homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.73.52.98
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
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 ... 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?

 

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!

thecityofgold2005




msg:816037
 3:16 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

New serps have now spread to these dcs:

216.239.37.99
216.239.37.147

So we now have 66.102.11, 66.102.9 and 216.239.37 C blocks with the new serps.

randle




msg:816038
 3:17 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Scuttlebutt was the results here; [66.102.9.104...] were what we should start to expect. Havenít seen this propagating at all though, has anyone seen it spreading?

SEODan




msg:816039
 3:17 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Rant over...

Just wondering whether anybody's had the same experience as me as a result of Jagger.

My site has both static and dynamic content, both were doing great for their relevant areas before the update started.

Static content (100+) pages, fine, no problems, stayed where they are, maybe moved one or two places, but nothing that is going to lose me sleep.

Dynamic content has gone...nowhere to be seen. That's 300,000 + pages that have just disappeared, still being crawled, but not ranked..[scratches head] I'm just hoping that when everything settles down they come back..they better or I might be in trouble..

thecityofgold2005




msg:816040
 3:19 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

<<anyone seen it spreading?

See my post above. Just spread onto two more dcs.

Ankhenaton




msg:816041
 3:20 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

64.233.167.147 66.102.7.104 look good for me, the "normal" goggle domain resolved results [66.102.9.147, 66.102.9.99, 66.102.9.104] are :\ not that good.

I can only hope that 66.102.7.104 spreads and not the others.

Kinda weird month: Started really low 1/3 traffic that rose to extreme heights and now dropping again, not as bad though in the moment, but when the trend stops who knows. This seriously sucks.

Maybe each Google employee turning around on that algorithm should have his/hers income linked to the success of their algorithm so they emotionally understand what they are doing.

thecityofgold2005




msg:816042
 3:22 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

66.102.11, 66.102.9, 216.239.37 are NEW results and are spreading.

Ankhenaton




msg:816043
 3:26 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

66.102.11, 66.102.9, 216.239.37 are NEW results and are spreading.

Interestingly enough my Alexa stats [Pageviews, Rank and Reach] are skyrocketing .. I wished I could see this in my real stats? :\

Arggh.. ;)

ska_demon




msg:816044
 3:42 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

Its called the ODP and they can't keep up with the demand for sites to be added let alone weed out spam. Humans may make a better judgement as to a sites 'worthiness' or 'usefulness but a computer can do it way faster, all day, everyday.

Ska

thecityofgold2005




msg:816045
 3:46 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

ska_demon, that is a crappy comparison.

ODP is a volunteer-run non-profit directory. It has always been under-resourced.

Google is a very well financed, for profit, wannabe information monopoliser with enough money to pay lots of staff.

Atomic




msg:816046
 3:50 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

To do this, it means that not everyone will end up happy. But it also means that the SERP's will be more valid. However, the update is not yet over, and until it is, the newly formed Google SERP's will not ne available.

The alternative choice would be to continue with a list of search results that could be manipulated by SEO's, scammers, and so on. At least Google is conscientiously trying to make it fair for everyone, and at the same time, hoping to provide a concrete base of good quality results.

It seems to me that the SERP's were getting out of control and Google is trying to fix it. My suggestion is that we all wait and see what the final outcome us, after the Jagger 3 update.


This is one of the best posts in this entire topic. You get used to these updates after a few years and getting mad and ranting about the fall of Google isn't going to get anyone their traffic back. Many webmasters are not going to be happy. I had a few sites lose almost all of their traffic a few updates back. Instead of posting rants on forums I figurd out what to do to keep bringing traffic to my sites. If you have lost traffic it is not logical to suddenly declare that "Google is broken" or "Google sucks" because you have lost ranking. It may feel good but it just isn't true. I see all kinds of categories that have barely budged or look great. I suppose some categories such as real estate have more SEO'd sites than most and they might be seeing even more fallout from this update but I can imagine that that is no accident since many of the sites in these categories use dubious methods to achieve hiigh SE ranking despite the insistence of some webmasters that they are using only white hat methods.

But one thing to remember is that when this update is over and you sill have no traffic then it's going to be time to go buy some wood so that you can build a bridge and get over it. That's when you can start doing some work that will bring your uniques back to the level you're used to

walkman




msg:816047
 3:55 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

lost traffic >> google sucks
gained it >> google rules, I see less spam ;)

ska_demon




msg:816048
 3:56 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

ska_demon, that is a crappy comparison.

