homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
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 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 31 > >     
Update Jagger, Google Update Oct 18th, 2005
When can we expect a new PR update?

 5:33 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Continued from here:

Anyone have any guesses as to when we can expect a new systemwide PR update?



 6:49 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

...intentionally sabotaging its core product in order to do so.

This type of thing does happen, we hear of auto companies building cars less safe to increase profits, or food companies adulterating their recipies, etc.

But typically this will happen when they want to rest on their laurels and milk the good name quickly, often this will happen after a company passes to the next generation or is sold to a new owner.

But Google is at an entirely different stage of its development and less than a year ago had a VERY unconventional IPO, do no evil etc...

They just now pocketed $4B in a secondary stock offering. Yes those new investors want to see profits but to think that a company this new has degraded so far to risk its core product in so little time is just lunacy.

If you think that I suspect it must be a result of those alterations made when you were abducted to that spaceship...


 6:50 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'd never claim that they are intentionally sabotaging their product to boost income, I think you can boost income and do other things that help the serps but force some users, more, to adwords, that formula isn't a mystery to google, or any other media company, it's a balance.

[edited by: 2by4 at 6:51 am (utc) on Oct. 19, 2005]


 6:50 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Good morning Folks

I see GoogleGuy has posted some "technical info" while the folks at Northern Europe were in bed ;-)

And as the case during Borboun update, I need somebody to translate for me a specific section of what GG posted in msg #:40

What is: a new binary wending its way out from the group of data centers


Senior Member

view member profile
joined-Oct 8, 2001
msg #:40new post indicator11:43 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (utc 0)

Just to recap:
- I currently expect new PR/backlinks to be visible in a few days. I'll let you know if that changes.
- madweb had an interesting observation in message #816 of this thread:
I believe that there is a new binary wending its way out from the group of data centers that included 66.102.7.x . Most people won't notice much difference between data centers, but I believe that those searches are likely to be closer to what to expect.

So just to set expectations, there will still be quite a bit of flux for people to expect near-term. We'll be setting up a way for people to pass us feedback.



 6:59 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> a new binary wending its way out from the group of data centers

New code is being distributed across the datacenters. I expect that this has some new filters or algorithmic changes. Typically this is required to fix bugs or add "new knobs" / filters etc.


 7:06 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)


Now I understand it ;-)

Thanks for the "translation". Much appreciated.


 7:33 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Everything about that post of his seems to describe the situation about 3 or 4 days ago, rather than when GG posted it. Are we going to see new wending in the days ahead or is it referring to that which has already happened.


 7:38 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

When this update will be finished? Some of my sites are kicked our by google to position not top 30 anymore.

Thanks alot


 7:40 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

when I check 66.102.7.x with my new killer "seo optimization" test phrase I don't see much improvement but I still have a big laught :)

Ok ...very very very very tiny little small improvement overall...I will still have to keep my bookmark folder open to be sure I will find my favorite sites or I will have to go to Y or MSN though :)


 7:42 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am noticing two types of scenarios here.

My established sites, 5 years + with substantial backlinks have hardly been touched, only by a couple of positions +- by 1-2. So relived about that :)

My Newer sites, launched aggressively in 2004 which dominate Yahoo and MSN popped out of the so called Sandbox a few months ago at the last update pre sept22.

When these sites were in the so called sandbox, they were all +- 300 in the Serps. And they only ranked for about 1-2 main keywords.

When they came out of the sandbox, they were ranking for 20 + keywords.

It appears that with this so called update, all 20 rankings (post sandbox) are gone, the main keyword that was top 20 went BACK down to 300.

These sites used no reciprocal linking, and actually have not had any new links (only a dozen or so) in the past 4 months. The sites are also squeeky clean.The site has also had no major upgrades in the past few months.

By this I can deduce the following:

A: My keyword which is my domain name, has been used too many times in the anchor text. However, if I look at established sites, where their anchor text is their domain name, they have been untouched. I strongly doubt its this.

B: The site has too few outbound links?

C: Every source of 1 way links, which were topical, relevant, have had a slight devaluation or have been placed in a holding cell.

D: The entire site is back in the sandbox.

[edited by: jaffstar at 7:44 am (utc) on Oct. 19, 2005]


 7:43 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Update Jagger..oh great they finaly gave it a name!

