Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Dude, I am not talking rank here. I am talking staying alive period. I disagree with you on the lack of links point. I don't think ranking is entirely based on inbound links, however, it does have a big impact (quality and/or quantity links, you pick). G's hardwork on PR (which is based on links) might be going to the back burner while they tinker with TR, but you can bet your fannie it's not going away. G invested way too much in it to shelf it. It's still valid and viable component to factor in.
Now, I am not sure about the rest of everyone, I been paying particular attention to the TrustRank concept on this update. And although you might not agree, I believe the concept of having many legit links naturally built (per ratio I previously mentioned) has something to do with TrustRank... Again, something amongst the many other factors they take into consideration to build up your trust. If you take the time to read Google Patent 3/31/2005, you will see what I see.
Another suggestion, you all should make sure your DNS records are clean and in order. Get to know CName alias, where they are hosted, and the Int'l Laws involved in maintaining your DNS. It's purely a reflection of how professional your organization is. Another point G will use for TrustRank. Read the patent.
[edited by: Yippee at 6:23 pm (utc) on Nov. 4, 2005]
our canonical probs are BEING resolved.. (looks like they're getting resolved based on rank within the domain). we're hoping it continues this way!
... actually I should have been more specific.. the canonical problems in conjunction with url only is being resloved. I would assume the next step is to merge these results with the supplementals which are still not canonically resolved, but valid pages
I bet alot of people would pay the $50,000,000 per share to get in on this!
66.102.9.99
looks really tasty.
But of course the reality probably is they have not released Jagger 3 so there is nothing to see...
They have clearly layed out that different datacenters have different parts of the first two updates in place. Consider the Jagger Triplets three different lens filters for your camera. If you partially invoke one and fully invoke a second and do not use the third, the results will be different than if you fully use 2 of them all 3 of them or any other combination of above.
All the different results people are seeing are likely just the cause of this various mixings of the first two jaggers and the foundation of the serps. Add everflux into that mix as well.
So it continues to be not terribly useful to sit there and make wacky predictions about how you see Jagger 3, where there is likely nothing to do see. There is almost no chance any results you see on any DC now is going to be the final results when it is all over, so stop pretending like it is. You are misleading people.
BTW make sure that when people complain that you are scraping their content you tell them they should have opted out in the first place :)
[edited by: Eazygoin at 6:29 pm (utc) on Nov. 4, 2005]
1 256 stick of RAM, a keyboard, etc... I will be selling the network.
On another note, I love finding sites, with the same PR and blah blah blah, all that jazz, that have 30% of the valuable content I have written myself, outranking me for specific search terms, pretty much across the board on over 30 topics.
Especially when the people who wrote it, just opened a book and paraphrased. Once sentence from this book, one from this one, another from this one and voila. Nevermind that the theme of the paragraphs falls apart after sentence one.
Brilliant.
64.233.189.104
216.239.53.99
216.239.57.99
66.102.7.99
216.239.63.104
216.239.53.104
66.107.7.104
216.239.57.104
216.239.57.98
216.239.57.105
66.102.7.105
216.239.57.147
66.102.7.147
... and everything else showing another - well, at least for the DCs listed on McDar.
The strange thing is that the above DCs are all showing results similar to pre-Jagger. Although these were showing on a few DCs, I am pretty sure this was not on so many. If this is not the way things are headed, then why would so many DCs be rolled back?
If this is new data, then I cannot believe my luck and am a very happy camper -- somebody please put my mind at rest and either kiss me, or shoot me ;)
[edited by: LegalAlien at 6:39 pm (utc) on Nov. 4, 2005]
