homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.225.57.156
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 425 message thread spans 15 pages: < < 425 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 > >     
Dealing With Consequences of Jagger Update
Your site dropped? Lost rankings? What to do now?
reseller




msg:744901
 8:25 am on Nov 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi Folks

Jagger is winding down and life must go on. If Jagger has been kind to your site, Congrats. But for the rest of fellow members who lost rankings or their sites dropped of the index, its time to do some thinking and decide on what to improve or change on your affected websites. Still ethical measures are what interest me most.

Some food for the thought.

After my site was hit by Allegra (2-3 Feb 2005) and lost 75% of my Google's referrals and hit for second time on 22nd July 2005 ending up with only 5-10% of pre-Allegra Google's referrals.
My site is now back to the level of around 50% of pre-Allegra Google's referrals and growing... until further. I say "until further" because who knows what the next update or "everflux" do to my site!

Before my site returned back around 19-22 Sept 2005 (very slow at the begining), I went through my site several times for months and did the followings:

- removed duplicate pages. In my case it was several testing pages (even back to 1997) which I just forgot on the server.

- removed one or two 100% frame pages.

- removed some pre-sell affiliate program pages with content provided entirely by affiliate program vendors.

- removed few (affiliate referrals) outbound links which was on the menu bar of all pages (maybe we are talking about sitewide linking).

- on resource pages, I reduced the outbound links to be less than 100 .

- made a 301 redirect non-www to www (thanks to my good Norwich friend Dayo-UK).

- finally filed a reinclusion request in accordance with the guidelines posted on Matt's blog (thanks Mr. Inigo).

Would you be kind to tell us how Jagger Update affected your site, and what do you intend to do about it.

Thanks!

 

reseller




msg:745201
 8:43 am on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Good morning Folks

Freezing again here. And I thought yesterday that the spring has already arrived :-)

Well..welll..well.. Do you recall my post about changing title and tags (msg #:277 on this thread). Sure you do ;-)

I see a new thread starting with a very interesting post:

[webmasterworld.com...]

==========================

piconsulting
New User

view member profile
send local msg
joined-Mar 5, 2004
posts: 16
msg #:1 1:58 pm on Dec 15, 2005 (utc 0)

I have seen some instances where it appears that Google's SERPs like stale pages. Specifically pages that I optimized over a year ago and havent touched.

Conversely, pages where I need to tweak the title, description, and H1 tag seem to have a ranking decline before the new tags help.

I was wondering if anyone else is seeing something similar to this in Google

============================================

Jean Valjean




msg:745202
 10:12 am on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Maybe out of topic but I discover how to see all your real back links at Google
instead
link:www.mysite.com
put
link: www.mysite.com
just live an empty space after :
try it.Very interesting.

reseller




msg:745203
 11:25 am on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Jean Valjean

Thanks for sharing. By the "Link:emptyspacewww.mysite.dk" I see much more backlinks than the standard "link:www.mysite.dk" generates!

However, Yahoo still shows much more backlinks for my site than Google.

tigger




msg:745204
 11:29 am on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

I agree with Reseller

G only gives a snapshot even with or without space I've only every used Y to check IBL's

Still not sold on this tweaking pages though Reseller. I'm in the process of changing every title & description on an old site so I'll let you know how things work out

Dayo_UK




msg:745205
 11:33 am on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

This link thing has come up many times before.

The link with a space is looking for pages that contain both the word link(s) and your url - eg it just a search for those words rather than a backlink check. Although of course by its nature it does check pages that probably link to you :) - but obv not all as not all pages that link to you have the word Link(s) in the text.

Best way to check links is not to use Google.

reseller




msg:745206
 11:45 am on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

tigger

>>Still not sold on this tweaking pages though Reseller. I'm in the process of changing every title & description on an old site so I'll let you know how things work out<<

Thats both interesting and exciting.

Accepting the challenge :-)

Let me put it like this:

- if its ONLY the titles and description you change (and no change within the body)

- and you do that for lets say more than 20% of total number of pages of the said site

I should say already now that there is a big chance that the pages will be sandboxed for sometime (maybe several weeks or months). Lets wait and see ;-)

Eazygoin




msg:745207
 12:14 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Not wanting to contradict anyone, but merely passing a comment from experience, 100% of my titls and description tags were changed, back in June, and there was NO adverse effect on the site.
Since then, I have continued to tweak both for the homepage, so as to ensure the tags provide absolute clarification of what my main site is about, again with no adverse effect.
My main keyword has been at number one for a search of 22 million+ since June, and remains there. Conjugations of the main keyphrase also remain in top positions.
I cannot see Google penalising anyone for trying to improve their site, BUT if they are trying to spam the system then thats another story!
What I do notice is an aweful lot of websites misuse the title tag, but as long as it is clear and concise, and relates to the content, then IMO it should be fine.
As someone said yesterday, NOBODY knows how Google works when it comes to these things, so we can only speculate, without giving clear cut statements on what is right or not.

nfinland




msg:745208
 2:15 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

I just did something similar, but much more radical.

I removed my blogs posts description tag and did that on all pages. So now all my pages are without a description tag. Lets see what the next update does with the site and the pages.

