Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
[edited by: joergnw10 at 8:02 am (utc) on Oct. 26, 2005]
>>Morning reseller. Guess GG is keeping up his words. Looks like Jagger2 is making its way from 66.102.9.* DCs.<<
Good morning McMohan.
Question is; Does part II of Jagger meant to deal with SPAM & SUPPLEMENTALS ISSUES?
If its the case, whitehat webmasters would be in business again :-)
Cant see that much difference on that DC yet (but it is the 3rd push I am waiting for anyway)
But I guess if there is significant difference for a lot of folks that maybe the start of the second push.
At the start of the first push some DC seemed to be going a different way but they did not hold. So confirmation from GG or MC would be good :).
[edited by: Dayo_UK at 7:57 am (utc) on Oct. 26, 2005]
Knocked two review/index sites that interlinked heavily out of the top 30.
Knocked one site that has many different names from #9 to no-where.
Has not knocked the #1 for past year from #1 even though it has 5 mirrors under different names and 68000 bought backlinks.
I think this update had something to do with network interlinking spam.
Question is; Does part II of Jagger meant to deal with SPAM & SUPPLEMENTALS ISSUES?
I guess Jagger2 is more of a correction to Jagger1, with inputs from webmasters, user search behaviour et al. Anyway, we will only know when GG writes in this forum or Matt updates his blog.
What I don't understand is that I have gone from PR5 to a PR6 but my rankings are just falling and I haven't seen any improvement.
Here's hoping....
I have read a very interesting recent interview with Matt Cutts, by Aaron Wall. And one of the questions was:
When you guys roll out new algorithms, filters, and patches some good sites end up getting filtered out with the bad. Do you pre-test most of the algorithms prior to launching them? How do you know how strongly to apply filters? By default do you usually lean on one side or the other and then tweak your way back?
and Matt's answer was:
We always put algorithmic changes into our test harnesses to poke and prod in lots of different ways. But you also have to be adaptive. If someone in the outside world notices an issue after a launch that you didn't notice, it's important to take that feedback and act on it, and also to try to improve the testing procedure to cover that in the future. We usually have a pretty strong sense of whether something will be a large-impact launch or not. But you can't completely avoid having a large impact with a launch. An example might be if you're replacing a large subsystem in the crawl-index-serve pipeline. We continually go back and improve or replace sections of our system. Sometimes the results can't be bit-for-bit compatible in output, so you have to do the best you can. Update Fritz in 2003 is the canonical example of that; you can't go from a batch-based search engine to an incrementally-updated search engine without some visible impact. To answer your last question, I personally lean toward softer launches; webmasters never need any extra stress. But sometimes launches can't be made completely soft or invisible, as I mentioned.
"in" is a very common word and not used in the search results blah blah
It seems stop words are now very important.
