Update Jagger - Part 2

[Brett_Tabke]

Continued from
[webmasterworld.com...]

[MHes]

66.102.11.99 is not new results as far as I can tell. I think that is old Jag2

SEOPutte - I think you can still see bits of Jag3, not the final version.

I doubt any of these new results are live until next week.

[Patrick Taylor]

216.239.53.99
66.102.7.99

Pre or post, I don't know, but on those, I can see 'mom and pop' pages that disappeared on main google.com now reappearing to the first-page positions where they last were on 17th October.

[annej]

While we are waiting for Jagger3 I'm curious as to what people think about MCs statement today, " J3 has less to do with spam and more to do with general indexing."

I was hoping that J3 would get rid of most of the spammy results and had thought it would deal with supplimental results/dup content issues. I still can't get my deleted pages off of sup results.

On the other hand I am wondering if the 'general indexing' part will bring big changes.

[blaggard]

216.239.53.99, 216.239.57.99, 66.102.7.99 all posting same as Google.co.uk for some terms but for others the reults vary with .co.uk showing Results 1 - 10 of about 3,840,000
and the others Results 1 - 10 of about 3,090,000
in addition cache on .co.uk is 1/11 and 25/10 on the others

[AlexK]

reseller:

Dagger3?:
216.239.53.99
216.239.57.99
66.102.7.99

Only the last of those is different for my ami-2019f modem-search, but different in a wonderful way:

My site has suffered from both Canonical URLs (hello Dayo_UK) *and* Supplementals. Fixes were put in place for both in Feb-05, yet few changes until a nose-dive in Sep-22. Finally, 66.102.7.99 shows with the correct url (bliss), and is non-supplemental (ecstacy), and is in the #1 spot (with a cherry on top!).

Dayo_UK:

Mozilla though :() is going crazy 12 requests a second

Please forgive my wry smile [webmasterworld.com].

[Eazygoin]

I was wondering about people who have said their sites had 'disappeared' from Google. If thats the case, and they are using AdWords, does that mean they won't get a single ppc ad showing, or a single click?

On that basis,why on earth would Google make a site disappear if its using AdWords?

[blaggard]

"On that basis,why on earth would Google nake a site disappear if its using AdWords? "

the two are not related or so they say. And why shouldn't they? If for instance they have a better set of results.

[Ankhenaton]

I wonder if we can change all these DCs to what we want if we are really confident but have no actual knowledge about what is going on.

I can't get no satisfaction in this..

OK, ok someone had to do it ... :¦

[Eazygoin]

blaggard

the two are not related or so they say. And why shouldn't they? If for instance they have a better set of results.

Could you translate this please ;-)

[walkman]

>> While we are waiting for Jagger3 I'm curious as to what people think about MCs statement today, " J3 has less to do with spam and more to do with general indexing."

spam is a relative term, and it's an ongoing battle. if you ask GG, they probably cleared lots of it already with these two updates. No one update or series of them can get rid of spam.

methinks this has something to do with how google treats supplementals or unreferenced pages (no inbound links), and /or the much-talked about cannonical issues.

Maybe how links are treated too. I personally hope that Google starts ignored ROS or fishy links INDIVIDUALLY, as suppose to devauling all links from that site. This way, if site A buys ROS links, they aren't influencing the SERPS at all, and they are still penalized (by wasting money). This would penalize the link buyer, and also prevent others from harming the competitor's sites by buying links for them.