homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.205.47
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe and Support 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 425 message thread spans 15 pages: < < 425 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 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!

 

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!

harry_wales




msg:745022
 10:43 am on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

No, that's mainly on COM.

I am finding that over the last day or so that the UK results are starting to firm up again. BUT - you HAVE to use quotes around your search phrases to get accurate results. If you don't you'll get the same sort of mush that Google COM is putting out.

Not something you have to worry about at most engines, as most are clever enough to realise that if you type in a string of words that they should return results for the entire phrase first, before results for each single word - which Google USED to be clever enough to do, but now seems to have forgotten how... Oi Vay!

At the moment Google reminds me of an old relative with short term memory loss...

harry_wales




msg:745023
 10:49 am on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

One other thing - using Google's SPAM REPORT page to report these offenders seems to have little effect - although I do note that one site I reported that was advertising GUARANTEED 1st place in Google for any keyword has now removed that claim. But the same company is responsible for thousands of cloaked pages in Google's index, which I also reported but they are all still there...

I think that unless Google get this sorted soon they will lose their position - which MSN and Yahoo are just dying to grab form them anyway...

Even now, if I need to do any research for a client I can't use Google anymore, I have to use Wisenut or Yahoo, because Google is just putting out thousands of duplicates, or in some cases completely unrelated rubbish - a lot of which belongs to so called "Black Hat SEO's", and one in particular here in the UK.

tigger




msg:745024
 10:52 am on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

problem is how many surfers will do that! probably very few, although what I am finding which confirms to me people are not finding what they want on the first few pages (40 results) is people are digging further down the serps, I just got a hit from a guy that went down to the 151th result before clicking on my site, and this seems to be more so the case, OK yes I'm noticing it because I'm checking back on these results but if surfers where finding what they wanted within the top 20/40 theres no way they would be going down the the 5th & 6th pages - this tells me something inst right with G and any changes people make to the site could long terms do more harm

tigger




msg:745025
 11:07 am on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

>One other thing - using Google's SPAM REPORT page to report these offenders seems to have little effect

I've only ever had one site removed and I think a lot of that had to do with the fact GG was here and posting on the board and on the notes & put my nic & GG name, he then actioned it after I made a further posting on the board saying I'd "JUST" done it, but just sending in requests by themselves seem to have little effect

I think if we wait and hope for the public to move over to Y & MSN we will all be out of business as thats not going to happen over night - for myself I would just like to see a better share of the traffic rather than 100% g or nothing

feelfree




msg:745026
 11:30 am on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yes spam report works.

I reported them with the way GoogleGuy explained. My spammer dropped in 10-15 days.

Thanks

soapystar




msg:745027
 11:44 am on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

i havent seen a single spam report have an effect.

pizzaiolo




msg:745028
 11:47 am on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

"move over to Y & MSN"
Though I had a small benefit from jagger and Google referals increase ,I can see in my logs more and more referals from Ask Jeeves BBC and other ref's,probably more sophisticated people make now there searches from more sophisticated engines. In fact if we analyse from a political perspective Google MSN and Yahoo have become (or better to say )like other prototypes of the cheap american culture of mac donalds ,marlboro ,coca cola and the simpsons .Question is how long the world will keep duying by eating dringing and breating american junk ,that's another problem that the world nations should solve the problem by themselves.

tigger




msg:745029
 11:59 am on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

or more the fact AJ is currently advertising on the box?

pizzaiolo




msg:745030
 12:01 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google MSN and Yahoo is nothing else than another landmark of PAX AMERICANA.The US dominates the world's economy by any means of POWER.Unfortunately the Tunis summit of the UN was a FIASCO because "some" smart guys inside UN choose a non democratic country for a conference about Democracy on the internet "guess who was behind those "smart guys".After all we small webmasters we can't do anything to change that at the moment .People (especially young ones )mostly at the western world are already adicted in Junk Culture.To Late? Yes for the next 2 generations.

Patrick Taylor




msg:745031
 12:17 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

In response to Gimp's interesting question about placing navigation items into an iframe, this really would be a case of the tail wagging the dog. Whilst I can understand the motivation for looking at new ways to bypass various filters, to have to resort to such measures - even if they were effective - is nonsence. I don't mean the question is nonsense, but the idea that this is what web page construction might involve purely to help a site's pages to rank correctly.

Gimp, I have myself begun to wonder if having numerous pages with identical sidebars loaded with long columns of identical links is indeed causing a ranking problem, as I have heard it said is the case with Yahoo. But the iframe idea, purely as an SEO tool, must be a no-no. The content of the iframe is a different page. And it's even more of a no-no in terms of sound page construction, for a whole number of reasons.

What your question alludes to, though, is something worth thinking about, and I have begun to make some changes in one or two places on a site where I have a suspicion that Google post-jagger does not like my sidebars, identical on many pages. It is difficult to be sure about cause and effect, but if I notice anything I will let you know.

tigger




msg:745032
 12:25 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm doing an experiment on a site that ranks poorly on G by changing every nav column on the site and rather than linking back to the index using the usual keyword-keyword link I'm trying it with just "home" I'll let you know how it works out.

