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]

To do this, it means that not everyone will end up happy. But it also means that the SERP's will be more valid. However, the update is not yet over, and until it is, the newly formed Google SERP's will not ne available.

The alternative choice would be to continue with a list of search results that could be manipulated by SEO's, scammers, and so on. At least Google is conscientiously trying to make it fair for everyone, and at the same time, hoping to provide a concrete base of good quality results.

It seems to me that the SERP's were getting out of control and Google is trying to fix it. My suggestion is that we all wait and see what the final outcome us, after the Jagger 3 update.

This is one of the best posts in this entire topic. You get used to these updates after a few years and getting mad and ranting about the fall of Google isn't going to get anyone their traffic back. Many webmasters are not going to be happy. I had a few sites lose almost all of their traffic a few updates back. Instead of posting rants on forums I figurd out what to do to keep bringing traffic to my sites. If you have lost traffic it is not logical to suddenly declare that "Google is broken" or "Google sucks" because you have lost ranking. It may feel good but it just isn't true. I see all kinds of categories that have barely budged or look great. I suppose some categories such as real estate have more SEO'd sites than most and they might be seeing even more fallout from this update but I can imagine that that is no accident since many of the sites in these categories use dubious methods to achieve hiigh SE ranking despite the insistence of some webmasters that they are using only white hat methods.

But one thing to remember is that when this update is over and you sill have no traffic then it's going to be time to go buy some wood so that you can build a bridge and get over it. That's when you can start doing some work that will bring your uniques back to the level you're used to

[walkman]

lost traffic >> google sucks
gained it >> google rules, I see less spam ;)

[ska_demon]

ska_demon, that is a crappy comparison.

Heh heh. Thanks

What I am trying to say is there is so many sites out there that google wants to index that they would suffer the same problems as the ODP if they resorted to human site selection and ranking. It wouldn't matter if they employed 10,000 people to sift thru it. Google would still be, as you put it, under resourced due to the amount of pages out there.

Ska

[thecityofgold2005]

Um. I guess. Maybe!

I outlined a trust system earlier in this thread which I think would work and wouldn't create too much human work.

We'll see what happens I suppose.

[bigearz]

cleanup and others:

Our site has exactly the same problem as yours. Our site has been around for nearly seven years, reviewing music, films, theatre and opera. We used to do well until this update, with our relevant, original content appearing high up in Google's results.

Now, searching for an artist's name and the album title - plus our domain name! - lists sites linking to us or quoting us instead of our pages. Searching just for the artist and album leaves us nowhere.

Writing to Google about this produces an automatic response, thus:

Thank you for your note. While we're always working to include more
content in Google, sites can occasionally fall out of our search results.
Our spiders regularly crawl the web to rebuild our index, but keeping tabs
on billions of pages is tough work, and they may miss a few.

Please be assured that these changes are automated. It is certainly our
intent to represent the content of the internet fairly and accurately. Our
crawlers aren't bullies; they don't pick on particular sites.

We understand that these changes can be confusing. While we can't
guarantee that any page will consistently appear in our index or appear
with a particular rank, our Webmaster Guidelines, available at
[google.com...] offer helpful tips for
maintaining a crawler-friendly site. Following these recommendations will
increase the likelihood that your site will show up consistently in our
search results.

Regards,
The Google Team

All of which is lovely except I've been building websites for over a decade and am well aware of how to build and maintain a crawler-friendly site, which mine is - and they'd have seen that if they'd looked at it. We do not resort to "blackhat" techniques. We're a source for Google News even, but now can't be found on the majority of searches we should be.

In common with a lot of people on here, I have no idea what recourse I have. I'm supposed to sit tight and watch our traffic drop and drop and hope it might all come right in the end? It's been over a month since this catastrophe happened and it isn't coming right. And I don't seem to have any course of action open to me to redress the situation.

Needless to say, our results in MSN and Yahoo remain impeccable, but with an estimated 80% of searches in Europe (we're in the UK) taking place through Google according to their figures, that's scant comfort.

[Eazygoin]

Can I get something clarified by you specialists on here.
From reading threads on here, am I right in understanding that 'normal' search results are not a display of the results updated by Jagger?
BUT results showing in the various IP numbers given by you, are from servers that have been set aside to test the waters for the eventual 'live results' that will show after Jagger is completed.
Please reply politely, as I am a nice guy ;-)

[MrSpeed]

lost traffic >> google sucks
gained it >> google rules, I see less spam ;)

Have you ever noticed that the people that complain the most in an update thread aren't usually heard from in the next update thread?

I think they actualy go out and diversify and have learned not to depend on something totally out of their control.

[walkman]

>> I think they actualy go out and diversify and have learned not to depend on something totally out of their control.

or they come back in Google :)

Personally, I held back diversifying because I was afraid of link penalty (I'm not kidding). I wanted to at least have some extra cash before taking the risk. It is ironic that I got hit by just that.

[edited by: walkman at 4:28 pm (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]

[keno]

I haven't looked back on this thread because it is too long, but here is another data point.

One of my big competitors in the computer hardware business recently dropped out of google! I'm amazed. THey used to be a PR5 with high ranking product pages, and all now Zero.

I can't find any sign of them in Google. Totally wierd! Maybe it is temporary.

They had a very aggressive linking campaign I know that.

[petehall]

Yikes... these are really nasty!

216.239.37.104