Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 50.19.156.133

Message Too Old, No Replies

Update Saga. Part 5

     

Brett_Tabke

8:26 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



What say you?

Over and done with?

All done all through?

texasville

4:29 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Well checking .99 I saw for my site:mysite.com for the first time ever my index .com page returned as first in the list. Before I had long time dead pages that I have excluded in robots.txt as first.
Now it's a nice neat clean indexing except for the supplementals still exist at the end of the list.
Over the past week I have seen a little traffic from google. msn is still main player in my logs.

tigger

4:40 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tigger is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



>I saw for my site:mysite.com for the first time ever my index .com page returned as first in the list

OK daft question time what does that achieve?

If I search for site:mysite.com it pulls up nothing but my site and 27,000 other pages from within it so what does this mean?

Eazygoin

4:43 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

5+ Year Member



re <title> tags
I ran a test on Monday, adding a keyword to my title tag. By Tuesday I was indexed at 29, for a 20 million keyword search for this word. I had never used this word before, but also placed four examples of the same keyword, in the content of the homepage. My title tag is reasonably long, and includes main keywords, and my main site is indexed on page one for all sorts of conjugations of these keywords. So I believe title tags are extremely important. I also believe that Google is super efficient in picking up on new content.

edit>> My homepage has been cached with an updated date, 3 times this week.

taps

4:47 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Cache doesn't work here (served by [66.249.93.104...] Don't know if this might me Jagger related...

Ankhenaton

5:05 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)



OK daft question time what does that achieve?

If I search for site:mysite.com it pulls up nothing but my site and 27,000 other pages from within it so what does this mean?

Utterly useless... I have seen this too.

I am just happy that today someone told me independently that has no idea about technology that the G search results were cr@p and she ignores the first page now :D.

That would be historical context searches

tigger

5:11 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tigger is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



cheers Ankhenaton

funny a builder friend of mine said the same when he called round today saying he was trying to find something on G and in the end went over to Y and found it on the first page

Eazygoin

5:23 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

5+ Year Member



The main thing I am noticing, is consolidation on DC 66.102.9.104 whereby sites are being either deleted or placed further back in the index. This in turn, means the remaining URL's are moving forward.
I see this as a very positive move for the sites that deserve good indexing, and are getting it.

From previous posts,I can also see that it is unfortunately affecting some sites that merit better rankings. However, the flux [fluctuation] continues, and the sorting will continue for a while yet, so there's still hope for those who are unhappy with the update.

Newman

5:30 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I have just read this post on some other forum:

"I automatically generated a few hundred pages with the same text, except for different page titles and headings and a few keywords sprinkled in each page. Now it's true that Google treats it very well. I get great rankings for my target keywords on these pages.

However, Yahoo banned my site for this very reason. I wrote to them and they confirmed it."

My comment: No comment.

Timona

5:39 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Looks like they are having trouble with the cache--or something. I noticed several sites have been reverted to old cache data, where the sites in question were last showing cached as of 9 Nov, today they are showing cache from the 4th and as far back as 30 October :o

I also noted that the cache that is still "ok" as of yesterday was done significantly later than usually. ( I have seen that they seem to come around about the same time every day, except yesterday were they were almost 7 hours "late"?

Don't know what this means but thought it was strange and definitely an indicator that something is up (problems?) at the plex, why else would they revert to two week old cache data?

Atomic

5:41 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



64.233.179.99 is totally messed up from where I am sitting. One site I have made is 100% gone and it's an ecommerce site for company with all unique content in a tiny, tiny niche meaning they sell specialized tools to laborotories. I was really surprised to see that site missing. All a site: search showed me where scraper site supplemental links that had this site on them.

Another site is all supplementals and it's another solid site I would not expect this to happen to. This "experiment" has a long, long way to go.

tigger

5:58 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tigger is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



experiment! I'm sorry but you do an experiment on something that doesn't effect peoples lives this "experiment" is putting business out of business if thats what it is

Sorry if I sound bitter!

flyboy

6:09 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I donít see the cache dates as being a problem, all my supplemental pages are showing a much newer date, I am just hoping this is a step in the right direction. Went thru my logs and it was MozillaBot that got the pages.

The cache info can not be found in the serps by using site:domain.com "some text blue widget"

Miop

6:10 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



<Sorry if I sound bitter! >

I should think there are a lot of people feeling bitter at the moment particularly when they see sites which blatantly cheat holding fast.

