Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Update Jagger, Google Update Oct 18th, 2005

When can we expect a new PR update?

         

jretzer

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?

cleanup

7:44 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member




MHes,
I think one of my sites is showing the same symptoms as yours. All internal searches gone and just a couple of top level, high money keywords left.

Alas..I fear that those results still left are just a mistake by Google and they have somehow slipped through their masses of filters. As you say they do not make up for the bulk of relevant on target keywords which are now lost. The more relevant keyword searches bring my pages up at page 150 (if at all). Of course all those sites which link to me appear on the pages before mine.

Good one Google.

reseller

7:44 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Hi Folks

Have just submitted to Matt & Co another "Misleading or repeated words" jagger2 spam report.

As I said before. It seems that the current filters/algos aren't yet intellegent enough to catch the "traditional" keywords spam. And I know, it mightbe very difficult to write anti-traditional spam filters/algos without risking Collateral Damage.

Dayo_UK

7:49 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)



aliszka

Steveb is hardly someone who applaudes the search engines, and in fact if Google do get things right next week should be one of the ones you applaud for recognizing the problems Google is having and putting some pressure on them to fix it.

Now without looking at everyone site - MHES - dismissed Canonical url problems? - or just to pessimistic that Google will fix them next week anyway?

I have to admit - even if Google do fix the problem I dont know if sites that have had the problem for a year or so will return :( - maybe after a good couple of crawls.

cleanup

7:49 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



"without risking collateral damage"!

You are joking. Do you think all the people complaing about getting caught in the Jagger crossfire are making it up!

By the way thank for telling us about your nth spam report, that is so interesting. How about telling us the sites you reported and the results. That may be more helpful. Thank you.

Dayo_UK

7:51 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)



cleanup

Assuming you use the www - Do a site:domain.com -www search on your site - any entries? - Especially look for the homepage if so.

cleanup

7:55 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Dayo_UK,
Yes all pages report as in the index. 2 pages less reported with the site:www.web.com than with site:web.com.

normasp

7:56 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)



Hi!
I don't understand nothing..
I've not been here yesterday..
Could somebody do a little summary?
Thanks!

Dayo_UK

7:57 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)



Ok - so sounds like pages indexed without the www.

I have sent you a sticky.

CainIV

7:57 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



I am starting see small patterns here reflecting on the patent 2by4 has reiterated and linked us to.

Here is some things I see slowly rising to the top, and I also see a pattern in terms of competitiveness, with less competitive keyword genre searches showing less change in comparison to their respective harder to rank counterparts:

Sites 1-5 in a tough wedding related genre are all still strong with the folowing characteristics:

All have been regged since before 2000
High clickthroughs and traffic
Lots of purchased one way links
Large amounts of unthemed reciprocal trading, with many inbound "aged" links
(Very important imho) - all have been engaging in what appears to be CONSISTENT amount of reciprocal link building over time.
Consistent long term files intact on all sites (no rebuilds or changes from what I have seen - document age length
All are in DMOZ directory

Sites that have dropped after top 5 serps in jagger 1,2:

Have actively increased linking to keep up with top 5 sites - especially in last year
Heavy duty seo on pages
Have and have not purchased links
Most are not in DMOZ or Google Dir
Most have an average document and domain age of about 2-3 years or less.

Sites that have moved up in serps to take those spots in this genre:

Lots of related content, niche content
Very little reciprocal linking in last 9-12 months, or SLOW recip linking in that time.
Moderate seo on pages
No DMOZ listing
Often 'named file' pages are ranking before the homepage in Google even on page two (ie somesite.com/ourgifts.html)

I think this entire update 1 has alot to do with selecting seed sites and attempting to bridge a way to filter off spam based on the above criteria.

Cainer...

cleanup

7:57 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member




Dayo_UK,
Home and index pages both report for www and non www.

Thanks.

This 930 message thread spans 93 pages: 930