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?

[johnhh]

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...

[johnhh]

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

Goodnight...

[2by4]

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]

[Kangol]

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.

[Atomic]

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.

[nzmatt]

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?

[GoogleGuy]

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.

[GoogleGuy]

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).

[Atomic]

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.

[patc]

GG - Is that 'fully' as in Jagger2 fully or Jagger123 fully? :)