I just posted a recipe for how to cheat and be no.1 for any keyword you want on Google (and other SE's), in another thread in this forum about hidden text.
Some people pay thousands for that - I hope that putting it there might actually draw it to someone's attention.

bekyed

6:25 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



<I should think there are a lot of people feeling bitter at the moment particularly when they see sites which blatantly cheat holding fast>

Yes google need to have more human intervention if they are going to catch the spammers and remove them.
It is terible that legitimate sites have to go down on every update.
I guess googles guidelines do not really count any more as we have followed their every rule and been punished for it.
Tigger, Us webmasters who do not cheat the system are very bitter indeed, I wish i had used spam from the start at least i could say i deserved it!

I feel very bitter Tigger.

Bek.

Newman

7:08 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



64.233.179.99 ...this is much better for me... much better... unfortunetly...

reseller

7:53 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Miop

Trust me, any savvy webmaster know exactly what you have posted on the other thread. Nothing new under the darkness of spam.

Though I understand the frustrations and bitterness those fellow webmasters who's sites lost rankings or dropped out of the index, I can't see any benefit of spamming the index as a result of that.

We as webmasters have pressed Google for long time to do something about spam and spammers.
Google WebSpam Team head Matt Cutts responded positively. Google seeking now cooperation with whitehat webmasters to eliminate spam and spammers through reporting spam to Google.

However, it seems that the amount of spam is so huge that Google needs huge resources and time to deal with the problem. I really don't know the size of WebSpam Team nor I know the number of the folks at WebSpam Team.
But what I see from Matt and GoogleGuy sides is a strong determination and strong wish to cooperate with whitehat webmasters to fight back on spam and spammers.
Take a look at GoogleGuy's posts on this thread this morning and today's post of Matt Cutts on his blog and you shall see what I mean.

kperr

7:57 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

5+ Year Member



Hmmmmm...experiment...feeling bitter...shades of Mabel.

Let's hope the programming team remembered to mount a scratch monkey.

Yippee

8:19 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Well shoot, I'm gone for a few days and I already miss this sewing circle. Ever since J3 (began, started, commenced, whatever tickles your bones), our site took off like a bat out of hell, and seems to continue its growth as the thousands of pages propagate themselves across the DBs. Actually, I'm beginning to get worried about traffic growth and infrastructure. I guess its getting time to buy some more machines and bandwidth. It's nice to feel wanted again...

Here is the question, should I feel guilty? NOT! I offered many suggestions along the Jagger beaten path, which we implemented, and all were shrugged off by know-it-all posters who are still in here crying "where is my sites, whaaaaa". STOP WATCHING DCs AND DO SOME REAL WORK! If you are still behind then sun, then it's time to get REAL worried...

Anyway, don't let the post count on my profile here fool ya ;) I might be a rookie here, but I'm a black belt out there. I'm willing to help others with our findings if asked... Anyway, we are doing great on the east coast and wish you all were here...

Toodles for now!

reseller

8:37 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Yippee

>>Anyway, don't let the post count on my profile here fool ya ;)<<

In fact it did fool me several times. Many times I was just about to post; welcome to WebmasterWorld, Yippee.

Then I just remember that I have seen your nic somewhere so many times :-)

Fryman

8:47 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I agree with you, this threrad is like 300 pages long, and 90% of it is just people whining and complaining and calling everything spam

Yippee

8:47 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



You are a kind and smart politician Reseller ;) Hopefully your site(s) are back on their feet...

Fryman, it's like a cat and mouse game. No one is right or wrong, just that one gotta keep chasing and other gotta keep running, but you have to keep chuckin whichever one you are.

For the record, I still detest G, but until someone beats their silly socks off, I will continue to work their system as much as I can.

2by4

8:57 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



legal alien, msg #:390

Interesting observations, we had a site in very similar situation and did pretty much nothing and saw almost the same results in terms of moving back up the serps, in about the same time frame. That was a somewhat tooth grinding wait, obviously.

Since we'd done too many changes to it in the last few months doing more this month was just too risky, and would have made it too hard to know what change did what.

It's not quite recovered, but it's close. A lot of the things you posted make very good sense though as just a general rule.

Re your and my other comments, we can let it rest, it's not productive for anyone.

Yippee, good news, I thought your site would come back, it's just too strong not too. Still too early to say about the sites that are still lowest.

[edited by: 2by4 at 9:00 pm (utc) on Nov. 11, 2005]

Fighting Falcon

8:58 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member




Its simple. They put extra zero's for some sites. Previous rank 2 becomes new rank 20. Rank 20 becomes 200 etc.

;)

FF

2by4

9:34 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



no, that's it, doesn't work, few know why.

Anyway, glad this stuff is finally over, hope it settles down into something or other, I don't really care what, as long as it's something.

steveb

9:39 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



Not enough to talk about this update, but now folks are already talking about an update months away.

