Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.162.240.235

Message Too Old, No Replies

Update Jagger, Google Update Oct 18th, 2005

When can we expect a new PR update?

     
5:33 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Continued from here:
[webmasterworld.com...]



Anyone have any guesses as to when we can expect a new systemwide PR update?
9:24 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



Looking around some more, it seems like this datacenter isn't much different, except it has an awful lot more obvious spam... which then pushes down the good sites somewhat.

In other words, the ranking itself seems unchanged in terms of good site versus good site. So, my only reaction so far is somebody forgot to push the spam filter button. :)

9:25 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member googleguy is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



zeus, that doesn't surprise me. I think we decided to do a re-export of PageRank so that msn.com wouldn't worry that should have more green pixels; I wouldn't be surprised if a minor refresh of backlinks was included in that re-export.

I'm not 188% sure that's what happened, but I noticed that www.msn.com returns a PR9-ish now, so I'm extrapolating my guesses here. Your comment matches what I would expect to see if that happened.

9:25 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



That DC is looking better.
9:28 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



>>> so that msn.com wouldn't worry that should have more green pixels;

He he - I am worried I dont have more pixels ;) - but I am not MSN - lol

Just pulling your leg.

If the fix I want happens I dont care what my PR shows as long as the pages rank.

9:31 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member zeus is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



Googleguy - I was not that worried about MSN that there PR would be back again, but I could see the headlines if it stayed at PR2, but why would google do such a thing, so it could only be a glitch or a begining of a update.

Dayo - Im also a little up these days to if my old site will realy return after the hijacking and a few 302 links in nov. 2004 and I see another site of mine at 1 out of 30mill results, maybe it will soon get out of the sandbox.

[edited by: zeus at 9:33 am (utc) on Oct. 26, 2005]

9:32 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



My one page that had a PR mistake this past update didn't get healed like MSN, so I guess that does confirm Bill Gates has more juice than me. Bummer.
9:34 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member




This is my first post in this forum: hello everybody.
I'm a spanish girl and it's very difficult to me explain my problem and express my frustration.
My web is now disappeared with Jagger update.
I've been in first page with all my important keywords, first position since a lot of time, and now I'm in page 4 or 5 only for some keywords (most of them, disappered).
PR is like always, so I guess that I'm not penalized.
The worst thing is that in my place in first page, first position, now is another page with hide text, with a redirection in the link which gives google and with a lot of photos that were stolen from my page..
I've wrote a reinclusion request to Google, like GoogleGuy recommends in his blog, and this is the thing more stupid that I've done in my life because I knew that a robot will answer me, and I did it..
So now, my web is like a stray dog and me..
I'm a stupid girl.
Regards for everybody.

I am in a dream or is real this?!
I can see my page in first page again at 66.102.9.104 and 66.102.9.99
But the web with hide text, the redirection and my photos is still in first position..
Maybe Google pay attention to my reinclusion request and I'm not so stupid..

9:37 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member googleguy is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



normasp, there's a way to tell us about the hidden text. Just do a spam report (search on Google) and use the keyword jagger2.
9:38 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member zeus is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



normasp - dont sent a reinclusion request before the update has sadled in about 2-4 weeks.
9:38 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member googleguy is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



Hey all, I'm heading to bed--getting close to 3am my time, and they still expect to see me at work tomorrow. :)
9:40 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Lol - thanks for your help GG. :)
9:41 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member googleguy is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



'Night. :)
9:42 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member




normasp, there's a way to tell us about the hidden text. Just do a spam report (search on Google) and use the keyword jagger2.

Thanks so much GoogleGuy!
I'm happy now but I'm scared of next jagger3 too..

9:44 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Good night GG, how unkind of Google to not only webmasters, but also to its staff ;)
9:44 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



normasp

Dont be scared be excited :)

If your site is clean and Google fix a couple of bugs then hopefully there will be nothing to be scared off.

9:50 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



In the past , you owned keyword.com , sites started linking naturally to you, due to the fact that your keyword was your domain name, after time, you became an authority on your keyword and you ranked at the top. “Google Utopia” or how they intended things to happen.

Then, people started buying/selling text links to manipulate their rankings which I am sure annoys the **** out of Google.

I monitor various sectors, and have completed extensive analysis on the following:

I am noticing that sites with a high percentages anchor text “keyword” in their back links, above a certain % are getting excluded in this update. Old sites that ranked well in the past are also gone. You will notice that these sites normally have natural one way links, and their keyword/domain was used in the text/anchor link, which caused the majority of their anchor text (keyword) to be similar.

On the other hand, sites that go on a wild hunt and get 1000’s of backlinks have a similar pattern with their backlinks. Yes, the majority of the anchor text is above a certain %.

All sites that are in the top 10 that I analyzed, are below a certain %.

So what you are seeing now is old authority sites moving down the serps and sites trying to manipulate their ranking also getting hit because they were above a certain % for their keywords. Sites (good or bad) are thrown into the evil pit.