First we were not even allowed to mention the word update.
Then there were arguments about what is or not an update.
Then my three (and only) sites go missing from Google.
Still people seemed in major denial about it being an update.
Then after a month or so and 2000 posts in WW on the subject
it finally gets a name.

Just to add insult to injury the name chosen is a guy from
my home town with whom my elder brother was in the same class at
school...yes I am talking about Mick baby!

can't see why some Google geek needs to drag the name of one
of my heros into this sordid little story.....ughhh!

Anyway... had my little rant now. Please excuse me for that.

Now for the facts about my demise on Google which may
serve to help any other poor sods who have been obliterated
by this update.

1)I have three sites and only three sites all effectivley crippled now
on Google.
2)One has gone entirely suplemental and the other two sites the pages are there
but unfindable for their search terms.
3)Main search term and company name now on page 10 for my main two word
key phrase
4)Previously I had been number one for five or six years on Google.
5)Sector - travel, not afilliates...my own properties.
6)Sites are over 5 years old 1998 and 1997.
7)Link exchanges. Yes, always hated them but since all others around me
were doing it went along with the flow.
8)Link exchanged with about one in ten of those that asked and never went
looking for links.
9)Sites have all been widely scraped, (impossible to avoid for anyone with
a little success it seems).
10)All three sites are fairly small between 50 and 100 pages.
11)All unique content.
12)A little interlinking between sites where apropriate but not more that
say 5 or ten exchanges between sites.
13)Sites have not been affected by any other update.
14)Have PR5 and have for the moment retained that.
15)Backlinks listed on Google as 250-300 for the sites.

Sent a reinclusion request to Google. No reply.

Any suggestionsgladly welcomed.
Any quesitons gladly answered.



 7:45 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am sure someone must have said this before, BUT, what Google needs to focus on ISN'T making results more relevant to the search term, which is purely a simple exercise in linguistics, matching keywords with websites in order to seperate the 'non relevant' results from the 'relevant' ones... they need to first understand the requirements of the 'searcher'. It seems to me that they try to surpress results from commercial websites, for example... if that is the case, they have misunderstood the needs of the searcher completely. People use Google in their pursuit of information... what makes Google so sure that they should position themselves as the virtual library for the world? Giving more relevancy to .org type sites is very simplistic... often they are bogus, uninformative and even attempts at masking commercial sites.

Maybe I am misguided, maybe I simply don't understand the technology but if Google don't 'look up' they will bite off the hand that feeds them!

Playing games with the positioning of quality websites is dangerous, sure it may produce more adwords revenue, but it cheapens Google's service, it puts them up there with purely 'pay per click' enterprises.

Google MUST maintain its position as the web's unbiased, authority search utility.

MOST searchers need what they are looking for... not only information but solutions too! Which information appears at the top should be assessed differently.

Being so anal about the conventional results and yet so incredibly lax about who maintains top position using Adwords, is crazy. You can say and do pretty much what you want as long as you bid highest on Adwords, but getting your authority site to be viewed by those who need it (even if it's non profit and there exists no marketing budget) means masses of SEO work! Be one thing or the other Google.. don't be the respected bank manager and then tout loans on street corners at the dead of night!


 7:48 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

I noticed someone just asked when this will be over.

This update won't be finished for a while.
Note Googleguy message 40 at [webmasterworld.com...]
He's talking about things happening over a period of time.

There's not much use in talking about if you are up or down or what you might need to change tell it's over. That's when the useful discussions begin.


 7:52 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)


First feedback from Googleguy for months and I was asleep.

Teaches us Europeans to have a different time zone hey.


Hmmmmz - so a Binary push starting on the [] DC.

Intresting, lets hope the Binary push is a translation for a fix :)


 7:52 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

"There's not much use in talking about if you are up or down or what you might need to change tell it's over".


I agree, "watching an update" is less exciting than watching paint dry.

Chances are, if you are watching paint dry, you probably did the painting, and while "watching" it dry at least you can decide to; run a fan, turn the heat up or down, open or close a window, or otherwise influence how it dries.

On the other hand, if it's not your paint drying, you may be better off doing something productive and stopping back later to see how it dried.

(and back a hundred messages ago)...

Somebody just had to do that. Just glad that it wasn't me.
- g1smd

I had to do it, or my brain would have melted from trying to see if or how my sites were affected.


 7:57 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)


>>can't see why some Google geek needs to drag the name of one of my heros into this sordid little story.....ughhh!<<

Talking about heros, I would have preferred a name from my own generation, for example: Tom Jones, Cliff Richard or the KING himself

Update Elvis ;-)


 7:58 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

I noticed someone just asked when this will be over.