Heh heh. Thanks

What I am trying to say is there is so many sites out there that google wants to index that they would suffer the same problems as the ODP if they resorted to human site selection and ranking. It wouldn't matter if they employed 10,000 people to sift thru it. Google would still be, as you put it, under resourced due to the amount of pages out there.

Ska

thecityofgold2005




msg:816049
 4:00 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Um. I guess. Maybe!

I outlined a trust system earlier in this thread which I think would work and wouldn't create too much human work.

We'll see what happens I suppose.

bigearz




msg:816050
 4:02 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

cleanup and others:

Our site has exactly the same problem as yours. Our site has been around for nearly seven years, reviewing music, films, theatre and opera. We used to do well until this update, with our relevant, original content appearing high up in Google's results.

Now, searching for an artist's name and the album title - plus our domain name! - lists sites linking to us or quoting us instead of our pages. Searching just for the artist and album leaves us nowhere.

Writing to Google about this produces an automatic response, thus:

Thank you for your note. While we're always working to include more
content in Google, sites can occasionally fall out of our search results.
Our spiders regularly crawl the web to rebuild our index, but keeping tabs
on billions of pages is tough work, and they may miss a few.

Please be assured that these changes are automated. It is certainly our
intent to represent the content of the internet fairly and accurately. Our
crawlers aren't bullies; they don't pick on particular sites.

We understand that these changes can be confusing. While we can't
guarantee that any page will consistently appear in our index or appear
with a particular rank, our Webmaster Guidelines, available at
[google.com...] offer helpful tips for
maintaining a crawler-friendly site. Following these recommendations will
increase the likelihood that your site will show up consistently in our
search results.

Regards,
The Google Team

All of which is lovely except I've been building websites for over a decade and am well aware of how to build and maintain a crawler-friendly site, which mine is - and they'd have seen that if they'd looked at it. We do not resort to "blackhat" techniques. We're a source for Google News even, but now can't be found on the majority of searches we should be.

In common with a lot of people on here, I have no idea what recourse I have. I'm supposed to sit tight and watch our traffic drop and drop and hope it might all come right in the end? It's been over a month since this catastrophe happened and it isn't coming right. And I don't seem to have any course of action open to me to redress the situation.

Needless to say, our results in MSN and Yahoo remain impeccable, but with an estimated 80% of searches in Europe (we're in the UK) taking place through Google according to their figures, that's scant comfort.

Eazygoin




msg:816051
 4:12 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Can I get something clarified by you specialists on here.
From reading threads on here, am I right in understanding that 'normal' search results are not a display of the results updated by Jagger?
BUT results showing in the various IP numbers given by you, are from servers that have been set aside to test the waters for the eventual 'live results' that will show after Jagger is completed.
Please reply politely, as I am a nice guy ;-)

MrSpeed




msg:816052
 4:18 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

lost traffic >> google sucks
gained it >> google rules, I see less spam ;)

Have you ever noticed that the people that complain the most in an update thread aren't usually heard from in the next update thread?

I think they actualy go out and diversify and have learned not to depend on something totally out of their control.

walkman




msg:816053
 4:19 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> I think they actualy go out and diversify and have learned not to depend on something totally out of their control.

or they come back in Google :)

Personally, I held back diversifying because I was afraid of link penalty (I'm not kidding). I wanted to at least have some extra cash before taking the risk. It is ironic that I got hit by just that.

[edited by: walkman at 4:28 pm (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]

keno




msg:816054
 4:22 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I haven't looked back on this thread because it is too long, but here is another data point.

One of my big competitors in the computer hardware business recently dropped out of google! I'm amazed. THey used to be a PR5 with high ranking product pages, and all now Zero.

I can't find any sign of them in Google. Totally wierd! Maybe it is temporary.

They had a very aggressive linking campaign I know that.

petehall




msg:816055
 4:33 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yikes... these are really nasty!

216.239.37.104

thecityofgold2005




msg:816056
 4:39 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Can I get something clarified by you specialists on here.
From reading threads on here, am I right in understanding that 'normal' search results are not a display of the results updated by Jagger?
BUT results showing in the various IP numbers given by you, are from servers that have been set aside to test the waters for the eventual 'live results' that will show after Jagger is completed.
Please reply politely, as I am a nice guy ;-)

As I understand it, when you search from google.com you actually get results from a randomly selected Google 'datacentre'. Rather sensibly Google has many datacentres all delivering results.

The dc's mentioned in this thread are showing new results and are being used by Google as a test. They are also live but only deliver a fraction of all Google searches.

As the new results spread onto more dcs, so the search results from google.com become more new.

