| 9:49 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
" Anybody else seeing a little odd "stemming' behaviour in the J3 results?"
Yes, I see the same thing. Plural and singular are being treated very differently.
| 9:52 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
GG did say when asked "when is the next update" - "somewhere between now and Xmas"
I thought he was joking!
| 9:59 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|"somewhere between now and Xmas" |
Actually, that would be good if everyone got a bite at the cherry during the busy xmas season - so flux on!
| 10:05 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Having a quick gander at some lesser search terms in my sector (specialised travel) Google seem to have done a good job on the top money phrases by and large, but it is looking pretty ragged for the more obscure searches.
I probably should keep quiet because my sites are more or less returned (except one which went into supplimental never-never land)
Looking around at the SERPS and stepping back a bit I see some really strange stuff in there,
unprofessional junk, and some sites in dev that clearly never expected to be seen!. I suppose now they are in the results they will clean up their sites to face the public, but it looks bad for Google and so Google must lose credibiltiy, not sure what to make of it but I don't think Google will be stopping here, I really don't think they will want to.
So unfortunately I see the whole dreadfull saga dragging on bit from here... I wonder how long it will take them to get the SERPS back to where they were at the begining of September!
| 10:41 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>GG did say when asked "when is the next update" - "somewhere between now and Xmas"<<
Not exactly :-)
Here is what GG said:
view member profile
joined-Oct 8, 2001
msg #:18 9:04 pm on Aug 24, 2005 (utc 0)
Probably between now and december you'll see PR/backlinks change..
| 10:48 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>Er? Thats MY spammy cloaked site that doing well...
Dont think I can bring myself to create a spam report!<<
Then let me report that site for you. Any URL :-)
| 10:49 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Er? Thats MY spammy cloaked site that doing well
"Dont think I can bring myself to create a spam report!
Especially after my nice white hat site gets slammed."
That is ok just send over your URL and one of us will be more than willing to help send the spam report for ya! LOL
| 11:03 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
What happened to the other .9? That one was the best as far as I can see.
Current Example Results:
Search : widget lifestyle
Results: A store that sells widget pools (among other things to make a widget lifestyle better.)
I wanted to know information about widget lifestyle...I didn't want to buy a pool to improve my widget lifestyle :) It relates, but not enough to be listed on page 1 or even 2 or 3.
PS A widget lifestyle is very complex with as many kids as I have ;)
| 11:23 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Reseller & Arubicus.
Thank you for the very generous offer but NO! I can send in my own spam reports on your sites. Maybe not they are not spammy - but I can always raise that doubt at the plex.
What goes around, comes around - ever heard that?
<bad typo>edit for<bad type>
<beam me up scotty>typing is megabad</beam me up scotty>
| 11:31 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Oh! geeze! Just take the joke guys and dont keep me typing like a fool! I can only use two fingers and even my wife can accept that!
| 11:44 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Waste of time sending spam reports - every kw I have is dominated by one site in the SERPS using pure blackhat spam - doorway pages, hidden text, keyword stuffing, redirects - it's so bad that on MSN, the company's web pages dominate the SERPS for about 4 pages with much of it irrelevent due to the way they kw stuff.
If even this site doesn't get taken down, while mine still appears to be penalised and in the wilderness when I have done nothing intentionally wrong - no blackhat at all, then what's the point?
It's so frustrating.
| 11:51 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
And this is where it ends. The mess that these persistent updates leave google in, turn the good guys into the bad guys. Why spend your life working on good fresh content aimed at giving the best information for searchers, when all that happens is you drop like a stone never to recover (so far) and you can't for the life of you figure where you went wrong?
My site disappeared down to the page 20's during the Bourbon update, to be replaced by sites that spam, cloak and steal my content - all the way to the top of the serps - and they are still there. I don't expect the divine right to be at the top of the serps. I do expect to outrank the spammers, cloakers and content thieves and I do in every other search engine. Way to go google
| 11:51 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I see come changes on [126.96.36.199...]
Might worth take a look.
| 12:08 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't want to look anymore - when the top SERP for allinanchor:kw returns 125 pages from its own site, I think I am going to give up.