You will also be noticing that sites that are now in the top 10 are actually NOT that relevant due to the fact that they have a very low % of keyword in their anchor text links. In same cases if the site is an authority it will rank for a keyword, but there might only be one instance of that keyword on the page.

It worries me to nice the majority of sites in certain sectors actually not being relevant, sub-pages outranking homepages in the top 10.

All guilty in Google’s Eyes. But this will definitely hurt the text link market.

10:11 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



jaffstar, good analysis. Along with anchor text, did you see any pattern with respect to link structure (2-way, 3-way link exchanges), links from authoruty sites, etc?
10:16 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Just a thought regarding people with muliple sites interlinking between them for mutual benifit.

If these sites were all using Adsense from the same account would it not be easy for google to make the connection and ban/filter the sites?

10:18 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Some sites who engaged in Reciprocal Wars got hit, but then again they aggressively targeted a high % of anchor text.

But in terms of linking patterns, there is no pattern, that’s why sites who engaged in reciprocal linking got hit, as well as sites that had pure 1 ways.

10:23 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)



"people with muliple sites interlinking between them for mutual benifit. "
Like GG sayed make a spam report and it really works!
I was so happy to see a super spammer with tones of pages ,he disappear today from top possitions to nowhere to be found in thousands of search results.Good Job Google.
If we want to keep the web clean we have to spend more time to discover spammers instead of moaning here why our site has been drope ,if our sites are clean there is nothing to scare.
10:27 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



jaffstar, your analysis gives way to one more interesting question IMO. Is it necessarily one keyword appearing in high % of anchors? or different keywords, which are money keywords appearing in a high % of anchors?
10:31 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Hi Folks

A sunny great day with much of informative update Jagger feedback from GoogleGuy. And once again.. thanks GG for being with us.

And wish to mention that Matt has published on his blog more about Update Jagger. Thanks Matt.

Jagger 2 Update Info
[mattcutts.com...]

Good luck to all.

10:38 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)



Hmm this keyword stuff. Our site has the keyword in it's name and natural over 7 years of linking to that site usually involves the keyword also in anchor text as people also always found info about the subject on that site. I can't yet detect any difference. Also MSN and Yahoo puts me first for that subject.

Maybe I don't really understand that % thing you mentioned.

10:42 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)



Jagger 2 Update Info
[mattcutts.com...]

"Interesting" is the rumanian spammer comment below on the blogg ... like a bad comment on the situation .. :\ complete with adsense.. That is about as cheeky [stupid] as you can get. :\

OT:
66.102.9.104

can't see much difference. Traffic dropped slightly though yesterday.

10:46 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I don't usually post on these threads but this update seems very strange to me.

I'm seeing sites that have huge indiscrimate link swap campaigns still at the top (despite very high % of specific anchor text), and yet several sites with smaller and more select link swap campaigns heavily penalised: one site in particular is now below the supplemental results for a previously strong keyword.

10:49 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Jaffstar > I am noticing that sites with a high percentages anchor text “keyword” in their back links, above a certain % are getting excluded in this update

Difficult to be sure. Have you really checked all back links via alltheweb or an engine that shows them, for a good sample of sites? Many sites, like ours, has 2000+ 'links in' with most being a brandname, however we are being hit for 3 word competitive phrases which do not contain the brand in anchor or domain name. Some searches we do well, many we don't, resulting in a 90% loss of traffic.... 15k uniques to 1.5k per day from google.

I don't think we would fit a high % anchor text profile and we are missing from searches containing hundreds of different keywords.

11:03 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



GoogleGuy & Matt Cutts Feedback of 26th October 2005 regarding Update Jagger ..and more

Hi Folks!

Here are todays posts of our kind fellow member GoogleGuy. I have compiled them (together with my post refering to Matt´s "Jagger 2 update info" on his blog) for the benefit of further discussion and future reference.

====================================================

GoogleGuy
Senior Member

view member profile
joined-Oct 8, 2001
posts:2837
msg #:307 8:41 am on Oct 26, 2005 (utc 0)

McMohan, good eyes in spotting some changes at 66.102.9.104. I expect Jagger2 to start at 66.102.9.x. It will probably stay at 1-2 data centers for the next several days rather than spreading quickly. But that data center shows the direction that things will be moving in (bear in mind that things are fluxing, and Jagger3 will cause flux as well).

Matt Cutts posted how to send feedback on Jagger1 at [mattcutts.com...]

If you're looking at 66.102.9.x and have new feedback on what you see there (whether it be spam or just indexing related), please use the same mechanism as before, except use the keyword Jagger2. I believe that our webspam team has taken a first pass through the Jagger1 feedback and acted on a majority of the spam reports. The quality team may wait until Jagger3 is visible somewhere before delving into the non-spam index feedback.

