| 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.
| 6:44 pm on Nov 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I want everyone to know that although Stakaman sounds like me, he's not just me using another login ;-)
All the best
| 6:58 pm on Nov 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
50% of your OBL links are garbage (irrelevant)?
What does that tell google about your site and the reason those links are there?
| 8:36 am on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google is not interested in content. They want you to present the content their way.
Google is a form over substance search engine. If you use the wrong form, you are penalized or don't get position.
We have been playing with form. We found one webmaster who was doing well and looked at his form. We adopted his approach. And, bingo. New pages are performing well and our old pages in the format used for years just do not seem to exist.
What we see is that Google wants text with adwords and very few links out of the page. They do not seem to want you to refer people to other parts of your site or to third party information that may be relevant. They want the people to click out of your pages through adwords.
| 9:15 am on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You are wrong I have a tone of examples of pages with over 100 links on every page with text as a menu that rank #1 for the targetd key words.
| 9:38 am on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
this is the problem what works for one site doesn't necessary work for another. I'm seeing this all the time on the serps while trying to work out why sites have either held onto or bettered rankings considering they are all following the old "link to anything" philosophy
| 10:13 am on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Are the keywords backwater or are they money keywords?
| 10:39 am on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Jagger 3 update special
| 11:02 am on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
| 1:39 pm on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You can't look at things individually and say that's the reason why. In adopting this panacea-like format you describe, isn't not the tiniest bit posible that you incidentally changed something else about your site which Google didn't like?
Remember, the algo is a black box. You only know what goes in and what comes out. Unless you make microscopic changes, you can never say: "I changed this and that happened, so therefore that was the problem".
| 1:45 pm on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
google can eat my £$ck.I make money from Yahoo.Google will have the end of the 3 Reich very soon.
| 1:47 pm on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't need Google ,my network is everywhere even when Google Die.
| 2:23 pm on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
One thing I have noticed is that, IMO, Jagger has started to penalise (not only ignoring) indirect reciprocal links: that is I link you from my site A and you link to my site B. It looks as if Google algo finds out that the B site gets a high % of its links from webs which are linked from site A, then it penalises site B.
I dunno understand why, because as worst case, this linking pattern should be treated just the same as reciprocal linking (and then be of little value or just plainly ignored) but IMO sites like site B described above have suffered a penalty
Anyone else has noticed this?
| 2:28 pm on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> Jagger 3 update special
Incorrect! Nothing to do with Jagger. See: [webmasterworld.com...]
| 3:45 pm on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I came through Jagger with a huge boost all around, with the exception of one site. This site had a lot of internal linking and a lot of reciprocal links. Other than that, it was not fundimentally different that the others. I think it is likely Google has sent a warning shot (or perhaps a scorthed earth campaign) to agressive link builders/exchangers. Link campaigns don't reflect what Google had in mind when it gave such importance to links.
That said, I do think Google's notion that a site will get natural links without first appearing high in the SERPS is totally absurd and really webmasters have no choice but to chase links if they want to succeed in most cases.
| 3:53 pm on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|One thing I have noticed is that, IMO, Jagger has started to penalise (not only ignoring) indirect reciprocal links |
No, I didn't notice this, do you have some eveidence of this? I suppose Google could do it, but it doesn't make sense that Google would penalize the target (recipient site) as this would allow one's competators a means to harm someone else's site. It's more likely Google would just ignore them.
| 4:04 pm on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Re: webmasterworld in Google - quite right, looking from the UK Google doesn't seem to know to refer people to www.webmasterworld.com any more.
But it will quote other sites that mention it.
My site has exactly this problem - our articles appear in Metacritic and various blog posts, but the article one searches for is ignored.
Our traffic's down another 10% this month, making about a quarter since Jagger began. And still no-one seems to know what can be done about it.
| 4:21 pm on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
harry_wales and tigger:
I concur with your observations about .co.uk - for just about every category the relevancy of results for just about every term remains catastrophic.
Even when our highly relevant page for a search term is readily available and spidered, Google will list a less relevant page from our site instead. At about 190 in the results.
Related thought: Microsoft was taken to court about its dominant position in the operating systems marketplace. Surely, at least in Europe, Google should face the same scrutiny? It accounts for 80% of all searches in Europe, yet provides terrible results and is completely unaccountable.
(I've only ever received useless automated responses to email enquiries, and a phone call to the Googleplex was put through to a voicemail message that, in as many words, said individual webmasters were far too unimportant to disturb the company's terribly important plans to take over the planet.)
I'm still hoping Bill Gates will massively invest in promoting MSN Search across Europe through clever marketing rather than TV and poster campaigns. Google's monopoly cannot be allowed to continue while the service they provide is so dire. But what can be done about it, practically?
| 4:32 pm on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Jagger is all about links. Jagger is a another great example of google losing the plot. They are lost due to their algo reliance on links to determine relevancy. So instead of inovating they simply took the kill all approch.