P.S. I did this as my blog software doesn´t allow me to have unict descriptions / page. So I had a sitewide description and wanted to get rid of it.

cws3di




msg:745209
 2:46 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Dayo_UK

The link with a space is looking for pages that contain both the word link(s) and your url - eg it just a search for those words rather than a backlink check. Although of course by its nature it does check pages that probably link to you :) - but obv not all as not all pages that link to you have the word Link(s) in the text.

Your explanation seems to be right on the money. What is most interesting about this search with an empty space is that everything there seems to be junk link directories and hijacker?type 302 stuff. Everything I see has "Supplemental Listing"

Could this indicate that G is sorting out the junk links pretty well? Does anyone else see all of their dirty laundry there?

.

Atomic




msg:745210
 4:31 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

I agree with Eazygoin. Changing a lot of titles and descriptions is normal on dynamic sites. Such changes might be done for a lot of reasons besides SEO and for Google to penalize someone when they did this would be wrong.

tigger




msg:745211
 4:45 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

well it should be interesting to see how my site works out as it a static site and I'm changing the lot -

Eazygoin




msg:745212
 5:04 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Tigger >>

The very best of luck and success.

I have been thinking seriously about all this, and let's say a site that has updated products going on the site hourly, then Google crawls the site regularly, and hey presto, new content every five minutes!
Now, for Google to differentiate between new content on different parts of the site, be it tags or products, would be a marvel.
A word of caution though, as if you have a keyword 'widget' and change it to 'midget' [small change if you get the pun!],then it may take a bit of time before the latter gets ranked anywhere sensible, as it's a new word for your site.

tigger




msg:745213
 5:50 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

cheers Eazy

well I'm throwing everything all but the kitchen sink at this site make over so it should be fun, after all the bugger inst ranking great on G so what damage can I do :)

I'll let you know how things work out

reseller




msg:745214
 6:39 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

tigger

>>I'll let you know how things work out <<

Yes..please :-)

Essex_boy




msg:745215
 6:54 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Not sure if this is related to the Jagger update but I have for several search terms the same page showing twice.

Normally one above or below the other.
odd or what

g1smd




msg:745216
 7:01 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Just a note about what can happen to new sites at the moment:

New domain registered Dec 3rd. Content uploaded Dec 4th (about 240 pages).

Index page showing in SERPs with cache of the domain holding page by Dec 7th.

HTML Sitemap of whole site posted on another site late on Dec 7th. Google spiders that other site at least once per week.

Now, 200 pages of site showing in SERPs by Dec 17th, with cache date of Dec 13th for each page.

g1smd




msg:745217
 7:26 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> - if its ONLY the titles and description you change (and no change within the body) <<

>> - and you do that for lets say more than 20% of total number of pages of the said site <<

>> I should say already now that there is a big chance that the pages will be sandboxed for sometime (maybe several weeks or months <<

I don't agree with that.

A friend has a 140 page site where every description was the same. Each title was different, but not the meta description. The site used to be listed OK in Google and ranks OK (it has been online about 2 years).

As of several months ago, a site:domain.com search listed just FIVE pages before giving the "click here to view the similar pages omitted from the results" message. Clicking that link (adding &filter=0 to the search URL), then listed all 140 pages and all showed an identical description.

Just as Jagger started, he changed most of the descriptions to be different (and has no description on about 15 pages). Within a week, the number of pages shown in a normal site:domain.com search had risen to about 30 pages. After another 10 days it was up to about 60 pages. After another few weeks it was up to about 90. Now, about 2 months after making those changes, it is up to about 110 pages.

There are about 15 pages that have no description tag at all (for whatever reason), and those pages show an identical snippet from the top of the page itself, and only show up in Google results when you click that link to reveal omitted results.

Site is ranking better than ever, and visitor numbers are up too.

reseller




msg:745218
 10:39 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Good evening Folks

Some very important developements have happened while we are discussing whether webmasters subject their sites/pages in the event of changing the titles and tags of several pages at a time to devaluation of those (maybe search engine optimized) pages by Google.

I read on John Battelle's Searchblog, talking about Google-AOL recent deal:

"....Google will also provide technical assistance so AOL can create Web pages that will appear more prominently in the search results list. But this assistance will not change computer formulas that determine the order in which pages are listed in Google's search results."

I.e Google might provide SEO services to AOL to optimize its pages to rank on Google's index!

Thoughts?

[battellemedia.com...]

johnhh




msg:745219
 11:15 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

reseller:
shouldn't you be wrapping up all those christmas presents - or do you have a slave - oops I mean a santa's helper - to do it for you?

I think the aricle is not that clear - as they also
mention ads at the "bottom right corner of the search results page ". I presume this means they will get this AND also get help in SEO'ing their AOL content pages fo the normal SERPS.

If they do this of course AOL pages will be the one's to analyse as these are SEO'd by Google.

theBear




msg:745220
 11:51 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

johnhh,

You'd think that wouldn't you.

reseller




msg:745221
 12:15 am on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

john

>>reseller:
shouldn't you be wrapping up all those christmas presents - or do you have a slave - oops I mean a santa's helper - to do it for you?<<

We are only half way in wrapping and buying. Next week will be a busy week :-)

>>If they do this of course AOL pages will be the one's to analyse as these are SEO'd by Google.<<

However, I wouldn't be surprised if Google starts its own SEO company "SeoSense" offering optimizing sites for better ranking on Google index. There are still several revenue generating opportunities for Google to explore, you know :-)

petehall




msg:745222
 12:22 am on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

That would be pointless!

From what I can gather this is going to be along the lines of paid advertising and not manipulation of SERPs.

petehall




msg:745223
 12:25 am on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

There are still several revenue generating opportunities for Google to explore, you know :-)

The biggest being dropping DMOZ data and setting up their own directory.

vincevincevince




msg:745224
 1:30 am on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

The biggest being dropping DMOZ data and setting up their own directory.

I disagree. DMOZ has about 4.5 million sites, and I'd guess that a vast swathe of those are either non-profit (and couldn't pay), academic/charitable (and shouldn't pay), or big corps (many wouldn't want the bother of paying).

Let's say 2 million sites which would pay a reasonable fee, Yahoo! charge $299/pa - so they'd have to at least start with a substantial undercut (I'd bet on $100/pa). Don't forget the Google directory is unlikely to pass pagerank or cut much mustard with other competitive search providers.

Now subtract that $100/pa from the advertising budgets via Adwords of say half of those who will simpily deduct it from the annual spend. 1 million left.

Get 10 staff members at $30k a year working on the project, add $20k each for taxes, national insurance, pensions, per employee overheads. $500k gone each year.

Now stick directory results at the top of Google's search results and watch premium advertisers pull their campaigns. (Alternatively, stick them at the side and watch the normal adwords advertisers disappear).

The whole affair would either never take off and get forgotten (best prospect for Google), or it could seriously dent Google's profitability.

Atticus




msg:745225
 1:37 am on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

G should drop DMOZ and obtain Looksmart/Zeal. They are already split into commercial and non-commercial branches and have much more comprehensive coverage in the various catagories than does DMOZ. The Zeal submission process is more inclusive, more transparent and far more responsive than DMOZ.

Only problem with Zeal is that it's sloooooow. A liitle G cash would speed things right up.

larryhatch




msg:745226
 2:00 am on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

This is getting very tiresome.

Hey you guys in India: Have you gotten your checks yet? Just curious. -Larry

walkman




msg:745227
 2:06 am on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> Google will also provide technical assistance so AOL can create Web pages that will appear more prominently in the search results list.

Rule #1: Journalists don't know much when it comes to this and dumb it down for average Joe.
2. I doubt, AOL needs Google to tell them how to SEO, and Google would not jeopardize it's integrity by favoring AOL pages. Maybe they'll give them free adword credits.

colin_h




msg:745228
 7:36 am on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Good morning Reseller << I wouldn't be surprised if Google starts its own SEO company "SeoSense" offering optimizing sites for better ranking on Google index >>

I think there will still be a huge scope for home spun SEO, even if Google provides an SEO service - with guarantees of top slots on the web searches. Most SEO professionals target thousands of keyphrases within there sites, making it totally impractical to pay for top slots for all but the most lucrative keyphrases.

I still think that each time Google searching becomes harder to find the site you want ... the public get smarter and modify the keyphrases that they use ... thus creating more accurate target keys for the SEO to use when designing their pages.

OK, so the big keywords will be pointless competing for. All we do is spread our fishing nets wider and instead of eating big fat cod, we settle for smaller less popular fish that the big trawlers aren't interested in.

There's plenty of opportunity left in the internet ... for everyone (big & small), we just need to re-evaluate our place in the food chain.

Good luck to all and best wishes for a prosperous new year. My Xmas starts here ... no more search engines for 4 weeks .....

reseller




msg:745229
 8:14 am on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Good morning colin

I can see the sun raising. Gonna be a great Sunday for sure :-)

>>OK, so the big keywords will be pointless competing for. All we do is spread our fishing nets wider and instead of eating big fat cod, we settle for smaller less popular fish that the big trawlers aren't interested in.<<

Well said!

I guess webmasters should start to study and explore new territories. And for sure there are stil a lot of business opportunities out there.

colin_h




msg:745230
 9:37 am on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

The situation today doesn't seem any different than when I started 6 years ago (Ouch!). In those days I found it hard to compete with the big guys, so I went for more niche markets and made myself a bigger fish in a smaller pond.

I believe that this Jagger update has made me more creative, more streamlined and less fat and lazy than I was 6 months ago. I maybe slightly less well off, my future may be a little less secure, but I'm less reliant on Google to make money. I am actually quite positive about the future now and think that this Jagger rubbish has helped me see how little security Google was adding to my life ... We live every day knowing that what Google gives, they can take away ... There's no value in that ;-)

tigger




msg:745231
 9:47 am on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Jagger has taught me not to put all my eggs into one basket! fortunately old smaller sites are still pulling in some G traffic but I'm working on those

This 425 message thread spans 15 pages: < < 425 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 > >
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