homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.234.228.64
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 ... 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:815946
 5:45 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Good morning Folks!

A new Jagger2 day. Isn't it wonderful to be alive :-)


Dayo_UK told me around 20th October that there were some DCs which weren't showing my homepage when run a query of my homepage title?

And "by mistake" I called those 3 DCs names :-)

64.233.167.99
64.233.167.104
64.233.167.147

msg #:71
[searchengineworld.com...]

Well..it seems that either Jagger1 or Jagger2 has been there visiting the 3 DCs and they are now, as the rest of the 45 DCs I watch, showing my homepage as #1 when run query of my hompepage title!

And as a fair person, I wish to apologize in public to the 3 said DCs and promiss that I will never again call them names :-)

So it could be that either Jagger1 or Jagger2 has already solved few problems for sites like mine. Who knows what good things Jagger3 might bring us.

Jaggeeeeeeeeeeeeeer! You Rock ;-)

outland88




msg:815947
 5:51 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Good morning Reseller. Now on to my diatribe.

Somehow the word relevance escapes me with the new Google results when they almost totally flip them in many areas. Were the old results less relevant? Are the thousands of new results more relevant? Relevant to who? Relevance is an impossible term to define except in the eyes of the beholder. Seems like they’re more relevant to Google’s pocketbook than anybody else. If Google is now so interested in spam why would I think the results are now more relevant? Wouldn’t the new results contain less spam if it was a step forward?

reseller




msg:815948
 5:59 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

outland88

>>Good morning Reseller. Now on to my diatribe.
.........
If Google is now so interested in spam why would I think the results are now more relevant? Wouldn't the new results contain less spam if it was a step forward? <<

Good morning to you too, outland88 .

I guess we have to wait and see how things look like after Jagger3 and the flux that will follow it.

But as to spam reporting to the folks at Google WebSpam Team, I see it as a win-win deal.

We as white hat webmasters should always be interested in removing spam sites and spammers from the serps for very obvious reasons.

Therefore, fellow members:

Please start reporting those spammers here:

[google.com...]

In the "Additional details:" section, you would use the keyword "jagger2" (that's "jagger" and the number two with no spaces in between).

outland88




msg:815949
 6:17 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think you need to read some of the previous posts regarding the spam Google creates Reseller. I've had my hands full with their Adsense spam. Google is wearing a lot of people out dealing with the problems they create.

I'm headed off to bed. Catch you on the upside. I told way back it was going to be the biggest update you had ever seen. Next week I'll bet they're going to hit harder and more sites.

[edited by: outland88 at 6:29 am (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]

2by4




msg:815950
 6:19 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

outland, this I think heavily depends on the topic, I just checked an area I know fairly well, good thing, spam potentional, out of the top 20 results, really no spam at all, a nice collection of the top sites, correctly listed, some .orgs, some .edus, some good shopping resources for that, not spam. If you take the time to read up on this you might find that more can be done to help yourself than you think.

I really can't think of a better result set I could have seen in that topic area.

Clearly some people are tracking some topic areas that google does not succeed in yet, but I'm seeing areas where they do succeed. This doesn't say other results don't fail completely, but I'm seeing some that are very good.

Obviously, ideally anyone commenting is cabable of being mildly objective about the results - that is, if your site is not in the top 20 the results do not by definition then suck.

MHes




msg:815951
 6:23 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Two key observations:

1) Stop words like "in" are being counted far more than before. (probably word proximity turned up)

2) Taking chunks of text from a site that has been hit still does not make the site rank (unless you copy and paste 10+ words). With other sites, a copy and paste search of 5 words brings the site up.

Its as if a hit site now only possibly ranks for anchor text or words in a title tag. All the body text is basically ignored. The question is, what has triggered this special treatment for some sites?

What style of sites have been hit?

Mine are directories with hand written unique text, 5 years old, 160 pages and niche.

WebPixie




msg:815952
 6:31 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

2by4

"Obviously, ideally anyone commenting is cabable of being mildly objective about the results - that is, if your site is not in the top 20 the results do not by definition then suck."

Well my results suck then. :) I'm at 24.

But seriouly, I do see the jagger2 results as an upgrade in my market. Not by much, but better. There's only one site in the top ten that I feel in no way belongs there. And even that site is on target with the keywords, just a 25k page affiliate site with a blog overloaded with free public domain articles posted and no origianl content.

The results from 10-20 are questionable. One lame directory, an interal page from the number 2 site, a few big sites related to one of the keywords but not some much the other, one very small niche site.

But overall it's an upgrade, especially near the top.

2by4




msg:815953
 6:41 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

My guess is that for some of the categories people are talking about, say hypothetically things where basically all the sites in the top 500 that aren't well established have seo work done on them to rank, poker sites come to mind, travel destination sites, like 'hotels new york' or whatever, anyway, for these types of searches, there are no good sites to select, they are basically all junk and spam and over seoed. So what you see during the first phase of the update is the worst seoed sites drop, the ones with slightly stronger seo don't drop, or rise. That could explain why some people see lots of spam still, and others don't, we all tend to do certain types of searches, and not others.