If things stay on the same schedule (which I can't promise, but I'll keep you posted if I learn more), Jagger3 might be visible at one data center next week. Folks should have several weeks to give us feedback on Jagger3 as it gradually becomes more visible at more data centers.

[edited by: GoogleGuy at 8:53 am (utc) on Oct. 26, 2005]

====================================================

GoogleGuy
Senior Member

view member profile
joined-Oct 8, 2001
posts:2837
msg #:313 8:57 am on Oct 26, 2005 (utc 0)

Happy to try to help, reseller. If I find out more of use, I'll let you know.

Dayo_UK, the optimistic part of me wants to say mid next week. But I've learned not to make promises. :)

====================================================

GoogleGuy
Senior Member

view member profile
joined-Oct 8, 2001
posts:2837
msg #:321 9:08 am on Oct 26, 2005 (utc 0)

Dayo_UK, yes, sometimes it can mean flux within a data center. It's a bit involved, so I'll leave it at a high level. :)

====================================================

GoogleGuy
Senior Member

view member profile
joined-Oct 8, 2001
posts:2837
msg #:324 9:15 am on Oct 26, 2005 (utc 0)

McMohan, if you see spam, I'd report it now with jagger2. If it's canonicalization or ranking or supplemental, I might hold off to see how jagger3 looks for you.

====================================================

GoogleGuy
Senior Member

view member profile
joined-Oct 8, 2001
posts:2837
msg #:328 9:22 am on Oct 26, 2005 (utc 0)

steveb, I think I know the spam sites that you're talking about. Folks here enjoyed looking into those. It's always interesting to see how the pendulum moves between some of the shortcuts that people try.

[edited by: GoogleGuy at 9:22 am (utc) on Oct. 26, 2005]

====================================================

GoogleGuy
Senior Member

view member profile
joined-Oct 8, 2001
posts:2837
msg #:332 9:25 am on Oct 26, 2005 (utc 0)

zeus, that doesn't surprise me. I think we decided to do a re-export of PageRank so that msn.com wouldn't worry that should have more green pixels; I wouldn't be surprised if a minor refresh of backlinks was included in that re-export.

I'm not 188% sure that's what happened, but I noticed that www.msn.com returns a PR9-ish now, so I'm extrapolating my guesses here. Your comment matches what I would expect to see if that happened.

====================================================

GoogleGuy
Senior Member

view member profile
joined-Oct 8, 2001
posts:2837
msg #:338 9:37 am on Oct 26, 2005 (utc 0)

normasp, there's a way to tell us about the hidden text. Just do a spam report (search on Google) and use the keyword jagger2.

====================================================

GoogleGuy
Senior Member

view member profile
joined-Oct 8, 2001
posts:2837
msg #:340 9:38 am on Oct 26, 2005 (utc 0)

Hey all, I'm heading to bed--getting close to 3am my time, and they still expect to see me at work tomorrow. :)

=====================================================

GoogleGuy
Senior Member

view member profile
joined-Oct 8, 2001
posts:2837
msg #:342 9:41 am on Oct 26, 2005 (utc 0)

'Night. :)

=====================================================

reseller
Preferred Member

view member profile
send local msg
joined:Feb 6, 2005
posts:396
msg #:352 10:31 am on Oct 26, 2005 (utc 0)

Hi Folks

A sunny great day with much of informative update Jagger feedback from GoogleGuy. And once again.. thanks GG for being with us.

And wish to mention that Matt has published on his blog more about Update Jagger. Thanks Matt.

Jagger 2 Update Info
[mattcutts.com...]

Good luck to all.

=====================================================

And once again.. thanks Brett & Co for bringing us back to WebmasterWorld home.

[edited by: reseller at 11:06 am (utc) on Oct. 26, 2005]

11:06 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



GG, can I expect a return of a site that dropped nowhere on September 22 and has not moved up since then? The Google team checked my site 2 weeks ago and said it wasn't penalized.

Whatever I search for (domain name in brackets, unique title etc.) my site is last just above the "repeat the search with the omitted results included" link. Low PR link sites that have a link to my site rank above me. The site is 9 months old so it's a bit late for a sandbox.

11:40 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Lol - Reseller - they were only on the last couple of pages - I would have thought most people would have been able to find them ;)

I guess for a lot of us stage 3 is where it is all going to happen.

Afterall GG says for ranking problems then wait until after stage 3 before sending reports etc.

Spam feedback is what is required now - so I assume that most of the spam filters are being put in place on 66.102.9.*

So at the moment dont look for what is not there and should be - but look at what is there but shouldn't.

11:40 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I have been going through 66.102.9.104 and am finding sites ranking for Australia and New Zealand - now I am currently located in New Zealand. Is it possible that some sort of GEO-Targetting is taking place?
This 930 message thread spans 31 pages: 930
 

Featured Threads

Hot Threads This Week

Hot Threads This Month