Look at the post just before the post where he asked that.


 7:59 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)



First feedback from Googleguy for months and I was asleep. <<

Me too (:(


 8:05 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)


Usually I'm first or second on the second page for a search. Now I'm last on the first page AND first on the second page, so have both places 10 and 11. Looks funky.


 8:05 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)



First feedback from Googleguy for months and I was asleep. <<

Me too (sad

What was a tropical storm (or maybe just barely a hurricane) is also now the 2nd most powerful storm the Atlantic has ever seen (maybe #1 by the time I post this). Perhaps Wilma just needs to be indexed by Google, and then she'll drop into the list of supplemental hurricanes, or URL-only storms.


 10:59 pm on Oct 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

That 10 and 11th place - that happens to me. If I search Google and find myself in 11th place I can then go back to the first page and I am 10th! How cool is that?


 11:38 pm on Oct 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

Update Jagger seems to be a bit funny, I went to MSN dot com and it's PR is a 2 with 8 back links, the PR for one of my 7 sites went down from 4 to 3 but the rest are still the same.

But with a PR 2 for MSN do you think is web politics? or there's something very wrong with this update


 12:08 am on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am sure not seeing many changes in this update since the first day.. (if its supposed to be going through phases) I sure hope the "phases" are not over. The MSN pr should not be 2 - that tells you right there google is having issues with redirects/etc. I guess it might be funny in the way it could make Bill Gates glasses fog up. LOL.


 1:23 am on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

I get a pagerank of 7 for MSN here in the UK if I go to it in ie (yick) using the google toolbar...is that how you're identifying the pagerank? Not idea what ip my toolbar goes to to get the pagerank but if i traceroute to google.com from here i get Still getting some nonsensical results from here today with supplmentals showing higher than non-supplemental results in some searches.


 1:33 am on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've gotta say - I'd like a thread with just comparisons and observations.

In that vein:
I have a couple of sites that got body-slammed. They still have high PR (for what it's worth) they have the same number of pages in the index. They no longer rank for their "pet" optimized keywords (three word phrases).
There is nothing really fancy on these sites seo-wise - just the basics.

Site 1: All inbounds - few outbounds
Site 2: All recip - no one-ways

Both sites have optmized anchor text. Neither site has more than 50 ibls.

The anchor text is broken down something like:
60% optimized
20% domain name
20% company name



 2:12 am on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have several sites that have done very well so far during the Jaggerian Period. None of them have recip links. All white hat SEO with normal internal linking where it makes sense for the users. Carefully chosen related outbound links at the bottom of articles. None of my sites have slipped at all in ranking and the subject matter varies significantly and includes travel and finance and real estate and food to name a few. These are just shared web hosting accounts on different servers. Anchor text linking is whatever makes sense contextually and is never the domain or company name.

I also have watched my logs like a hawk and when I see a pattern in search terms I have integrated these terms in my articles. All of a sudden these search terms are bringing in a decent amount of traffic.

I also noticed new backlinks this morning and something has happened today that is increasing my traffic. Could be luck but the BL's are new.


 2:19 am on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

seems like penalized sites end up on the last page, usually at the bottom for their main keyword.
On the last page I would expect more internal pages but I see an inordinate amount of homepages.


 2:30 am on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

You people need to read this...



Please do not edit this as it is a release intended from google. The bottom line is that the word is out. It's hitting the public's radar screen.

[edited by: Yippee at 2:43 am (utc) on Oct. 25, 2005]


 2:36 am on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

You need to read the Forum charter (when Brett uploads it again...)


 2:38 am on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

Delete it if you can Steveb... I'm sharing info with my fellow webbies.


 3:08 am on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hmmmm, I want to add that I haven't liked the Google sitemap concept and hand code static sitemaps for all my sites. Not only that but Google seems to really, really like them.

3 of my sites are also 9-10 years old.


 3:17 am on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> Please do not edit this as it is a release intended from google. The bottom line is that the word is out. It's hitting the public's radar screen.

you can't post links, that's all. It's not Steve's or my rule, it the forum owner's rule. You're just making the Mods' job harder.

To that SEO guy who is trying to get backlinks and business by bashing G: nice way to get on Google's radar.

This 930 message thread spans 31 pages: < < 930 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 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