homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.237.184.242
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Visit PubCon.com
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 ... 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?

 

davew999




msg:816006
 11:58 am on Oct 28, 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?

Thanks for the info vBMechanic and McMohan.

Do you think its worth while removing these tags from my sites or maybe wait until Jagger is complete, to date i've always ranked very well with them?

erny




msg:816007
 12:06 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

How about www.webmasterworld.com become the right place to report spam?(if Brett let us posting here the offending url's and the evidence of how they spaming and manipulating the SERPS)

JuniorOptimizer




msg:816008
 12:08 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

" How about www.webmasterworld.com become the right place to report spam?(if Brett let us posting here the offending url's and the evidence of how they spaming and manipulating the SERPS) "

WebmasterWorld would become more boring than it already is ;)

reseller




msg:816009
 12:12 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

thecityofgold2005

>>It's all about Google trying to establish trust in Webmasters.<<

Or what I call Collaboration Not Confrontation Policy

If Matt & Co wish us to cooperate in reporting spam, fine.. we shall do it. No white hat webmaster wish to see spam on the serps. In return, we expect our friends at the plex to handle reinclusion requests from our fellow masters whos site were hit by "collateral damage" in a speedy fair way .

[edited by: reseller at 12:13 pm (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]

Tinus




msg:816010
 12:12 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

With this reporting bussiness the forum is going to look like a forum of old boys nobody liked at primary school.
Can't we mail Google spamming techniques if they can't think of them themselves? If it needs manual work Google can hire some students or ex-webmasters.

[edited by: Tinus at 12:16 pm (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]

thecityofgold2005




msg:816011
 12:16 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>If Matt & Co wish us to cooperate in reporting spam, fine.. we shall do it. No white hat webmaster wish to see spam on the serps. In return, we expect our friends at the plex to handle reinclusions request from our fellow masters whos site were hit by "collateral damagein" in a speedy fair way . <<

reseller, I agree and I think this is what we'll see rolled out in the near future.

I think that Google has realised it's mistakes in not 'looking after' webmasters and in relying on pure algo search.

I can't remember what it was called right now but I remember reading something about a new way of submitting sites to Google. Like an expanded sitemap program. That would be great for me. Especially if it allowed feedback and perhaps even someone who would SHOCK HORROR! answer emails.

g1smd




msg:816012
 12:21 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> Is Google going to do anything soon about the 302 redirects being applied to the target site? <<

You can do something right now. Make sure that you apply a 301 redirect from non-www to www on a per-page basis, and then add the <base href="http://www.domain.com/"> tag to all of your pages too.

Make sure you have no canonical URL issues with your main index page; that is a key point - and I am in the middle of an experiment that I think proves this point beyond doubt.

[edited by: g1smd at 12:22 pm (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]

Ankhenaton




msg:816013
 12:21 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think that Google has realised that it cannot stop spam through algo's / filters alone. By encouraging spam reports it is allowing human judgement a bigger role. And human judgement is always going to be better than algorithms at weeding out bad sites in the ever changing spam game.

First principle in AI as I see it is do not expect computers to be cleverer than people,

Second principle: Human make mistakes

Third: So will algos and their programmers [sometimes erronously clustered together with humans]

Forth: Google please give me more hits :-)

djmick200




msg:816014
 12:29 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

"If Matt & Co wish us to cooperate in reporting spam, fine.. we shall do it. No white hat webmaster wish to see spam on the serps. In return, we expect our friends at the plex to handle reinclusion requests from our fellow masters whos site were hit by "collateral damage" in a speedy fair way . "

This sounds fair enough but will it happen? I hope so because then the help is two way - we help them they help us (and I don't mean anything OTT, in the least a personal email reply rather than an auto generated one).

Time will tell, or maybe GG could pass comment on this matter to clarify that it isn't all take with no give on Google's behalf.

Freakindj




msg:816015
 12:30 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Why be concerned about reporting spam

Google doesnít even process the DMCA complaints filed to their office.

Iíve seen warz sites cloaked from google with PR 8 and a low 5 digit traffic score. Are the new results almost pure spam Ė sure are, but does google care, I donít think so.

I am willing to bet google knows the resentment that is going to be generated by the proposed joining of Amazon.com and google.com It will be much like the general distrust Microsoft has for being such a large controlling corporation. I believe their coporate policy is changing from building the better mouse trap to max profit for this reason.