Algo busted. Full stop....start penalizing sites left and right just because they have a link or two to the home page or sold a link or two to others....you see only google can sell links, only google can scrap and scan copyrighted material and flood the internet with their spam, when they do it it is called advertising, when webmasters do it, it is spam. Sell a link yourself or innocently link to that other site you just started developing and you are out of business by the google "algo" almost immediately.
|Our traffic's down another 10% this month, making about a quarter since Jagger began. And still no-one seems to know what can be done about it. |
They want you (force you) to fire up an adwords campaign... "NO FREE TRAFFIC FOR YOU" (like the soup nazi). What a joke of a search engine it has become....there will be not much left by the time Mutt Cutts and his dumb craw are finished with it. Mark my words. Heads will start rolling at the plex sooner or later.
[edited by: Max_M at 4:45 pm (utc) on Nov. 25, 2005]
| 4:36 pm on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
all I'm hoping bigearz is that when/if J3 settles that they re-introduce some type of additional filtering in the .co.uk results so that it returns to the days before this nightmare of an update began - but I feel what we have now we are stuck with and like yourself hope the MSN capitalise on this
| 5:30 pm on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<all I'm hoping bigearz is that when/if J3 settles that they re-introduce some type of additional filtering in the .co.uk results so that it returns to the days before this nightmare of an update began - but I feel what we have now we are stuck with and like yourself hope the MSN capitalise on this >
To me, the uk results look like pre-Jagger - we are still ok on it to some degree. In the non-uk results, we are nowhere.
| 8:19 pm on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"when/if J3 settles" Is exactly what I was thinking.
On the SERPS that I watch for my business critical site there has been a definate change for the better on both google.com and google.co.uk. My only change was to add <h1> tags around a headline on the pages that had previously ranked #1 but had dropped to #3 following j3 this is now in the cache and I'm back at #1 for all of the terms that I'm targetting. I did this after looking at what those that had leap frogged me had that I didn't and since Florida I've had no <h> tags on my pages that rank well.
I suspect that If I had done nothing I may have bounced back anyway. (touch wood!)
Incidentally when did Google start redirecting folks in the UK to google.co.uk?
| 9:06 pm on Nov 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The redirect has been in place for at least a year I think.
| 7:17 am on Nov 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
yep at least a year maybe 2
| 8:08 pm on Nov 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There is a WebmasterWorld thread on it somewhere... because in the early days some users got redirected incorrectly... like Pipex UK users being redirected to google.nl for example.
| 7:50 am on Dec 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Jagger - Effect of Keywords/keyphrases within <body></body>
Good morning Folks
Within a sector I watch I ran a query and I have noticed that the page on position #2 of the serps have within its body not less than 14 times the keyphrase of my query.
Lets say my query was shopping cart widgets. Within the <body></body> contents I could see 14 times shopping cart widgets!
Does that means that one of the consequences of Jagger update is that keywords/keyphrases stuffing has been ignored and accordingly has no effect on the page ranking? or are we witnessing the opposite?
Have any of you folks noticed the same?
Thanks a bunch!
| 9:24 am on Dec 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Keyword stuffing is probably ignored for ranking purposes by the algo. There are many more important factors that will make pages rank high, with or without keyword stuffing.
Many topics/sectors naturally have a high density of a specific keyword. This is why keyword stuffing is probably not a factor. Try doing a site listing jobs without using the keyword 'job' a lot! It can be used quite sensibly and innocently without any seo in mind.... should those sites be reported or automatically penalised for that keyword? The same is the case with hundreds of other topics, so keyword stuffing IS IMHO NOT PENALISED by a spider.... only a human review can make a sensible judgement for keyword stuffing.
If a site ranks well and has a high keyword density, it will be because of other factors. The algo is not so simplistic as you assume and this is a red herring. Many serps have a mix of high or low density keywords in the top 10. Page design, nature of subject targeted and presentation for the user may dictate that it is legitimate to repeat a keyword....
I have used the word 'keyword' or 'Keywords' 11 times above in two short paragraphs.... without attempting to keyword stuff. Google knows this can happen so will ignore not penalise.
| 9:35 am on Dec 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I see no evidence keyword stuffing is automatically penalized in my esoteric niche.
One site in particular is at/near the top of the SERPs for ages now .. worse KW stuffing I ever saw.
If a human ever looked at that, I suppose the the site would be toast.
I won't do it myself, it would make me look like an idiot. -Larry
| 10:39 am on Dec 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
MHes and larryhatch
Thanks for feedback.
So what you are saying is that Google doesn't "automatically" penalize keyword stuffing. And that of course makes sense.
| 10:42 am on Dec 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Has anyone got any GENUINE beef with the current results, other than the fact they aren't in 'em?
In my area, I have seen quality rise to the top, above spammy affiliate sites. There are some big household names up there, where they should be. For commercial searches this is good, no?
I see little or no spam.
Can anyone actually post a link to a "bad" set of SERPS, because I'm really struggling to see the drama?!
| 10:50 am on Dec 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I do not think that the keywords in content is so important.
For example a forgot to delet a page that was just a work in progress, with no content ( only the templete content).
In noted form my logs that for a 4-keyword phrase I rank at the top on 1.680.000 results!
That page was just "copied" from anothe of my sites and the keyword were only in the title, and in the meta name="keywords" and in meta name="description...
It's curious that those keywords were not targeted for the sites..... It means that the site do not receive links with that keywords in the anchor text.
The site has a genuine page rank of 6.
So, I think that if you have a good page rank the most important place for the keywords is the title and the description...