But do you think this could be an over use of internal links that could trigger a keyword penalty?

Patrick Taylor




msg:745033
 12:42 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

I don't see changing your site keyword to "home" doing anything but harm, but I think it is worth looking at whether a standard sidebar loaded with long columns of internal links is seen by Google (and Yahoo) as somehow 'unorganic' and the mark of a 'machine-generated' site.

The exact opposite - internal links contained not in lists but spaced out within contextually relevant paragraphs - looks like a recipe for a certain amount of success on areas I have been looking at. This might not meet the needs of the user on a large site though.

I haven't made a deep study of this - it's just a hunch based on looking in the areas I'm interested in.

zikos




msg:745034
 12:58 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Almost is obvious Jagger was made to hit -links- .Well we are all well informed about that.Does that though opens doors to anyone (competitor or malicious webmaster that wants to kill your site) by just sitewide link to your site with your targeted keyword on an already listed and old PR4-5 crap site unrelated to your topic?.Just imagine by the next links update you will have 1000 new links from gamblingandviagrapilsonline dot com? and another 1000 from cialispockerandfillis dot com?

tigger




msg:745035
 1:04 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

well we have always been told another site can't harm you by linking to you as its not a recp link, but what if G thinks that link has been purchased so hit you for that reason!

zikos




msg:745036
 1:21 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

"but what if G thinks that link has been purchased so hit you for that reason! "
That is what I mean tigger.

zikos




msg:745037
 1:28 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Oh... and most important...after the update the guy removes all your links so by the next update your site will be -2000 links (disaster)
In small words the way they think and do things and algos at G-plex makes every brainy webmaster to kill any competitor he wants within 6 months( accordingly to the quarterly links/pr updates).Any comments are welcome .

Gimp




msg:745038
 1:37 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Patrick,
Whilst I can understand the motivation for looking at new ways to bypass various filters, to have to resort to such measures - even if they were effective - is nonsence. I don't mean the question is nonsense, but the idea that this is what web page construction might involve purely to help a site's pages to rank correctly

If you consider it nonsense for me to be looking at iframes as a way to solve a problem through page construction, why is is that you are changing your sidebars to avoid filters. Please explain the difference.

zikos




msg:745039
 1:42 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

google shows the way to fight competition:D
1)site wide links to the competitor from viagra pages
2)site wide links to the competitor from porn pages
3)site wide links to the competitor from gambling pages
4)site wide links to the competitor from unrelated pages
well is that the new era or I have nightmares?

MrSpeed




msg:745040
 2:04 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

-2000 links (disaster)

I have been thinking about that. I have a site that has a few sitewides links with other sites. It was not hit by Jagger.

I afraid to ask the sites to remove them because it would show up as a sudden loss of 1000's of backlinks. It seems like it would raise a flag.

Patrick Taylor




msg:745041
 2:23 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Gimp, I consider it nonsense that navigation in an iframe would need to be introduced into a page purely to achieve a Google ranking, as the content of the iframe is not part of the containing page's content. It's constructional nonsense, though there are doubtless other more justified uses of iframes (though I thought they might be deprecated in due course).

I don't necessarily consider it nonsense to do this if it works, but it would be nonsense if it did, because then Google would be rewarding nonsensical page construction.

I hope this clarifies what I was saying. I wasn't suggesting you were talking nonsense. Apologies if that is how it came over.

[edited by: Patrick_Taylor at 2:28 pm (utc) on Nov. 23, 2005]

marketingmagic




msg:745042
 2:23 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Soapystar: i havent seen a single spam report have an effect.

Dito...

Despite Google asking us to send in reports they continue to ignore them. I've reported a site thats a blatent copy of another site with some extra content thrown in about 4 times and every update its still there. (and thats putting in jagger, etc... in the report fields.) DMOZ removed it right away, but not G. Maybe they are using the reports to tweak the algo but one would think they'd want this crap outta the index asap... ? Guess not.

And they wonder why spam is a problem? lol

Gimp




msg:745043
 2:43 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Patrick,

Unfortunately it appears that Google is penalizing sites that use logical construction. Now that may be too early a call because the Jagger mess is not yet settled and we cannot be sure. If it turns out that the penalties are applied against sites that are trapped by their content and layout for excessive internal linking and duplicate content, then one has to do what one has to do.

A travel site with hotel listings for many cities in a country ends up with a lot of standard, duplicate content and links plus, of course, some unique content related to that hotel. It appears that Google does not respect that as legitimate.

Stupidity begets stupidity. So an iframe may be a solution. Are there others?

One person advised me to add random generated text at the bottom of pages stuffed with keywords. Enough would get the duplicate content percentage down. Now that would be nice to see would it not?

Patrick Taylor




msg:745044
 3:09 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

That Google is applying some filter or dampener to pages with standardised and repetitive navigation links in deep columns is only a hunch, and I haven't seen this as a provable fact. If it were, I would still not be resorting to iframes. It needn't be a duplicate content issue either, but that those repetitive sidebars are characteristic of sites that Google is maybe attempting to weed out in some areas (or at least rewarding something else).

