Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.162.12.134

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?
11:08 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



2by4:
"While I'm not fully clear on your last sentence's meaning" ah know I should not drink malt scotch!

I have recovered from may 21 disaster most likely thanks to some help from people here to "clean" things up server side - so not going the heavy seo has an adverse effect route.

The point I was trying to make was whether the links in to your "affected" sites all go to the index page, and links in to "unaffected" sites are spread around to other pages within the site and these are being given a heavier weight by Mr and Mrs Google (and all the little googliers )

Only those with a mix of effected and uneffected sites will know the answer.

On the other hand as so many variables are at play - who really knows...

11:13 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Kangol
All the same for my keyword watch 66.102.7.104 and 66.102.9.104.

Goodnight...

11:15 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



john, far be it from me to suggest you shouldn't drink malt scotch, personally, scotch never really did it for me, but I view that more as a personal failing on my part than a criticism. I thought that's what you meant, but I wasn't positive.

However, what you are seeing is exactly what I saw on the first run throughs of this update in the data centers, and this was being discussed fairly coherently in a previous thread, but unfortunately that discussion ended when everyone started looking at what was dropping instead of looking at what wasn't. To paraphrase an old wise man: if you want to know what an update is, it's much more useful to look at something that is not updated than something that is.

Unfortunately, this update is so hard to pinpoint that any single factor cannot be seen as the unique determining cause of a failure or success.

[edited by: 2by4 at 11:19 pm (utc) on Oct. 26, 2005]

11:17 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



On one DC I see my site on #19 and on another on #50. Also I see a 100.000 difference in the Results number.

Good night and good luck.

11:21 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



The point I was trying to make was whether the links in to your "affected" sites all go to the index page, and links in to "unaffected" sites are spread around to other pages within the site and these are being given a heavier weight by Mr and Mrs Google (and all the little googliers )

I wouldn't know about the site that have been hit by this update but I have few incoming links to my home page but a good number spread out among articles. Doesn't linking directly to the content make the most sense?

Traffic today has not only increased but sales are up. Maybe it's luck but I can only hope that the quality of traffic is improving. PPC traffic is better than none at all but I've always preferred organic traffic when it comes to conversion.

11:29 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Backward links have reverted back to the old figure for a couple of sites I know.

Is this just for these sites or across the board right now?

11:41 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

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



texasville, we're paying special attention to the Jagger spam reports. Sounds like we took action on your complaint to remove the site for 30 days, and if they still have the stuff on the site, it may go for a permanent removal next time.

If you do a spam report, please include your nick (texasville); I'd be curious to see which site you're talking about.

edd1, we definitely are paying a lot of attention to the Jagger spam reports.

11:42 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

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



Oh, BTW: Dayo_UK, I think the 66.102.9.104 data center has fully settled at this point within that one data center (we talked about flux within data centers earlier).
11:46 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



I'd be curious to know what percentage of spam reports are frivolous attempts at hurting the competition or are just a different view of what constitutes a spam site than the official Google "spam site" guide.
11:54 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



GG - Is that 'fully' as in Jagger2 fully or Jagger123 fully? :)
12:04 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Dont know how helpful this is, but I manage a number of sites. All white hat optimised. Some have been completely unaffected, and two have been affected - not terribly, just dropped a couple of pages for all search terms.

And the main thing I can see that differentiates them from the others is a higher proportion of perciptible reciprocal links - approaching half of non-reciprocals in both cases.

Anyone else?

12:08 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I am seeing ip addresses in search results with forwarded redirects, this is no good... reported many times, still there.

==Sample==

Select and Go
This page has moved. Please go to:. [11.111.111.1...]
home.sample.de/sample/dir/ - 1k - Cached - Similar pages

==End==

Hollywood

12:10 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



I have reported some wrongdoers. Now let's see what the sherrif does!
12:14 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Reseller-
Obviously you did not read my entire post. You seem to be pushing this spam report stuff. I still say it is only LIP service from Google. Google Guy is just espousing it. I have seen no results from it.After TWO reports-nothing done. NADA...zip...3 months. One gone for a few weeks. Back in top positions with nothing changed. These are on line sites for commercial businesses. Not big businesses. Medium. Garbage blackhat. One seo/web design is making good money doing this with several sites. storefront sites. Not adsense sites.
Google doesn't really care and I suggest you not waste your time.
12:18 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Google guy I just saw your post. Skipped the previous page after being gone- I will redo the reports right now. Interested in your reaction. Also like to know why they were reincluded after not cleaning up. Seems that should have happened first.
12:21 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



texasville, I think this is different, this isn't the standard spam report, that is as you note not useful, google admits that themselves, they've said many times they only collect that information to build up general looks at the problem, not to remove the offender. Submitting in that previous case, that's a waste of time.

