reseller - 1:07 pm on Nov 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

colin_h

>>There seems to be alot of [simple] spam getting to the top. This may have been there always and maybe when my site got banned I just became conscious of it.<<

If one of the consequences of Jagger update is to deal with more spam sites at the top of the serps, then we might as well start thinking of reporting those spammers to Matt & Co. And best way is :-)

Don't wait to send Jagger-related spam feedback; I'd send that now. Using the keyword "Jagger3" at [google.com...] will get someone reading and checking it out.

>>I don't see any great changes over the past few days, a bit of flux, probably due to the confusion caused by webmasters totally re-designing and rapidly removing link partners.<<

Regarding reconsideration of linking as a consequence of Jagger update, I guess some of the folks have misunderstood what GG & Matt are/were aiming at!

IMO, GG & Matt are/were questioning whether purchasing or exchange links works to achieve better PR and rankings on the serps.

They didn't talk about purchasing or exchange links as a way of generating traffic!

Here is what I read on a site mentioning a recap of PubCon coffee talk Q&A with Matt Cutts:

————————————————————-
Q: Let’s go back to text links.
A: Best links are earned, not sold or traded. You may not get what you pay for. He said, if someone is selling text links, they should give you a free test trial to make sure it works. They have both manual and algorithmic approaches to detect paid links. He said Google.com gets emails asking to trade links. The guy who came up with the pixel homepage thing, that was creative.
————————————————————–