I am not in competitive areas like hotels. What I have seen for less competitive topics is that some pages seem to be doing better than they should (based on their low amount of on-topic content, with only scant reference to the search phrase), and they are often pages with minimal navigation to other pages.

glengara




msg:745045
 4:11 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

*.. filter to pages with standardised and repetitive navigation links in deep columns..

Minimal original content may well look like an attempt to artificially inflate the site for ranking/PR purposes, if you then add AS to that, any doubt is dispelled, IMO.

Ledfish




msg:745046
 4:38 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

I thought I'd chime in here

I have a site that is getting very little decent ranking for it's interior pages even though it use to before about March of 2005. coinciding with the drop was that is was just about the same time we did a redesign. One of the things we did in the redesign was to place the repetitive navigation links lower on the page, thus moving the pages unique content higher. We had hoped this would actually help our rankings overall.

In trying to straighten this problem out, we have had a few thoughts.

1.) We don't think repetitive internal navigation links can get you penalized. Many of our competitors are not having ill effects from it and in fact appear to be benefiting from them.

2.) It is possible that by moving the navagation links down in the actual code of the page that Google does somehow think they are sitewide footer links even though they are not.

3.) Whatever the cause, we feel as though Google is not allowing us to receive any benefit from internal linking. We have examined our linking sturcture and it seems just fine.

4.) Our competitors who are experiencing great ranking of internal pages do not appear to be getting that benefit from link campaigns targeting deep pages. There main source of links to deep internal pages that rank well are internal.

5.) If we take a page that is targeting a uncompetitive keyword phrase, say less than 100K results and get 4-5 quality links to it from quality sources with varied but targetted anchor text, it doesn't seem to help. We also tried using 4-5 links with the same anchor text and that didn't help either. So whatever the cause/penality for the lack of rankings, it seems to completely devalue links, internal or external.

6.) We explored the possibility of hijacking or duplicate content and have re-examined this several times. There is no evidence that it is the cause of the problem. If we pick a extended phrase or sentence out of page's content and search in Google for that phrase, our page is the only one that comes up.

7.) It is possible that the redesign was so broad that is has caused our internal pages to have to regain trust from Google somehow.

8.) Our homepage ranks well for all the broad industry terms it is designed to target. If I place somewhere on our homepage, a term from one of our interior pages. our homepage will rank very well for that term, even if we don't have any external links which have that term in the anchor text.

We have not been able to figure out the cause, therefore we have no idea what the solution could be, but maybe others experiencing this same problems with internal pages not ranking can draw some conclusions.

If anyone else experiencing the internal page "no joy" problem wants to try comparing apples to apples to see what our sites have in common, so we can help each other solve this problem, sticky me.

stakaman




msg:745047
 5:34 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

is there actually any people posting on this thread that are not spammers?

Duplicate content, affiliate only pages, reinclusion requests, reciprocal link networks...

has anyone thought about building a real website?

Also can you report on visit duration, repeat visitors, bookmarks for your website?

MHes




msg:745048
 6:06 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

>is there actually any people posting on this thread that are not spammers?

Dunno, who cares? The information is interesting.

>Also can you report on visit duration,
Yup, its good.

> repeat visitors,
plenty

> bookmarks for your website?
plenty

We get around 3.5 million page views a month...... how about your site wise guy?

billmarshall




msg:745049
 6:58 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Tigger said

> 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

Agreed, I'm seeing sites which only vaguely mention search words, widely separated and often not in the title, outranking by a mile sites which have the full search phrase in their title and which are highly relevant.
You would think the AND had been taken out of the search and that the title and <h> tags no longer mattered.

My own site which for the last year had a number of top 3 positions for some geographically specific search terms and top 6 for similar but more generic terms has dropped out of the top 200 for most of them and wasn't in the indexes at all from the time J started until a few days ago. Sites I've built and which had credits mentioning my site in the footer are coming up way above it. MSN, Yahoo, and All the Web (an old favourite of mine from way back) all show me very high and often number 1 for these terms. I'm not worried about these results for myself as I wasn't getting useful business from them, but I am worried that G is doing the same for many other searches and while most of my SEO customers haven't been badly affected I have no logical answer to anyone who asks why their perfectly ethical site has disappeared.

G need to get this sorted out or they will lose users. I think I'll go back to ATW for my personal searches.

Gimp




msg:745050
 5:09 pm on Nov 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

Stakaman,

Maybe you ought to learn that duplicate content is not always spam. If one puts up catalog pages or pages that have a similar format, the duplicate content % is high even though there is a lot of unique content.

So please, if you have something to add, add a solution rather than some "I am holier than though content" . One of the sites with which we are having trouble is a Chamber of Commerce site, and that is not a spam operation. It is an information operation.

Good Day.

jdhuk




msg:745051
 6:08 pm on Nov 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

If part of this update was to combat link spam then do you think that the new algo is devaluing all non-relevant IBL's and devaluing your entire site for non-relevant OBL's? (reciprocal's)

I'm at the point of hitting the nuke button for every OBL from my site that is non-relevant (about 200) the other 400 are relevant.

This 425 message thread spans 15 pages: < < 425 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 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.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved