Update Jagger, Google Update Oct 18th, 2005

When can we expect a new PR update?

[jretzer]

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

---

Anyone have any guesses as to when we can expect a new systemwide PR update?

[Atomic]

Why is it that we can't come together and through "party politics" and give G, Y, & M the impression of what WE the webmasters and content providers want to happen... It's a twisted ideology and it's politics at its best, but the truth of the matter is that without our content, systems, and structures, G or any SE would cease to exist. Are we that uncontrollable to the point G sees us as a bunch of uncouth animals? Something just isn't right... I think it's time a unified webmaster front across the entire Internet.

It's not about webmasters or the search engines. It's about the people that use both our websites and the search engines to find what they want. It's our job to build good, honest websites and it's a search engines job to make the content we create as easy to find as possible. I wouldn't forget who the real boss is.

[bobmark]

true, Yippee.
As I have said B4, it is ludicrous that an industry the size of - lets call us - independent webmasters has no industry association to lobby for us, deal collectively with Google, etc.

How many state, regional and national associations are there for - one example - Independent Truckers? For any industry group you want to name? Apparently we're the last of the independents and Google et al will treat us as pikers who can be ignored with impunity until we exercise some collective power.

I'm not the person suited to do the work to start this - needs somebody with lots of energy and political savvy - but I sure would join and support an association of independent webmasters/websites, whatever you want to call it.

[joeduck]

I think it's time for a unified webmaster front across the entire Internet

A provocative idea.

Webbies of the World Unite!
Carpe Diem dot com maan!

[Yippee]

>> I wouldn't forget who the real boss is. <<

Agreed Atomic. However, you know that competition is the cornerstone of democracy. We need a way to figure out what is good results and deliver them. We should be in control of the user experience. And we should be the ones that gets paid. Not G who is pulling in 353 a share off of our hard and honest earned work. Seriously, I've seen people get shot over much simpler stuff like a 7-11 slurpee. Something just isnt right man.

Bobmark,

<snip>
[edited by: Yippee at 7:29 pm (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]

[edited by: lawman at 10:04 pm (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]
[edit reason] No Calls To Action Per TOS [/edit]

[Erku]

Is the Jagger 2 spread presently through the DCs or it's going to happen next Wednesday?

Any update on timing will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

[edd1]

gamblers?

They pay a huge a chunk of overall sports revenue but if they lose they lose.

[joeduck]

I've seen people get shot over much simpler stuff like a 7-11 slurpee

I don't believe you. What flavor was it?

[Yippee]

Red

[g1smd]

>> Now, unless Google controls the content in it's listings <<

All your bases [base.google.com] belonga us.

[erny]

Yippee has some very good points mentioned above.

[reseller]

Erku

>>Any update on timing will be greatly appreciated.<<

Jagger2 (nickname Spam Terminator) shall continue until around Wednesday next week where Jagger3 (dealing with Canonicals & Supplemental issues) starts. Then followed by the Flux.

[erny]

I believe the future internet needs
1) a good cleanup from the scam even if we have to collaborate with the Search Engines.
2)-A webmasters union-

[g1smd]

What a great way for Google to track every discussion about this update:

[google.com...]

[reseller]

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

Hi Folks!

Here are the 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.

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

[Erku]

Reseller thank you.

So, you are saying that by Wednesday the Jagger 2 will be done. But will this be gradual, or everything will happen on Wednesday morning, or Thuesday evening?

Please explain Jagger3 "(dealing with Canonicals & Supplemental issues)"

What is Canonicals and Supplemental issues?

thanks.

[MrSpeed]

Get used to the idea.. Human input in serps is here and it is here to stay.

Personally I think Google should develop a system for ranking web pages based on the democratic nature of the web. The more sites that link to a page the better it is. You could almost think of a link as as a vote

.....oh wait

[Erku]

Does anyone know how many DCs google have? And how many of them already use Jagger 2?

Thank you.

[webpro00801]

Isn't it standard practice (in an Apache conf file) to have www.mysite.com as the server name and mysite.com (without the www) as a server alias?
I have had this since day one - never experienced anything bad until this update...

>> Is there a way to fix Canonical problem on your self? <<
>> I just did a site:domain.com -www and I see that my home page is listed. <<
For a site using www.domain.com for the content, it is normal for the single domain.com entry to appear as a URL-only listing, simply because it exists. I wouldn't worry about it - unless the entry also has a title and description too. If there is a title and description then you really do have a problem.

[erny]

Erku
go to
[mcdar.net...]
and find all you need.

[JuniorOptimizer]

In the brave new world of a webmaster's union you can file a grievance when your SERPS go down, or negotiate a collective bargaining agreement for higher EPC.

[bobmark]

"Heck, I'll take the lead and put my head in the guiateen (sp?) no problem, but I gotta have real hearts of men behind me. Alone I can't do it. Can we set our egos aside and put together a robust charter, create a legal entity, and do the lobbying? I live in DC..."

I wonder if the first step might be to start a thread on here. Be nice if webmasterword would give it some prominence.

Would seem to me it could operate initially with pretty modest dues and a pretty small staff. I guess one initial issue would be that I would argue the association should be world wide as is the web and we all face the same problems, but that raises language and other issues.

Anyway, a thread on here might be a gage of interest, a chance to thrash out issues and a jumping off point.

[MHes]

A webmasters union

OK. Lets have a webmaster union... and Google says get stuffed....now what?

I'll set one up for spammers, they deserve a voice. For years they have helped Google identify what keywords they are targeting and because they want that traffic they no doubt have a relevant reason for targeting it.

Can you imagine how poor the serps would be and how frustrated Joe Public would be if spammers did not force Google (despite the odds) to show their site for a keyword? At least they don't mess about with endless boring 'original content' written by sad self opinionated 'spam reporters'.

Spammers get right to the point and send a user to a decent simple, fast loading page for what they want. They don't clutter the page with pointless text, they hide that.... thank God. You know instantly what the page is about because the Keyword is in your face 53 times and a nice big link to the affiliate.... who couldn't get the traffic for himself. Affiliates would suffer big time without spammers. Think of all the businesses that will suffer without spammers in the index. How will they get their traffic? Original white hat sites?.... I don't think so, people will loose the will to live before they find the affiliate link, hidden between endless waffle about "how pretty the daisies are in June".

Get the spammers back and save the world from 'original content'... we just don't want your dribble.

[Ankhenaton]

66.102.7.104->66.102.9.99 seems to be the next result. Is in .com for me but not in .co.uk and .de.

[aeiouy]

I would avoid all link exchanges. If you read Matts comments (especially in a recent invterview) he talks about "natural linking" and acquiring links by creative methods....not reciprocal linking.

Problem is reciprical link exchanges are natural.

If you read how the Internet actually came about you'll understand this methodology which Google still applies.

I have been involved with the internet long before google ever existed. I have a pretty good grasp on the history of the whole thing. Reciprical linking has pretty much existed since there were two web pages.

I see more and more sites which have historically relied on link exchanges actually going down the serps.

Perhaps so perhaps no.. I have not seen anyone provide any compelling evidence, just lots of speculation.

My main site got badly hit with jagger and is still nowhere to be seen. Google accounted for 70% of my traffic. However, as soon as this happened I came up with some creative methods of generating traffic. Traffic to my main site is now at the same level before jagger hit (still no Google traffic by the way).

Sounds like you did an excellent job. Everyone needs to continue to work on diversifying as much as possible.

Who needs Google anyway? There are SO many ways of generating traffic....you have to think out of the box.

Absolutely. I think for most sites and most areas there are tons of ways to get traffic besides serps that don't cost money. It does require work though.

[Ankhenaton]

Jagger2 (nickname Spam Terminator) shall continue until around Wednesday next week where Jagger3 (dealing with Canonicals & Supplemental issues) starts. Then followed by the Flux.

Can someone tell me if this what is called canonical is done by:

<VirtualHost 127.0.0.1:80>
Servername www.example.com
Serveralias example.com www.example.com

or do I have to set up a new server to just throw example.com over to www.example.com

and do a
RedirectMatch permanent ^/(.*)$ http://example.com/$1

Current google results show the same for both constructs. IMO Google already has the right settings. I use only 301's for my pages when I move pages.

I could have one server and do php etc redirects.

I have to say I do not really understand what Google wants as the correct way to do this?

[biggles338]

Page rank on the google toolbar for all my sites is now 0. Am I correct that if I had been banned then the pagerank bar would be greyed out the way it is if you are logged into a secure site like your bank account. If it is white and mouseover says PR is 0 out of 10, then google has not banned me, just thinks I'm not worth much.

[JuniorOptimizer]

Ankhenaton, you do both.

Set up the non-www as a server alias and then Redirect 301 the non-www traffic to the www.

[joeduck]

ank -

Google, and most SEOs, generally recommend using 301s when redirecting old sites and pages to the "correct" or canonical site or page. Creative use of .htaccess helps with this type of forwarding if you have a lot of pages.

[Atomic]

This union talk is a little goofy. If you want to have a voice in what search engines do buy a lot of their stock, try to get on their board or at the very least attend shareholder meetings. Large numbers of disgruntled shareholders can make things happen. An angry mob of webasters is like a cliche waiting to happen.

[erny]

"This union talk is a little goofy"
No is not ,after all who is the primary provider of content to all search engines? the webmasters, who made rich shareholders and search engines? the webmasters, who are the idiots that made other people rich offering there labor without any insurance and labor rights?the webmasters. Any comments?