Wherever they learned their technique, it must be worth a fortune!
| 12:09 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
oh you are here
some useful results on [188.8.131.52...] but also some absolutely useless results as well for the KW followed
Guess it is still going on.
| 12:14 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Am I right in thinking that J3 is now the same across all data centers. That's what I'm seeing but I only looked at some key words/phrases important to me.
| 12:17 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
" Am I right in thinking that J3 is now the same across all data centers"
No, I'm seeing differences. Not as big as before, but differences.
| 12:20 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
we currently have different results on 184.108.40.206 and 220.127.116.11 .
and its goodnight from me...
| 12:27 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have noticed some directory sites slowly working their way down the SERPS on 18.104.22.168 for some keywords I watch. I would prefer seeing them disappear completely but that would indicate a human hand at work and not a better algorythm. Perhaps tomorrow they will drop to page 2. I can always hope.
| 12:29 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
22.214.171.124 looks like J1 on it's last legs to me.
| 2:37 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The only thing I consistently see is inconsistency. Obviously they don't like what they've seen or it would have spread by now.
We're now in a state of EverUp
| 3:01 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Is anybody seeing anything different with the "Similar Pages", the related:www, results or am I imagining it.
| 3:12 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Isn't this fabulous?
Search for a film review, include the name of the site you want to see the review from and what do you get?
Heaps of links to the page in question, followed by the wrong page on the site with (finally!) the required page underneath.
Needless to say the page doesn't appear at all unless the site name is included. And our home page is PR 6/10.
Google send a standard response to enquiries about this that achieves nothing. And still the results are awful, with no recourse for us to do anything about it. If it was 1789 there'd be barricades.
Movie Review search [google.co.uk]
And yes, it is a bad film.
[edited by: tedster at 11:23 am (utc) on Nov. 10, 2005]
[edit reason] fix side scroll [/edit]
| 3:24 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You might first try this
And if you want to rank for something, try putting the word on your page more than just once in alt text.
| 3:34 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think the only solution is to move spam detection client side with an adapted spamassassin kind of program that uses bayesian learning from what you feed it.
Would do it myself, but G would probably take your business pretty soon away .. so I'd rather not touch it.
Like burning your hands trying to improve Windows lol if it works Billy will grab it. ;)
[edited by: Ankhenaton at 3:37 am (utc) on Nov. 10, 2005]
| 3:37 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Helping a friend search for information on a particular drug addiction (search any prescription drug name along with the word "addiction") yielded pages of crap sites with the word "addiction" in the title, often with the word "cheap", simply selling the drug in question. Looks like its gotten a bit better with this update.
| 3:47 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think google needs to get a 1.21 Gigawatt Flux Capacitor to instantly arive at the point of serp completion.
| 3:59 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm afraid that the new zero cycle time 4 pentabyte wide Serpulator device is not yet out of the lab.
Some little problem with residual Hawking radiation and those darn pesky micro black holes.
| 5:36 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good morning Folks!
The older you get..the less sleep hours you need ... The more you enjoy life. Have any of you youngesters ever thought about that.
As such I guess Matt "Inigo" Cutts is an old man, because he only sleep few hours a day :-)
Ok. I see Jagger3 DC is still alive this morning, and the dog hasnīt eaten it yet. Canīt say the same about part-2 of Jagger Update thread.
GoogleGuy said yesterday that we are in the middle of Tha Father of All FLUX, and indeed we are.
Jagger3 results should have spread to other DCs by now, that what GG told us yesterday. Any of you have noticed significate "expansion" of J3?
Wish you all a great Jagger3 day.
| 5:44 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good morning GoogleGuy and Matt
As you might have noticed some of the folks here have sent WebSpam Team spam reports. However, the same folks don't see much action has been taken to remove spammers from Jagger3 serps in particular or default google index in general.
Of course we know that WebSpam Team has to verify and investigate spam reports before removing spam sites.
Few words from you or Matt assuring the folks that you are taking care of those spam reports, shall for sure encourage my fellow webmaster members to continue sending those spam reports.
P.S. any available weather report shall be highly appreciated :-)
| 6:12 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Also keep in mind that they may be getting a letter [webmasterworld.com] from Google outlining how to keep their site in Google's good graces.
|i report the same site as spam before jagger and after jagger with keywords jagger1,2,3 but no results they arenot working as we work i think |