This case is different, as googleguy has said, google wants feedback because they need eyeballs, they are actively testing a new way to do this stuff, this isn't your generic spam report, at least it doesn't look like it from where I sit, they want to determine as quickly as possible what other methods might be succeeding right now, with these updates in place. But again, it doesn't mean that they will drop the site, it means they want to build up enough examples to be able to automate the detection process, that's my guess anyway.

If I were you I'd rereport the spam stuff you're seeing, I think it might be worth it, if it's actually real spam.
<added>oh, you saw googleguy's post, nevermind</added>

12:34 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Well we'll see. I just did two reports-one reporting two sites. both by the blackhat seo firm. We'll see if anything is done.
12:39 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



yeah, let us know what happens, it will be interesting to see, you put in jagger2 in the spam report right? We should probably do the same, our sites are out, and a few of the sites left are doing the same junk.
12:44 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



GG.. What types of spam sites? The terms "spam" and "black hat" seem to mean many things to many people. You just want the over the top cheaters that are ranking? Or spam sites not ranking and ranking sites with more subtle spam and black hat?

I'm not even sure I understand my post, I hope you do. ;)

12:44 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



I put update jagger in the query line and I addressed it to GoogleGuy in the first sentence and I put Texasville in the body.

"it means they want to build up enough examples to be able to automate the detection process, that's my guess anyway."

Yea but this is really simple stuff. I can't understand why the simplest algo doesn't pick it up.
Hidden text? Using a 1x1 trans gif to point hidden links at?
But the one that really chaps me is one that google let back in without cleaning up. Google indexes 111 pages and they have about 9. All the rest are just js redirects to the index page. plus several bogus site maps. a two word query brings them #1.

12:52 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Its noticeable that "home pages" have decreased in PageRank - looks like G has implemented something in their algo to make SERPS more specific to a page - IE more on page relevant content.

I really wondered why Matt didn't use his home page for his blog - it seemed strange when I first saw it but maybe there is a good reason for this?

12:54 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)



to report or not to report?
I know of two sites that use obvious linking schemes. One with counters (he got PR7 this time, and all his internal pages are PR6), and another just has sitemaps on dozens of other sites. I think I will not though. If my site wasn't slammed, I would've probably done it. Now it looks vindictive, so I'll wait till I come back. I hope it's just a month: I rank around #50 for "domain.com"...imagine the rest.

Looks like Google just wiped out everything when doing the SERP calcs because it detected something fishy (all fixed now). Robots can't tell intent as someone said.

[edited by: walkman at 1:01 am (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]

12:55 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



"I really wondered why Matt didn't use his home page for his blog - it seemed strange when I first saw it but maybe there is a good reason for this?"

I seriously doubt he's worried about the PR of his blog.

1:01 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



"Now it looks vindictive... "

I'm in the same boat, Walkman. There are a few sites in my market I could report. But I can't help but feel petty in doing it. None of them are wearing midnight black hats, but their tactic are outside Google guidelines.

2:07 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Bad results. Only a miracle on Jagger3 to save Google.
2:27 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)



I have understood the following about what will happen in Jagger1-3:
2:31 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Google gone crazy!
2:34 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



You know, it is soooooo useless to sit and talk about an update that is sooooooo not over. In the mean time, I suggest you all look into your DNS records. Make sure G has your blessings on that (perhaps Google's 3/31/2005 patent might shed some light). I commented on Matt's blog under the name Mojo (my original name) in the DNS for Dummies Book post. I think you will find some useful info there.

You guys are arguing good points, but they are fruitless until old hag Jagger is over (DNS, get it?).

2:42 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



GG -

Some day I hope you or the guidelines will clarify to a greater degree what types of NON deceptive practices Google still considers spam, and also why severe downranking is not considered a penalty by support.

In a recent thread somebody was complaining that the "top listing is spam" when in fact it was an excellent user review site.

One person's spam is another's caviar. It's not an objective measure so the guidelines should elaborate more about good vs poor content. I think this would push people here to create better sites more than thwart the process.

2:57 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)



>> Some day I hope you or the guidelines will clarify to a greater degree what types of NON deceptive practices Google still considers spam

I doubt they ever will, and I don't blame thems since no two sites are equal. For better sites they will allow more, for bad sites, you just gave them an excuse to nuke you. I'm pretty confident that counters with
2 0 2 0 5 4 5
keyword here

cloaking, hiding text, and hiding links are black hat.

[edited by: walkman at 2:59 am (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]

This 930 message thread spans 31 pages: 930
 

Featured Threads

Hot Threads This Week

Hot Threads This Month