Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
I've got to do some reading on this. All the sites I do that have no link work on them are doing either the same or better than pre jagger. But there are other differences that might make this a less meaningful observation than I want.
seotard, when you say jagger brought you back from the grave, do you mean the site was junk in the serps, low down, and now it's ranking for good target keywords? How old is the site? Did it ever rank before? And when did it drop?
also, is this a real directory in all ways, in other words, no link exchanges, no reciprocals, a pure outbound only link directory that is, usefulness being its primary purpose for existence, not seo etc?
[edited by: 2by4 at 9:50 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]
our site is 7 years old.
We were always (many years anyway) in the top 5 results for most terms we cared about until around June of this year then BAM - page 7 or 8.
With Jagger - we are back to top 5 again. Business has literally tripled.
Edit: oops - no it is a reciprocal link directory. I started it as a service to our visitors. Wasn't even thinking about SEO at the time.
[edited by: SEOTard at 9:53 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]
Did you guys do anything since june to recover? I'm sure you did stuff, but anything really major? more inbound Links, non-www to www rewrites, etc
which update was that in June, I wasn't around seo at the time, came back in around bourbon, didn't follow the stuff earlier for a few months.
"no it is a reciprocal link directory. I started it as a service to our visitors. Wasn't even thinking about SEO at the time."
That's exactly what I wanted to know, I actually had typed in the word 'intention' when asking you about your directory, but I edited it out, but that really is the key word, is the intention seo, or is it real, like you have. This is getting much more interesting, thanks for that example.
[edited by: 2by4 at 9:54 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]
We did several things.
- Cleaned up alot of HTML code. Invalid alt tags created by mistake.
- Added about 400 pages of product specific content.
- Adjusted dynamically generated content to appear as static (changed .asp?questionID=1245 to /question1245)
- Became stricter on our reciprocal link program - tighter content restrictions, page rank requirements etc. although thousands of old links remain.
- removed SOME overly used keywords
When our site was removed I was literally shocked. We are without a doubt a VERY legitmate site in our niche.
It's just possible that the sites I'm seeing left in the serps that have heavy link building work on them have simply done the work consistently over the years, that's just a guess, and have avoided bursts, or other signs of unnatural link growth. Takes discipline though. And takes time.
"Adjusted dynamically generated content to appear as static (changed .asp?questionID=1245 to /question1245)"
this may be the one that solved your problems, this fits with what somebody else has told me.
Also of course, I have never rewritten the html of a site, cleaned up urls, added content, and seen anything but an improvement. But from what I've heard, the cleaning up of your dynamic urls to static may be what did it for you.
joined:Dec 29, 2003
agreed - considering this added thousands of indexed pages WITH titles in Google.
Personally it shouldn't make a differnce. Just because the content comes from a database doesn't make it bogus. Why should I create a single document for 1000s of questions that have been answered.
Personally - nothing makes much sense about this update (except the fact that we are back up). The top ten still has KEYWORD STUFFED directory sites and one site that has been killed with Jagger2 appears to me to be VERY legit.