Page is a not externally linkable
2by4 - 10:01 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)
Re some stuff in the closed thread: "<div id="Layer1" style="position:absolute; left:205px; top:156px; width:16px; height:16px; z-index:-1; overflow: auto;">" I was virtually positive that google wasn't processing css library files, now it looks like they are likewise unable to process reasonably clever onpage css, notice no triggers here, not hidden, not display none, not negative positioning, off view window, just small. Not bad actually, now we know, google cannot interpret most css, unless it's really really obvious. That's from the site mentioned earlier, car wraps etc. I'm seeing little or no changes in the serps that are changed [what is being named 'update jagger' now], same as they were testing a week ago, same as went live yesterday, if google is testing something, and they turn it off and on, then finally release it system wide, I'd call that an update, even though following the strict interpretation, which no longer really applies, none of these things are updates, they are just adjustments of the dial, quote unquote. Note steveb, I didn't say that Matt C etc did, the dial is new, updates are old. Updates are a physical change or addition to the algo, thus the term : update, whereas what we're seeing now is an adjustment of a setting/s. Since it doesn't matter what we call it, why not just call it an update and leave it at that, everyone whose sites have been affected know they are affected, people whose sites haven't been affected can provide quite valuable comparisons to try to determine just what this change actually looked for, trustrank is what I'm seeing, high trustrank sites, no change, low trustrank, change. Spammy sites can have high trust rank, I see a few, but they did some stuff over the last year that made that happen.
zeus, yes they look the same, if your site was not affected. That's what makes this an interesting update.