 500 range. Of course they could be accumulative: if you match 25 out of 40 you're a "spammer" but even then, not all have the same weight.

2by4




msg:815900
 12:31 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

walkman, same here, we're waiting. I don't see 1000's of things, I see maybe 4, but I don't know which ones are the real ones and which aren't.

Our niche is easy to figure out though, the sites that survived give me very good counter examples to study.

It's not the specifics of the patent application (and keep in mind, that could simply be an enormous red herring filed by google to totally mislead seos. It's not a whitepaper, it's just a bunch of ideas that would be interesting to check out) that I'm interested in, it's the overall tone of it, the feel of the document, what you get if you ignore the words and focus on what they are really talking about in the thing. Same old stuff, people rarely say what they mean, but enough words will generally show what you meant no matter what you try to do. That's why I like it when gguy posts a lot.

aliszka




msg:815901
 12:44 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

This update will be the one that G__GLE remembers for a long time, it will be the start of the end for them! IMO

SEOTard




msg:815902
 12:48 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

aliska,

ya right

[moneycentral.msn.com...]

aliszka




msg:815903
 12:55 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Remember L__kSm__t and some of the others that thought they were untouchable?

All but gone!

Hollywood




msg:815904
 12:57 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I agree with this 2by4 (Cheers)
"people rarely say what they mean, but enough words will generally show what you meant no matter what you try to do. That's why I like it when gguy posts a lot."

Well I manage a major Superbowl 1/2 time website, they get to many darn hits to see any changes so this one does not point to much.

Another site dealing with technology services, 2 actually, got hit about 50-70% drop in total hits.

I think it is about the speed at which things take place on a site, one thing I did notice on another site I manage, (Trance Music Industry) is that I by mistake added many outbound links to another site I manage.

Both sites were hit, but what is odd is that... [one of them] it was a mistake in adding to many new outbound links I think. But hard to say as the other site did get the inbounds from all those mistake outbounds (links) I made.

One thing I wonder about is the site with a Pagerank 5 where I created many new content pages with these outgoing links lost most Google traffic. I would say out of 100 hits 3 are Google hits now (Use top be 1 out of 2), so does this mean it was a penalty or would I loose 100% of Google hits if so (Penalty)? (Never could quite figure this out)

I do manage at least 20 websites, a few of them big players in any industry... I do not tell everyone here all I see and know as it would just hurt each one of us.

I do think Google does his midnight walks on WebmasterWorld to spark new Spam reports to better Google only. I see them making it look like they are helping but I truly ask myself if this is the case; I think they are here for themselves. Now that Google is (GOOG) and at 353+ per share it is now about investors and mostly PPC, I know they want better results (SERPS) but I think fund managers and investors have mixed the milk with the whiskey so to speak. (Not a good combo) Would you drink it?

- Hollywood -

aliszka




msg:815905
 1:05 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

The only thing that G__gle cares about is making the money terms impossible to get good rank, therefore sparking more PPC, with a stock price like that, how can they sustain any other way than pay services?

They don't care about any thing but the mighty $$$, plain and simple, if you people don't see this, you are blind!

Why else would they make the money terms hard to get?

If your site is still ranked good, don't worry, it won't be shortly!

All in my opinion of course!

edd1




msg:815906
 1:05 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Are we still on Jagger 1 or 2 or 3. I haven't checked in for a while so I wasn't sure.

Someone mentioned flashbacks - maybe we've skipped the Jaggers and we're onto Richards now.

aliszka




msg:815907
 1:07 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

we are not on jagger, we are now on DAGGER!

Abigail




msg:815908
 1:11 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

" we are not on jagger, we are now on DAGGER! "

Big Time!

Garya




msg:815909
 1:14 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

adwords special update.

aliszka




msg:815910
 1:24 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

People:

Just think about it, you have this Cl_wn G__leG_y coming on here acting as a good source of communication to webmasters and at the same time hurting so many webmasters to the point of gonesville, is that someone who really cares about you?

One Answer, H_ll No

All in my opinion of course!

Abigail




msg:815911
 1:29 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I just searched out my pet keyword and found the same website listed 4 times in the first 30 results - #1, #11, #21, #30 - isn't that interesting?!

aliszka




msg:815912
 1:33 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

>I just searched out my pet keyword and found the same website listed 4 times in the first 30 results - #1, #11, #21, #30 - isn't that interesting?!<

I bet it was a large company or a directory, you know the one that could be found in a phone book or something that people who are searching already know about right?

of course, because that leaves the PPC spots available to collect the MONEY!

IMO!

futuresky




msg:815913
 1:34 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

As much as I dislike the way google seems to be going, I'd rather have him (Googleguy) here than no-one at all. At least he's a human voice from actually inside the creature that is google.

[edited by: futuresky at 1:38 am (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]

Hollywood




msg:815914
 1:34 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I just sent someone a sticky saying the same aliszka!

===
-We send google stuff (Spam reports ¦ posts ¦ etc) that help them directly.
-Google is on here each night asking for stuff from us to report DIRECTLY to them, to help them DIRECTLY
-What have they directly helped any of you here with.
===

Key point is the term directly, this aint no keyword term.

I ask you all this, what directly have they helped us with on any personal level directly? Maybe I am wrong and anyone can sit me down and smack me (smiling - only ladies though) but are there any accounts of direct help for any of us?

Definition:
adv.
In a direct line or manner; straight: The road runs directly north.
Without anyone or anything intervening: directly responsible.
Exactly or totally: directly opposite.
At once; instantly: Leave directly.
Candidly; frankly: answered very directly.
Chiefly Southern U.S. In a little while; shortly: He'll be coming directly.

Amen - Back to my trance jam session and some beer - BIG cheers all in Poland, Holland, Italy and the rest!

[edited by: Hollywood at 1:44 am (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]

djmick200




msg:815915
 1:41 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

" I just searched out my pet keyword and found the same website listed 4 times in the first 30 results - #1, #11, #21, #30 - isn't that interesting?! "

Ive been seeing this for maybe 2 weeks now and the sites sure can't be found in yellow pages or phone books or whatever it was someone suggested.

Total online sites.

peter andreas




msg:815916
 1:56 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I just want to clarify the crud rising to the top and being skimmed off anology. I wasn't trying to sound all superior just that this is a technique used to produce pure metals and alloys: the oxides, impurities rise to the top of the liquified metal and this "crud" is skimmed off leaving the pure metal below. Googles seems to have the furnace on for a long time.

This 930 message thread spans 31 pages: < < 930 ( 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 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