Miop

9:40 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



< Miop

Trust me, any savvy webmaster know exactly what you have posted on the other thread. Nothing new under the darkness of spam.

Though I understand the frustrations and bitterness those fellow webmasters who's sites lost rankings or dropped out of the index, I can't see any benefit of spamming the index as a result of that.

We as webmasters have pressed Google for long time to do something about spam and spammers.
Google WebSpam Team head Matt Cutts responded positively. Google seeking now cooperation with whitehat webmasters to eliminate spam and spammers through reporting spam to Google.

However, it seems that the amount of spam is so huge that Google needs huge resources and time to deal with the problem. I really don't know the size of WebSpam Team nor I know the number of the folks at WebSpam Team.
But what I see from Matt and GoogleGuy sides is a strong determination and strong wish to cooperate with whitehat webmasters to fight back on spam and spammers.
Take a look at GoogleGuy's posts on this thread this morning and today's post of Matt Cutts on his blog and you shall see what I mean. >

Well all one can do is report it repeatedly I suppose, and wait and see. With traffic on the net increasing so much in the UK, there is bound to be vicious competition for the top slots, and just because there are monopoly laws, does not mean that T*sco can't buy up half the supermarkets in Britain while councils are willing to grant them permission, so I guess it's something we will have to stay used to!
I have no wish to spam SE's to use dodgy techniques - one of the reasons I'm so shocked by it is because I would never consider doing it myself - very naive really - I wouldn't even know how! Will we all end up using these techniques? I hope not - I would like to see Froogle developed on the commercial side and have started using software I can use froogle with.
I am happy to see that for some kw's where I have tidied up the pages, we are now ranking slightly below mr. blatant-cheat, so it seems a lot of effort for little gain (except on other SE's where that site is dominant an other people don't have much of a chance playing by the book).
Keep on keeping on...

claus

9:57 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



>> an update months away

Nah Steve, I just wanted to read one of the previous Jagger threads, not a previous update ;)

(Yes, I know about volumes 1-3 but that's still "Jagger" to me)

CainIV

10:39 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



64.233.179.99

Lets remember a few things:

GG told us this was experimental. If you see www / non-www issues being fixed here, then its likely that this could even be used as a test server to float a fix for canonical errors in the future, as GG did state some elements of this DC could become part of regular serps down the road. GG has already clearly stated here that this DC is not going to be used to house any relevant results anytime in the near future, so unless you enjoy DC surfing, its not worth watching (unless you are a 'watcher') :)

Progress report:

Same there over here, no canon issue fixes on any of my sites.

Most of the inner pages that were indexed non-www are supplemental and with a date from Jan 2005.

LegalAlien

11:06 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

5+ Year Member



2by4 - msg #:415

I broke out in a cold sweat when I saw your reply was addressed to me - 2by4 + LegalAlien = 2 cats in a bag - I'm glad that's all behind us ;)))

<<< Since we'd done too many changes to it in the last few months doing more this month was just too risky, and would have made it too hard to know what change did what. >>>

Yes, I felt exactly the same way, but the stable sites I checked all had similar backlinks to us, so I figured any onsite changes could only be beneficial. I did suspect that if I'd left things as they were, we'd recover as you did, but I was also concerned about the sudden pre-Jagger volatility for our site, which seemed to indicate something unrelated to the update itself.

Also, because the update was in progress, although many were recommending to wait this out, it occurred to me that the datacenters were changing all the time. They were factoring in new tweaks, data and knob-turns that perhaps wouldn't be so rapidly implemented during normal (non-update) times. I figured that this was actually an opportunity to quickly test, and that if I could see our re-emergence on the datacenters that everyone was complaining about, then I must be moving in the right direction. The same applied in reverse.

Our serps for most of our key phrases are close to where they were before Jagger started, but this could well have happened anyway; just as it did for you. It was just such a very long time to sit around and do nothing.

What I did do though was successfully kill most of our first page listings on Yahoo and MSN, who now miss the keywords ;( Just down to the second page though, so that shouldn't take long to fix.

Yippee

11:57 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



>> I broke out in a cold sweat when I saw your reply was addressed to me - 2by4 + LegalAlien = 2 cats in a bag - I'm glad that's all behind us ;))) <<

LOL, yeah, if 2by4 puts you in his cross hairs, all you have to say is "it wasn't me." EVEN if your name is on the post/text in question, still say "it wasn't me." That's my strategy JUST IN CASE. I dig 2by4's insight on the haps. It's always intense and makes sense. At least most of the time :p

This 1356 message thread spans 46 pages: 1356
 

Featured Threads

Hot Threads This Week

Hot Threads This Month