I've reviewed these types of sites routinely, and as far as I'm concerned, they are almost all garbage, I could care less which one actually ranks.

This is why googleguy wants spam reports.

The less aggressively competitive categories look fine to me.

Worrying about adsense sites [the observations are right, but it just doesn't matter], I don't know, feel free if worrying about something that you have absolutely no control over makes you feel productive, personally I'd call that a waste of time, but whatever people want to spend their time on, it's your life. Personally I'd rather work on finding solutions to current problems.

[edited by: 2by4 at 6:46 am (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]

WebPixie




msg:815954
 6:43 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

"2) Taking chunks of text from a site that has been hit still does not make the site rank (unless you copy and paste 10+ words). With other sites, a copy and paste search of 5 words brings the site up.

Its as if a hit site now only possibly ranks for anchor text or words in a title tag. All the body text is basically ignored. The question is, what has triggered this special treatment for some sites?"

My site URL is two words, one a keyword the other an uncommon adjective. Many of my inbound links use the site name with a space between the two words. When I disappeared after Jagger1, I was number 1 still for a search of the two words with no space, but 120 something if you put the space in.

I think "trigger" is a good term to use. Because with jagger2 I am now close to where I was before jagger. But I can't help but feeling that any little tweak in the wrong direction of the flux could send me into nowhere land again. It does seem that once you are penalized, you aren't going to rank for any shorter searches no matter how spot on they are to your content.

MHes




msg:815955
 7:17 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

>It does seem that once you are penalized, you aren't going to rank for any shorter searches no matter how spot on they are to your content.

But this is the strange bit with my site. I now get top positions for very competitive 2 or 3 word searches if those words appear in the title or anchor text. Any 'body' content searches and I'm nowhere...... result = 90% loss of traffic.

My site has been specifically selected and the penalty is that I will now only rank when the keywords appear in the title or anchor text. We have other sites unaffected that are very similar in design etc. (but different server and unrelated).

I am not paranoid but I'm beginning to think Google has specifically stopped the free ride for my site. With 20k+ per day from Google it was sufficiently prominent for them to notice it. There is no ban, just a specific reduction in the amount of text they will now rank me for.e.g. limited to anchor or title text.

This could be another aspect to Jagger. Google likes 'fog' to confuse things for seo webmasters. So they have this other element applied at the same time as general algo changes.

cleanup




msg:815956
 7:44 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)


MHes,
I think one of my sites is showing the same symptoms as yours. All internal searches gone and just a couple of top level, high money keywords left.

Alas..I fear that those results still left are just a mistake by Google and they have somehow slipped through their masses of filters. As you say they do not make up for the bulk of relevant on target keywords which are now lost. The more relevant keyword searches bring my pages up at page 150 (if at all). Of course all those sites which link to me appear on the pages before mine.

Good one Google.

reseller




msg:815957
 7:44 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi Folks

Have just submitted to Matt & Co another "Misleading or repeated words" jagger2 spam report.

As I said before. It seems that the current filters/algos aren't yet intellegent enough to catch the "traditional" keywords spam. And I know, it mightbe very difficult to write anti-traditional spam filters/algos without risking Collateral Damage.

Dayo_UK




msg:815958
 7:49 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

aliszka

Steveb is hardly someone who applaudes the search engines, and in fact if Google do get things right next week should be one of the ones you applaud for recognizing the problems Google is having and putting some pressure on them to fix it.

Now without looking at everyone site - MHES - dismissed Canonical url problems? - or just to pessimistic that Google will fix them next week anyway?

I have to admit - even if Google do fix the problem I dont know if sites that have had the problem for a year or so will return :( - maybe after a good couple of crawls.

cleanup




msg:815959
 7:49 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

"without risking collateral damage"!

You are joking. Do you think all the people complaing about getting caught in the Jagger crossfire are making it up!

By the way thank for telling us about your nth spam report, that is so interesting. How about telling us the sites you reported and the results. That may be more helpful. Thank you.

Dayo_UK




msg:815960
 7:51 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

cleanup

Assuming you use the www - Do a site:domain.com -www search on your site - any entries? - Especially look for the homepage if so.

cleanup




msg:815961
 7:55 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Dayo_UK,
Yes all pages report as in the index. 2 pages less reported with the site:www.web.com than with site:web.com.

normasp




msg:815962
 7:56 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi!
I don't understand nothing..
I've not been here yesterday..
Could somebody do a little summary?
Thanks!

Dayo_UK




msg:815963
 7:57 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Ok - so sounds like pages indexed without the www.

I have sent you a sticky.

CainIV




msg:815964
 7:57 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am starting see small patterns here reflecting on the patent 2by4 has reiterated and linked us to.