There are about 6 dcs showing new results of which this one: 66.102.9.99 is the mother (was the first and has what I think are final jagger2 serps).

To complicate things, we will get jagger3 next week where the serps will flux again!

thecityofgold2005




msg:816057
 4:41 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yikes... these are really nasty!

216.239.37.104

That dc hasn't setlled yet. It's giving me a mix of old and new serps.

StriderUK




msg:816058
 4:45 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

My first post here. My site has been decimated by Jagger1 and there is no change with Jagger2. We offer a unique website which our users find very useful but if this doesn't turn around we will be in big trouble. I have no doubt Google are trying their hardest to improve search results (a thankless task) but please remember to rescue the babies thrown out with the bathwater! To this end, can googleguy suggest a method of flagging legitimate sites for re-appraisal - I'm thinking specifically as a consequence of Jagger?

Ankhenaton




msg:816059
 4:52 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

66.102.7.104 seems to move :)

66.102.9 seems to be stable itm

jd01




msg:816060
 4:55 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

1. Nearly every time I have had a site not rank, it has been due to something I have done or not done.

2. We are half way through mixing colors on 4 out of 40+ DCs, how do we know it's ugly?

3. Hand Reviewing -- I have said it's priceless before here you go again:

8 bil pages, by reviewing 10 pages per hour * 8 hours per day * 10000 people reviewing = 800,000 pages per day * 365 = 292,000,000 pages per year : so 8,058,044,651 / 292,000,000 = 27.59 years to get all the way through the index once.

4. Where is Clint when you need him?

Justin

webpro00801




msg:816061
 4:57 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hate Google, love Google - whatever. It is unfair when your main keyword ends up getting replaced by a competitor and their home page is so obviously stuffed with keywords. Worse (as someone else mentioned) is being nearly cleansed for many thousands of other little terms. Traffic off by about 1/3 - business off more than that.

walkman




msg:816062
 5:02 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

deleted

[edited by: walkman at 5:02 pm (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]

walkman




msg:816063
 5:02 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> 27.59 years to get all the way through the index once

that's only if they make the sandbox last 27.59 years :)

thecityofgold2005




msg:816064
 5:04 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

8 bil pages, by reviewing 10 pages per hour * 8 hours per day * 10000 people reviewing = 800,000 pages per day * 365 = 292,000,000 pages per year : so 8,058,044,651 / 292,000,000 = 27.59 years to get all the way through the index once.

I wish people would read through earlier posts first...

The above is correct but irrelevant. If one site had 100,000 pages and Google trusted it's creator then Google need do nothing to hand review it. Google can just presume it's OK.

If it isn't it will get picked up by it's competitors' spam reporting it.

In fact, Google need do very little since a lot of the crap will get picked up by scam reports. And even then Google does not need to go through every page, it can just penalise the whole site.

Get used to the idea.. Human input in serps is here and it is here to stay.

A sensible strategy now would be to get on the good side of Google. Sitemaps, wc3html, clean backlinks.. These are all good ideas for a webmaster right now.

jd01




msg:816065
 5:18 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I wish people would read through earlier posts first...

and I wish people would use a little simple reason and logic when they post...

Doesn't look like either will be getting what we want any time soon.

Justin

BTW I have read the entire thread...

theBear




msg:816066
 5:26 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well I see folks are assuming facts not yet in evidence but that's fine.

Would someone be so kind as to define a "clean" backlink?

Now here is one for GoogleGuy to ponder upon.

There are a number of highly respected publications on the net that don't allow the bots in and that have links to other sites.

I would think that those links would be exactly what one would classify as "clean" backlinks (whatever they are, and as if you can prevent linking to a site since it is totally legal).

Then there is the so called SERP placement swing cycle, sometimes known as the scrapper effect, this may be embodied in the following excerpt from one of Google's search engine 125 patents:

"25. The method of claim 22, wherein the determining behavior of links associated with the document includes monitoring at least one of time-varying behavior of links associated with the document, how many links associated with the document appear or disappear during a time period, and whether there is a trend toward appearance of new links associated with the document versus disappearance of existing links associated with the document."

Couple that with modified automated placement checkers with the output based on SERPs from several different S/Es over varying periods of time from sites with differing PRs and thus Google spider and index rates.

Now to add even more to the list of things to consider we have the relative respider and indexing rate of the pages of your own site and those other "normal" sites that link to you.

Then we have the ever expanding number of urls for the bot army to retrieve and the indexers to index.

Just some food for thought, enjoy or tear apart.

This 930 message thread spans 31 pages: < < 930 ( 1 ... 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.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved