homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.225.45
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 ... 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!

 

alika




msg:744991
 6:54 pm on Nov 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hmmm ... funandgames. Lucky for you not to experience significant loss of traffic from the search engines. But please do not dismiss our "complaints."

Our website was never affected by any of the previous updates (Florida, etc.). We're always at the top of our keywords. We don't suffer from sandbox - when we launch websites, we show up on the SERPs immediately (maybe not on the top 10 but at least in the top 20). We add quality content on a daily basis. Things were doing so very well.

Until Jagger. And we lost 70% of our traffic. Adsense revenues alone plummeted down from $15-20,000/month to only $3,000+ per month. Things hit us bigtime. And yes, we're whitehat. We don't even do SEO. We just never had any need for it -- because even without H1 or alt tags or whatever, we were at the top of very competitive keywords. So don't come here telling us to shut up because not everyone affected are those who play games. Even those who stay to the true and narrow path got hit.

cleanup




msg:744992
 7:31 pm on Nov 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Stop complaining and get some nice content pages up and get rid of any 'tricks'. You will be glad you did and won't have to stress over 'dropped' pages or stupid 'updates' again."

or (with due respect) stupid unqualified posts in WebmasterWorld!

It would be very difficult to find page of SERPS unaffected by Jagger. I suggest you look around you, Even if your SERP positions are identical to pre-Jagger(which I doubt) your competition at least must have changed.

Joern_Malek




msg:744993
 9:07 pm on Nov 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

I agree that there are probably few out there that have not been affected one way ore another with any of the up-dates of Google.

Finally it is not only a question how we build our website, but also who we have to compete with. Google wants to have the best results on top (at least that's what they say), but the best pages (I consider our page by far the best what Costa Rica is concerned) do not appear as top results.

If you put "Mary Peng Medical Equipment China" in Google our site most likely will be in first position like with hundreds other things on our yellow pages (who cares), but if we are looking at important search-strings where we compete with millions of results with thousands of dollars in business every day, it has been a constant up and down between first postitions and 3rd page.

I am writing this because I would like to hear an opinion on the following thought: We don't pay Google to be there, right? If the first results are frustrating for the searcher, maybe they more likely click on an ad, don't you think so? If the first few results give a searcher all he wanted, why should he then click on an ad? Are we paying for these positions? Or are we giving Google free stats on search behaviour with our site, Google Search and AdSense, so they can correct things by putting the best ads first? Why should they care for us, as long as people are primarily using Google?

I had this thought in the beginning of this year, when we were depending over 60% on Google and took a deep dip with that last update. We took off all AdWords ads and ad-filters from our site, implementing other marketing efforts and little by little gained our positions and traffic back. We eliminated all duplicate text as good as possible, which then was the big issue (for instance we had on every rent a car listing a similar text about safe driving). We also do not exchange links since over one year. Today we have three times the traffic and we only depend about 15% on Google and I think that's why the Jagger fluctuations (up and down) were less severe.

We also add daily new information and dozens of new pages to our 38,000 page site. So it is not only a question of white hat / black hat / body / links etc. I think one has to sit for a moment in Google's seat. What would you do if you were Google with all this information? I am 100% sure they have a whole department analyzing all the stuff we write in these formus.

Have a happy day
Jörn

arubicus




msg:744994
 9:57 pm on Nov 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

"You will be glad you did and won't have to stress over 'dropped' pages or stupid 'updates' again."

Yep I had the same mindset as you do at one point in time. You will continue to think this way until it happens to you. Maybe, just maybe, you will get lucky and it not happen to you. Maybe it will. But how do you know with certainty?

Yes I am able to survive without Google. I am not stupid. But the financial impact of loosing a site or two that generates numbers, quite similar to alika, from google traffic can leave a funky poo poo flavored taste in the back of your mouth. Regardless of what percentage of your income that is. $250,000 is $250,000.

Even if you play by today's rules it may not be the rule of tomorrow. So I hope you are psychic and know what rules will change so you can know EXACTLY what to modify or else you can land in a very similar position.

Remember doo doo just happens and you may unknowingly be walking under a bird and you happen to look up with your mouth open and kerplop! A funky poo poo flavored taste right in the back of your mouth!

[edited by: arubicus at 10:05 pm (utc) on Nov. 21, 2005]

zikos




msg:744995
 10:04 pm on Nov 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

"funandgames"
are you doing sites about the life of the red bishop and other exotic birds in the small Caroo as well as exploring the life of sprinbocks and baboons in St Jefrys bay?:D

arubicus




msg:744996
 10:07 pm on Nov 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

I hope not! A rare arubicus is flying overhead with severe need of some fall cleaning :)

flicker




msg:744997
 10:22 pm on Nov 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

Even websites that do *absolutely* no SEO'ing of any color hat occasionally do get dropped by Google. A couple updates ago Google randomly de-indexed the interior pages of an online writing site I contribute to. There's no way this had anything to do with SEO--this site had and still has no optimization for any keyword at all, no traffic except our own members, and no one even bothers to scrape it. I only noticed the problem because we'd been using Google to search our own archives for past stories, and suddenly it didn't work anymore. It was inexplicable. We started using Yahoo for interior searches instead. A few weeks later I checked, and Google had un-misplaced the site.

This didn't bother me at all. It was clearly just a glitch on Google's part, and it was temporary. We thought it was pretty funny, at the time: hey, maybe Google just didn't like our fic!

But it wouldn't have been very funny if it had been someone's online business that happened to.

Johan007




msg:744998
 10:24 pm on Nov 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

A glitch? Maybe G just wanted to see what spam we use as we enter our re-inclution request?

flicker




msg:744999
 10:33 pm on Nov 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

There is absolutely no way that Google was deliberately suppressing that silly online fiction site from the SERPs to see if they could catch us out submitting a reinclusion request. If we get ten visitors a month to that site from Google, I'd be surprised. It doesn't rank for anything anyone but us would search for on any search engine. There was no ulterior motive behind its temporary fall through the cracks. I can just about guarantee that. Google has much better things to do with its time than go around tweaking people's online fiction and pet cat sites just to see what happens.

If that site dropped some pages due to an innocuous glitch, I don't see why it couldn't happen to other sites too.

comicsrus




msg:745000
 1:24 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

My Google problem with Jagger and Bourbon was the disappearance of Key sub-directories.

These directories did interlink: it was pretty needed as it was a year by year listing, 85-50 pages in each of 5 different catagories, counting 2005.

In the "old" days before Jagger & Bourbon, I beleive this helped my main index page google result.
(# 1 of 100,000,000 sites, for the past few years!)

I'm now number two for my two word key phrase with the disappearance of my sub-directories.

I can deal with that, obviously, but really miss the 70% of my hits from the sub Dir's.

I have made the interlinks within an iframe and hope that that makes the diff.

any thoughts?

funandgames




msg:745001
 2:04 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

Even if Google does indeed have some 'bugs' to work out. I still cannot imagine more then 0.1% of the sites being affected.

Nice work 'zikos' making a fake name to hide under while you type worthless gibberish on the forum. You need to get out more.

steveb




msg:745002
 2:15 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

"I still cannot imagine more then 0.1% of the sites being affected."

I cannot believe anyone believes this. Bare minimum 5% of the sites on the Internet are significantly effected by Google's problems, with 1/3 a much more likely guess. Some problems of course are more obvious, but the ripple effect of links being devalued from pages with split PR, canonical issues, supplemental rot, etc etc etc, is very significant.

annej




msg:745003
 2:56 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hey, I came through Jagger great (so far) but I still care about what happened to the sites that were hurt by it.

Before Bourbon I must admit I suspected the whiners had done something shady and that was why they were hurt by the update. Then during Bourbon one of my sites quietly plunged in the serps on all levels and pages. After much grief I found it had been 302 hijacked. That is just one problem that can cause such damage to a site. I think sometimes when Google changes its algo to get rid of spam innocent sites get caught in the net.

All I can say is that I will never take my sites' rankings for granted again.(one 9 years old and the other 5)

colin_h




msg:745004
 3:20 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm still not sure that the sudden plunge in my main site was due to a direct attack on my page structure / keywords etc. My sites are about as clean as I could ever make them and my oldest site got a complete PR0.

I'm hearing more and more about older sites getting this treatment and the only thing that I can come up with is that the masses of sites that were copying google listings were really the target of this update. As a result of hitting them, it would result in a sudden drop in links to my site and probably sparked off my PR0 and disappearance from the listings.

About 1 month ago I came back full strength for about 2 weeks and died again, at around the time of a full site update including link count. I'm sure that this creates suspicion within google and gets me kicked.

I'm sure it's not spam as I have been watching a client website I built around 4 years ago, packed with obvious cheats, get higher and higher in the rankings.
I'm obviously not proud of this naive black hat attempt, but it does offer a good guage as to google's ability to pick up these sites.

obono




msg:745005
 3:25 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

> but the ripple effect of links being devalued from pages with split PR, canonical issues, supplemental rot, etc etc etc, is very significant.

I recently found a cache of my home page from Oct 25th, date in which apparently Google decided to add a few letters to my url. Suprisingly, what was indexed that day was www.subdomain.domain.com creating an instantaneous duplicate of my index, which that same day disappeared together with the traffic. A site that had been on page 1 for 2 years and has now also lost some of its pr.

I investigated hard thinking that perhaps a malicious webmaster could have linked to that page in purpose, being that I had misconfigured my server and left a backdoor opened. But in the end, I came to the conclusion -wrong one perhaps- that it was google who added the www to the url http:// subdomain.domain.com.

So far, I have been unable to fix this problem and the www is still in the index. My page gone.

There is a chance that someone did this to me, but judging from what is going on it is more likely that google IS creating the problems that Steveb has mentioned.

zikos




msg:745006
 9:53 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

funandgames
People get usually irritated when someone tells the true about them.Your mail shows your age and your attitude.

tigger




msg:745007
 10:04 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

please gents as hard as it is with the update lets not start getting personal

zikos




msg:745008
 10:24 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

Sorry tigger I just made some hummor and the guy took it really bad.

funandgames




msg:745009
 5:09 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hello Tigger, Oh these updates aren't hard at all. My clients sites have all stayed put and even risen in the rankings. That other 'guy' obviously isn't so fortunate. Poor thing. All he has time for is to hide under an alias and write worthless off topic garbage on the forum.

Most of my keywords are two and three word phrases and are number one and have been for years. 20 Million plus results for most. I don't really pay attention to the competition, but they seem to be doing okay as well.

zikos




msg:745010
 5:31 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

Is bad for this forum when people are using it for fun and games.

Atticus




msg:745011
 5:37 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yeah, all my client sites are fine, too. They are realitively small businesses and their sites do very well for them considering their size and locality.

The sites I own which dropped out of G way back in Allegra and Bourbon, never to return, had thousands of top ten listings. THAT's when you get tens of thousands of scrapers and 302's attacking and poisoning your domains. It is real. And I ain't no mealy-mouthed kid -- I'm 42, have a degree in English Literature and have been publishing on the web since February '96.

Google bugs are real. They bite sites with thousands of quality back links and loads of content. Why make fun of those publishers who have sufferred as a result of Google's growing pains? If your sites are successful enough and you don't have an alternate 'brick and mortar' existence to justify yourself to the Google gods then you are just as vulnerable.

besnette




msg:745012
 6:19 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

Greetings..
When this update first started, I looked at the sites of mine that were well ranked, and that had been knocked back to the stone-ages by this update, and looked at the ones that retained their rankings - and one thing that stood out was that the sites of mine that had internal links on every page directed back to the homepage with the main keyword phrase in the anchor - these sites were dinged hard. So, I went back through and changed the anchor text on these internals to just say "home" - or I just removed them completely, and this week, those sites are back up in respectable positions. I hope that might help!

zikos




msg:745013
 6:32 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

Atticus ,thanks for your kind support.

Joern_Malek




msg:745014
 7:55 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thank you Besnette,

your observation seems for me is the first usable hint of a problem. I have anchor texts on all may menues and pages and lately added special hotel menues on the hotel pages, of course with anchor text. I will have to look into this issue. Was your anchor text a excat repetition of your link, or did you add some keywords?

Have a nice day
Jörn

followgreg




msg:745015
 8:04 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)


Unfortunately I don't see any evidence of what besnette mentioned on other websites I monitor :( which that was the first clue of what's going on...

Yippee




msg:745016
 8:22 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> I recently found a cache of my home page from Oct 25th, date in which apparently Google decided to add a few letters to my url. Suprisingly, what was indexed that day was www.subdomain.domain.com creating an instantaneous duplicate of my index, which that same day disappeared together with the traffic. A site that had been on page 1 for 2 years and has now also lost some of its pr. <<

I agree. That was the day people were complaining that G was adding .html to the end of the URLs as well so that it looked like page1.html/page2.html. Then BOOM all disappeared. Personally, I think G went for the updated untested, created a big debacle, and quickly re-indexed to get the SERPs back in shape. Our site absolutely had no reason to get UFO'ed other than someone hijacking us or some external force beyond our control. Since then, G has been nailing our site for 15K plus hits a day man. To me it looks like G is back peddling and trying to completely re-index our site, moreover the entire Internet. Before we use to anxiously await their deep crawl, but now we can't wait for the crawler to get the hell outta heeeee.

I continue to feel G brought this on to themselves... Plus thier stock is at 410 today, I mean what the hell were they thinking, right?!?! Anyway, we came back at the tip of J3 which was early November. I think the update was planned, however, something major got screwed up and they managed to gracefully handle the situation by adding smoking mirrors, distractions, and most of all hanging us check to see if we stole our own cars, lol. UNLIKE anything I can say for any of us being graceful other than falling flat on our faces, with me being in the very front of the line. Getting punked the way we did sure hurt big time, and I will never create that much reliance on G or any single entity again.

Gimp




msg:745017
 8:47 am on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

"I have made the interlinks within an iframe and hope that that makes the diff.

any thoughts? comicsrus"

I have a site that has lost a key directory. That directory is travel related and is both heavily interlinked and has a great deal of duplicate content because of the template type nature of the pages and not because of the primary text in the pages.

Two other directories are not heavily interlinked. One has a lot of duplicate content, again because of the template nature of the pages and not because of the primary text in the pages. Both are performing well.

It appears that interlinking is affecting my particular site just now. It may, of course, change as soon as this update settles. And it may be something else that is making the difference.

In any case, I am considering an iframe that will take out interlinking. But does an iframe have any drawbacks as to how information is displayed in various browsers? Does it have any other drawbacks?

tigger




msg:745018
 10:08 am on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm not going to make too many changes as I can't believe they are going to leave the results in such a mess, I just did a search and from 20 results on the page one was where it should be which was at the top so great for them the other 19 where all cloaked doorways and they even had a nice little Trojan sitting on the page as well that send my virus program into fits.

So in a nutshell I'm doing nothing but waiting to see what G does as IMH the problem is theres not ours the filter they are using is removing valuable content from there searches and I fail to see them leaving it like this

One other thing

This is more aimed towards UK webmasters, are you find the UK only searches very poor? the .com is bad but .co.uk is almost laughable

zimba




msg:745019
 10:18 am on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Obono>>>>> Man I feel for you with whats happened. I would strongly recommend you ask Google Guy to have a look into this for you. He has been known to be a kind soul at times. I have seen it work for Tigger before. Reseller ---- can we try help him out?

This is what OBono had to say

"I recently found a cache of my home page from Oct 25th, date in which apparently Google decided to add a few letters to my url. Suprisingly, what was indexed that day was www.subdomain.domain.com creating an instantaneous duplicate of my index, which that same day disappeared together with the traffic. A site that had been on page 1 for 2 years and has now also lost some of its pr.

I investigated hard thinking that perhaps a malicious webmaster could have linked to that page in purpose, being that I had misconfigured my server and left a backdoor opened. But in the end, I came to the conclusion -wrong one perhaps- that it was google who added the www to the url http:// subdomain.domain.com.

So far, I have been unable to fix this problem and the www is still in the index. My page gone.

There is a chance that someone did this to me, but judging from what is going on it is more likely that google IS creating the problems that Steveb has mentioned."

[edited by: zimba at 10:19 am (utc) on Nov. 23, 2005]

harry_wales




msg:745020
 10:19 am on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm finding the same thing, the top one or two might be genuine results, but the next 10-20 are doorways or just duplicate content on multiple domains. I am trying to persuade clients to use Wisenut until things get fixed at Google... but you probably know what that's like...

tigger




msg:745021
 10:30 am on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

is that on .co.uk results Harry? All of my pages that used to rank well have been pushed down to the third pages and getting next to no traffic but like yourself all the sites in front of me are just spammy cloaked pages. I've never seen the .co.uk look so bad maybe the odd cloaked pages but not all the top 30!

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