Here is some things I see slowly rising to the top, and I also see a pattern in terms of competitiveness, with less competitive keyword genre searches showing less change in comparison to their respective harder to rank counterparts:

Sites 1-5 in a tough wedding related genre are all still strong with the folowing characteristics:

All have been regged since before 2000
High clickthroughs and traffic
Lots of purchased one way links
Large amounts of unthemed reciprocal trading, with many inbound "aged" links
(Very important imho) - all have been engaging in what appears to be CONSISTENT amount of reciprocal link building over time.
Consistent long term files intact on all sites (no rebuilds or changes from what I have seen - document age length
All are in DMOZ directory

Sites that have dropped after top 5 serps in jagger 1,2:

Have actively increased linking to keep up with top 5 sites - especially in last year
Heavy duty seo on pages
Have and have not purchased links
Most are not in DMOZ or Google Dir
Most have an average document and domain age of about 2-3 years or less.

Sites that have moved up in serps to take those spots in this genre:

Lots of related content, niche content
Very little reciprocal linking in last 9-12 months, or SLOW recip linking in that time.
Moderate seo on pages
No DMOZ listing
Often 'named file' pages are ranking before the homepage in Google even on page two (ie somesite.com/ourgifts.html)

I think this entire update 1 has alot to do with selecting seed sites and attempting to bridge a way to filter off spam based on the above criteria.

Cainer...

cleanup




msg:815965
 7:57 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)


Dayo_UK,
Home and index pages both report for www and non www.

Thanks.

reseller




msg:815966
 7:58 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

cleanup

>>"without risking collateral damage"!

You are joking. Do you think all the people complaing about getting caught in the Jagger crossfire are making it up!<<

Maybe I should have been more specific and wrote, instead:

"without risking huge collateral damage" ;-)

>>By the way thank for telling us about your nth spam report, that is so interesting. How about telling us the sites you reported and the results. That may be more helpful. Thank you. <<

Well .. fortunately Google has no automatic spam sites removal, so I expect dealing with spam reports might take some time.

I have done my part of the "deal". The rest is up to Google WebSpam Team.

Dayo_UK




msg:815967
 8:00 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

cleanup

Sounds like Canonical url problems - as I said just sent you sticky.

Next week is the week to watch.

reseller




msg:815968
 8:01 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Dayo_UK

Good morning Dayo.

>>Next week is the week to watch. <<

Jagger3 for canonicals & Supplementals ;-)

Dayo_UK




msg:815969
 8:04 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yes, reseller - but there was a little Canonical fix at the end of Bourbon - remember clint - he had the problem and his site was fixed.

Eg. They did not fix the whole problem, just recently effected sites. But to be fair GG,MC did not really call it a canonical url change/fix. (just hinted that sites with clint like problems :))

and I guess they have had longer to work on it now.

Soooooo - fingers,legs and eyes crossed that it is a proper fix :)

WebPixie




msg:815970
 8:09 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Good stuff Cain, I also follow the wedding market and I'm seeing very similar results.

I'd only add that directories are moving up as well, behind top teir sites.

reseller




msg:815971
 8:09 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Dayo_UK

>>Yes, reseller - but there was a little Canonical fix at the end of Bourbon - remember clint - he had the problem and his site was fixed<<

Yes I remeber Clint. But also recall that EFV had same problem, and it seems that it was fixed too. Right EFV?

P.S. On my way to my dentist for a "teeth cleansing". Better than a "Teeth replacement", I guess :-)

[edited by: reseller at 8:14 am (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]

Dayo_UK




msg:815972
 8:11 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yes Reseller

I think if you catch it early you tend to be alright (and EFV had high PR on the other domain of his site - in his case the www - which might help the early release of the fix)

But I think the problem sets in.

Anyway - hopefully by the end of next week I have nothing to talk about.

MHes




msg:815973
 8:16 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Dayo_UK

So your saying that we might have a Canonical problem, which has caused no problems until this update.... which is supposed to be fixing it?

Does that make sense?

Dayo_UK




msg:815974
 8:20 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well Yes - sort of. As I said in my sticky Google must have visited your non-www homepage to list so much of your site under the non-www - even if the homepage is not listed at the moment.

Each update/change more sites get effected by the problem. The two updates so far AFAIK - were not designed to fix the problem.

GG indicated Canonilization (sp) changes are to be expected so that is the hope.

Obv. I am in the same boat and very much hoping that it is sorted - but until next week all we can do is wait :(

I will send you another sticky - as I dont think I sent it yesterday.

Strider




msg:815975
 8:38 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

guys which DC's apart from 66.102.9 seem to have the jagger2

sorry just up from a *VERY* troubled sleep.

been dreaming about losing all my projects at jagger3 :)

asher02




msg:815976
 8:38 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Is there a way to fix Canonical problem on your self?
I just did a site:domain.com -www and I see that my home page is listed.

I am using a 301 redirect in my htaccess for a long time thinking it will solve it.....:(

This 930 message thread spans 31 pages: < < 930 ( 1 ... 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