Update Saga. Part 5

[Brett_Tabke]

What say you?

Over and done with?

All done all through?

[followgreg]

I had a virus issue for the past 24hours, I don't know what's going on anymore, is it still that 9.104 isn't spreading? Or is there a roll back or whatever else?

Sorry i'm being lazy, there are so many posts in this thread and not all about the update really, only whinings or general comments (which are both fine/legitimate from my prospective though) :)

[caveman]

Lemme correct something as I just reread and I wrote too fast.

I said: " The quality sites/pages faring worse than ever."

Wrong. The intent of the comment was: SOME quality sites/pages faring worse than ever.

In many respects this is a good update. Many quality sites previously on page two or three of SERP's have risen.

My sole issue is that some sites are needlessly suffering. Seemingly because of too many pages in Supps, wrongly assinged. This is presumably because either G has got it wrong on some legit sites, where for a variety of reasons, too many pages have seemed too similar ... or because the external page issues are killing some pages/sites.

Both issues seem to be causing problems. And despite all of the many qualities of G, the other SE's are not suffering from these malodies.

[phochief]

....for very selfish reasons, I hope that .9 is the final update....we're almost back to where we were before. However, I *have* lost a bit more hair!

GG will there be much "fluxing" or will 66.102.9.104 be it?

[zikos]

that jagger saga is becoming like the "bord" of the rings :D

[2by4]

The intent of the comment was: SOME quality sites/pages faring worse than ever.

Oh, that changes it a bit, much more interesting. Same question in a way as legalalien has:

However, all these CToSes (have to work on the plural) remained as solid as a rock from Sept 22 onward, with perhaps the only exception being a very slight shuffle between them during Jaggar2.

Of particular interest to me is that our own site exceeded some of these sites in these areas, yet we were sent packing. So, would this relate to the infamous "Trust Rank" debate, discussed in the initial part of this thread? If so, perhaps it would be worthwhile trying to identify and define this?

Same some here. The main problem with trying to solve that riddle is that while many say their sites are 'white hat' and 'non seoed' and 'like other sites, of quality', that didn't drop, to me, anyone posting in these forums, they have ideas, they do things. You need to know for a fact ALL of the things done to a site that dropped before you can state that a 'quality site' dropped for no reason.

As we unravel one mess, I get more and more depressed hearing all those 'other things' that have been done. The drop I've seen is no mystery to me at all. The only mystery is which specific thing triggered the drop.

I haven't yet seen such a thing, 'for no reason' that is. There was another thread about this supposed thing, but I couldn't see the site in question, so again, it wasn't, and isn't, possible to say anything conclusively. So just what is the difference?

RE plural: I believe, though I can't find dictionary confirmation, that the plural of CToS is CToS, like fish and fish.

other SE's are not suffering from these malodies.

I think other SE's may not be quite as obsessive about keeping all old data for as long as humanly possible in the live data sets. So they dump it, respider, maybe pop a copy of the web onto a storage array, but leave it at that. Giants have weaknesses too, I think this may be a biggy for g.

[reseller]

LegalAlien

>>reseller,

What was the name of the guy who wrote the Google song about something-or-other on his mobile phone? Perhaps he can help me write a song about being alone in the Google forum on a Friday night -- how sad is that!<<

Good morning LegalAlien and all

His name is Matt Waddell, Google Mobile Team

and the name of the song is:

Get lost and found on your phone

You can see on Matt's blog a link to the song
[mattcutts.com...]

Enjoy :-)

[fiu88]

We're lost in the new G....adwords at 30 dimes /year keeping us in the game.....

Time for some blog spamming/directory submission/link purchase/dummy article creation....it sems to b e the only way

[joeduck]

G has got it wrong on some legit sites, where for a variety of reasons, too many pages have seemed too similar

A variation on this theme that appeared to start pre jagger but persists - I have a site where G indexed thousands of pages via the IP rather than site name,
and then appeared to confer a duplicate filter or other penalty on the real site, killing G traffic. It's not a great site and I'd experimented with other things so I can't be sure this was the problem but it's a strong candidate.

Why not have a site review process?

[Gimp]

I would expect that to have a site review process Google would have to add staff. That would be expensive.

Google is now at that stage in a company's life that it is so big that it does not take individual complaints and requests for help seriously. They do not have to. They can just ignore you and you will either go away or go on using their service.

We are all just like public transportation and elevators. If they miss one of us there will be another right behind.

With time they, like all companies do, will pass. So make the best of what they offer now. Life goes on.

[caveman]

Understand your POV joeduck, but it's a big deal that they've even come 'round to noting that human intervention may be useful. If I were them, I'd strive for algo and filter driven SERP's too.

Can you imagine the effort involved with a site review process, and the arbitrary decisions needed to make that work?

Of course in a sense it's all arbitrary. But as long as the big looming image of something nearly omnipotent exists, questioning the algo is harder. Once the man behind the curtain is revealed, it all seems much more fallable. ;-)