I am willing to bet they are going to lose the next generation of computer users too for these same reasons. People just donít want to be controled

Ankhenaton




msg:816016
 12:33 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

And Sun:

"Google and Sun to shadow Microsoft?
'Going places' Google has teamed up with once 'going places' Sun Microsystems to promote each other's wares. There is compelling logic in using Google's pervasiveness to promote Sun's cheaper alternative and Microsoft clone, OpenOffice. The latter could be quite threatening to Microsoft. Possibly Google has it in mind to offer a virtual desktop delivered via a browser. This would hurt Microsoft from both an operating systems and applications revenue stream perspective. Maybe Google might promote Sun's now open source operating system Solaris. This would enable Sun to get on with what its does well, engineering, and relieve Sun of what it does badly, marketing."

www. progressive .co.uk /newsletter/ oct05/ progressive.htm#1

Bill will fight back though ;)

Freakindj




msg:816017
 12:38 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Realize this

Through the offering of Hot-Spots (free internet)and the horrible results they are now displaying they would be effectively controlling peoples access

Kids catch on pretty quick

McMohan




msg:816018
 12:41 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Do you think its worth while removing these tags from my sites or maybe wait until Jagger is complete

I am almost certain you are looking in the wrong place for your problems, for META tags are least likely the reason for your problems. META tags are standard part of any website, and ethically so. Suggest, you wait until Jagger3 and the subsequent flux settles before making assumptions.

Best wishes

Dayo_UK




msg:816019
 12:54 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>>>Make sure you have no canonical URL issues with your main index page; that is a key point - and I am in the middle of an experiment that I think proves this point beyond doubt.

Intresting g1smd

Keeps us informed - I see that you also think it is the homepage that is key - rather than internal pages which have been indexed on the non-www.

IMO - I can see G picking the non-www homepage as the canonical - but would be amazed if it picked something like domain.com/widget/widget.html

One thing that is holding back the fix of the 301 redirect is that Google keeps the page even when you think it may be fixed - eg. If I search on domain.com it could show the result, backlink and PR of www.domain.com - but you can sometimes still pull up the non-www root on a site:domain.com -www search.

So how long Google holds onto the non-www pages (even when it appears fixed) seems to be partially the problem too.

almar




msg:816020
 12:57 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Reseller- you've said it best."No white hat webmaster wish to see spam on the serps. In return, we expect our friends at the plex to handle reinclusion requests from our fellow masters whos site were hit by "collateral damage" in a speedy fair way."

It would be nice know an ETA for the "collateral damage" to be at least reviewed.

ltedesco




msg:816021
 1:02 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I still see jagger2 only in few DCs. When is it supoused to spread over all DCs?

JoeHouse




msg:816022
 1:03 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

What about linking strategies (reciprocal linking) since Jagger update?

I am going through a redesign and my webmaster is asking if I should include software for this.

What's the general thoughts out there regarding this?

Should I stop and just get directory and one ways?

MrSpeed




msg:816023
 1:20 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

For those that think Google should rely less on algo solutions and more on human judgement to weed out spam
Do you have any idea what that would take in manpower? Imagine if your only job was to PM each person in this thread and say hello. You could barely keep up with that.

Now imagine trying to reasearch if a site has hidden text, sneaky CSS, belongs to the same owner, all belong to some crazy site farm etc....

Now pile onto that all those topics and niches that your are not familiar with or care about like porn, warez and imagine what the spam reports would look like then.

walkman




msg:816024
 1:21 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> What about linking strategies (reciprocal linking) since Jagger update?

I have 0 recips and got slammed

webpro00801




msg:816025
 1:28 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I can't post a new topic for some reason so I am putting this here:

Subject: Something is seriously wrong

Well something is up - never mind that personally we got slammed pretty good for most of our SERPs. I just did a search on a broad geographic term (like "europe" or "north america") and I get a family fun site from go.com (at #7) that has nothing to do with the search term, nor is that term anywhere on said site. Sort of unreal. The only silver lining would be is that this obviously can't stay like this -

I also have a question - can I get the short answer on what exactly is the "canonical" problem? Does that mean you can not have your server configured for www.domain.com and domain.com and/or other domain names that just point to it?

Further, we have an old shared hosting account, where a lot of people still find us through www.hostname.com/myaccountname/ - we have meta tag re-directs there since we can't use other methods. Could this be hurting me?

Thanks -

Spanish_eye




msg:816026
 1:28 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I would avoid all link exchanges. If you read Matts comments (especially in a recent invterview) he talks about "natural linking" and acquiring links by creative methods....not reciprocal linking.

If you read how the Internet actually came about you'll understand this methodology which Google still applies. I see more and more sites which have historically relied on link exchanges actually going down the serps.

