Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Over and done with?
All done all through?
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.
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]
;)
FF
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.
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...
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)
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.
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.
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