My main site got badly hit with jagger and is still nowhere to be seen. Google accounted for 70% of my traffic. However, as soon as this happened I came up with some creative methods of generating traffic. Traffic to my main site is now at the same level before jagger hit (still no Google traffic by the way).

Who needs Google anyway? There are SO many ways of generating traffic....you have to think out of the box.

thecityofgold2005




msg:816027
 1:31 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>For those that think Google should rely less on algo solutions and more on human judgement to weed out spam
Do you have any idea what that would take in manpower? Imagine if your only job was to PM each person in this thread and say hello. You could barely keep up with that.

Now imagine trying to reasearch if a site has hidden text, sneaky CSS, belongs to the same owner, all belong to some crazy site farm etc....

Now pile onto that all those topics and niches that your are not familiar with or care about like porn, warez and imagine what the spam reports would look like then.>>

My point was that once Google has checked a site (or group of sites) and has established trust in it's webmasters it will not need to be checked again. At least not checked very often.

This will take up less manpower in the long-run than constant filter/algo modifications and constant checking on serps because it is does not need to be repeated all the time.

Once a site has trust (trustrank anyone?), Google could automatically check a site by looking at the html and flagging when a percentage amount of change is reached. Only then would that site by re-verified by a person.

Also, by asking for spam reports the process is sped up since the hunting is not done by Google. Google just does the killing.

And, finally, Google has 1 Billion Quadrillion Pounds. It can hire enough people.

[edited by: thecityofgold2005 at 1:35 pm (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]

dramstore




msg:816028
 1:35 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Spanish_eye - could you share some of those ideas?
Still struggling abit trying to get out of my particular box!

followgreg




msg:816029
 1:43 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)


Agreed with Dramstore...except if you are a big corporation and can advertise it is more and more difficult to be known. Of course you can use spam emails...

How can you be "famous" if in the first place no-one can find you on the internet?

Can someone tell me when results are supposed to be spread out from Jagger2 on all DC's?

Dayo_UK




msg:816030
 1:45 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well you would have to guess that Jagger2 will probably be on all DC by Wednesday next week assuming G is running to schedule.

Jagger3 should hopefully start about that time.

Kirby




msg:816031
 1:45 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

>It strikes me that if Google can't see the problems for themselves, then relying on spam reports is not going to achieve much overall.

It achieves quite a bit. It is a great cross check to see what their spam filters miss. Who knows spam techniques better than webmasters? Who better to report them? Besides, if you are a competitor, you can bet google is checking the other results nearby.

I have seen sites removed within 18 hours of spam reports this week. I have also seen webmasters cleanup their own sites before reporting others. Google kills two birds with one webmaster's stone.

walkman




msg:816032
 2:08 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> As our link manager (Justilien) said

lost me there. He's giving advice on how to survive G updates and then he has a "link manager".

jam2005




msg:816033
 3:00 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've noticed that some people have been getting a response from Google for their spam reports. I submitted one the other day and the site is still showing up in Jagger 2.

Maybe I'm not clear on what a link farm is, but the website I reported has 5 websites interlinking. Google shows over 6,000 links and most of them are from these websites. They are ranked #1 for all the related keywords. Is this or isn't this a link farm?

SEODan




msg:816034
 3:05 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

To all those who think webmasters should be heavily involved in reporting spam, I would have to say that is a bad idea.

You are assuming that this "reporting" will be a result of some sort of philanthropic desire to "cleanse" the serps, rather than resulting from any sort of vested interest in the outcome....

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that there are plenty of well meaning webmasters out there, but this could be heavily abused by those seeking to gain an advantage. Leave it to the algos, we give some feedback, they either listen or they don't..

Eazygoin




msg:816035
 3:08 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

jam2005
Maybe I'm not clear on what a link farm is

[en.wikipedia.org...]

followgreg




msg:816036
 3:13 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)


No it isn't a link farm and actually no-one said that using link farms would bring up the ultimate penalties, only triggers filters.

Cross linking your own domains should trigger a filter also, because this means artificially inceasing link popularity.
In other words they should still be indexed but GG would eventually filter them for competitive KW's.

Also...don't trust GG backlinks...use MSN because it will give a better representation of what's the actually LP status of a site.

I'm still waiting for my cloaking specialists in europe to be penalized though!

Other than that I have submitted to other cheaters: one hidden text, the other domain hijacking and they have been penalized (PR back to 0) so well done Mr Google, they were cheating and penalty went fast!

Hopefully this will clean up SERP's, I would actually suggest to submit feebacks also to MSN and yahoo actually. We deserve clean SERP, no cheaters!

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