Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
AlexK, that's a different domain. But the point is very well taken. You've found a pretty obscure query (~295 results) that the keyword stuffing spammers like to target. I'll check this out in more detail.
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 1:03 am (utc) on Nov. 12, 2005]
Just need one of you to be kind to confirm that we are still at the flux stage and you are not gonna let the dog to eat my good friend Jagger3 again.
Thanks!
Jagger3 is back on .9 to my remorse, this weekend on my hardest kw 35 to 135, yesterday and this morning 5, now 13
Pre jagger about 3-7 depending when I checked
Damn move back Jagger 3 a bit.
>>Damn move back Jagger 3 a bit.<<
No..no. Let Jagger3 rule the waves .. please
Rule Jagger3! Jagger3 Rule The Waves.. :-)
salon99, before you repost your posting again, consider this: your method may be, and I believe is, flawed.
We can rank sites at will in MSN, we don't even have to try. They have the worst spam detection out there.
You have a class of 30 students who spend, what, 1 or 2 days doing searches? And you think this somehow warrants serious consideration? Please.
And those searches are almost guaranteed to be driven by a certain focus or bias.
As a methodology, this is ludicrous. You have to collect a real sample group, of standard users, different ages, different interests, different economic and social backgrounds, then do the study, over, and over, and over, again.
Why you think your stuff is worth attention is beyond me, sounds like a community college class project or something.
Just need one of you to be kind to confirm that we are still at the flux stage and you are not gonna let the dog to eat my good friend Jagger3 again.
Still in flux, reseller. I still expect 66.102.9.104 to spread to other data centers.
anything to get pages out of the supplementals that are there b.c. of canonical issues?
I am crossing everything for a full return.
By the way, I have noticed that on these two DCs my canonical problem is beginning to be fixed, so I assume this is what is causing the comeback of the site.
Thanks for the good news. Much appreciated.
It seems to me that .9 is still flux, different results in searches now compared to 3 hours ago, I would like a bit more movement in the direction of .7 but overall the results are better than they were in the orginal .9 ( in general; and worse for me than before jagger)
It appears that the Jagger3 has more homepage at the top on a site:domain.com search than they did last night - soooo good.
You played down the Canonical situation slightly the other day however I am seeing homepages now returning in a few allinanchor searches (eg from no-where to top 40 - should be number 1 - but hey - better than nothing)
Are Canonical changes still on the agenda with this update - obviously you cant say something like they will be fixed (as you cant promise that) - but changes still to come?
Also GG - when this has all settled down I take it a good crawl would probably be needed? (Hopefully not Mozilla Googlebot though - tooooo fast ;))
[edited by: Dayo_UK at 7:45 am (utc) on Nov. 9, 2005]
>>It appears that the Jagger3 has more homepage at the top on a site:domain.com search than they did last night - soooo good.<<
This is the first time, since Allegra, I see you mention the word "good".
Good luck my friend. And may Jagger3 bring back your site rankings. Amen :-)
I said Good earlier in the thread.
Good name for a cat.
[webmasterworld.com...]
:)
I have been up and down like a Yo-Yo in this update. (That means me - not my sites)
GG - still about?
81.79.198.* a Googlebot? - Lol - forget that - it is not, hmmmz shame thought that Googlebot took my homepage 2 days running - would have fallen off chair if that was the case ;)
Is this flux on a site to site basis?
EG, a site might have flux, get stable - move accross DCs, while some sites are still in the earlier flux like stage?
Thanks.
[edited by: Dayo_UK at 8:16 am (utc) on Nov. 9, 2005]
Is the current 66.102.9.104 going to spread as it is now and the flux will be once it has propagated or will there be flux within 66.102.9.104 before it spreads?
when do you expect either of the two options above to happen?
thx
I know, this reply is late, I keep finding more interesting things to do, but since salon keeps posting at irregular intervals I thought I'd try heading him off at the pass at least once.
salon99, before you repost your posting again, consider this: your method may be, and I believe is, flawed.We can rank sites at will in MSN, we don't even have to try. They have the worst spam detection out there.
You have a class of 30 students who spend, what, 1 or 2 days doing searches? And you think this somehow warrants serious consideration? Please.
And those searches are almost guaranteed to be driven by a certain focus or bias.
As a methodology, this is ludicrous. You have to collect a real sample group, of standard users, different ages, different interests, different economic and social backgrounds, then do the study, over, and over, and over, again.
Why you think your stuff is worth attention is beyond me, sounds like a community college class project or something.
Here are a few facts you might digest:
+ Unlike most analysts, certainly on a forum like this, we were driven by a quest for truth, not by profit or self interest. This in itself enhanced objectivity and reduced the prospect of bias
+ The spread of subjects covered was vast
+ I defined very clearly what the tests covered: quality site exclusion. I'm not sure what part of that you find difficult to grasp. We did not cover 'spam' inclusion, but measured the ability of the search engines to actually present the most important sites.
+ We integrated check points throughout to prevent subjectivity
Now, like it or not, as a measure of quality, the tests were sound. The sample size was reasonable. The results conclusive. Google was vastly inferior to MSN and Yahoo on this measure.
There are two sides to the coin you know. A search experience isn't only shaped by the number of valueless sites/pages encountered, but whether the most important sites are visible. It rather looks like Google is obsessed by only one side of this coin, to the detriment of the other. This is particularly the case with their new J3 returns, which bury even more key data sources than ever. That, genuinely, is a shame.
I'm sorry if you don't like these issues being presented, but from the mails received, it seems that most people value independent research and study.
If you are getting tired of watching the DCs and started looking for something relaxing and refreshing, I would recommend you to listen to a very nice song of Matt Waddell, Google Mobile Team.
In respect to the TOS, Iīm not gonna post the direct link to the song, but you can find the link on Mattīs blog here:
[mattcutts.com...]
Enjoy!
However there and at main index still showing many pages and home page also oddly indexed using an old IP address which is no longer valid. Weird.
The IP address had many links from a stanford.edu project so I'm thinking that might have made the IP more powerful than the real site for a time leading to the confusion.
how about the new sites? :{
after Sooo many JAGGER nights I still wake up without
seeing my new, clean and only site coming up :(
Please! Do not let JAGGER3 spread before you let us
out of the...BOX!
66.102.9.104... looks Good the spam problem has gotten
much better......
So no reason to keep us OUT ;)
People want to find Us even we are new...
Hey, how about Google hosting a supplementals and canonicals session/party during the WebmasterWorld Las Vegas?
>>It rather looks like Google is obsessed by only one side of this coin, to the detriment of the other. This is particularly the case with their new J3 returns, which bury even more key data sources than ever. That, genuinely, is a shame.<<
I'm asking in good faith. Would you be kind to mention the sectors where you find Jagger3 returns bury more key data sources than ever?
Thanks.
It's clear by how you keep repeating yourself that you're pretty anxious to promote whatever you came up with, which I guess is fine, doesn't interest me particularly, but if it interests others that's up to them.
Saying that the incidence of spam is not related to your study to me just shows that you basically really have no idea what you are doing.
Obviously, if someone can with the greatest of ease place 5 spam sites in the top 10 of an msn search, which they can, these results are just not very good.
However, since I've seen lots of academics in my life, I won't bother pushing the point with you.
Try not to mistake someone who is completely unimpressed with your methodology and your study with someone who is progoogle, the two are complelely unrelated. I'm unimpressed with you and your study. Others might be impressed with it. I use MSN now and then and have never managed to use it for a serious research session. I've seen the junk in the serps, which, since they are not quality sites, obviously indicate a lack of quality. I'm sure MSN will improve one day, and maybe you'll figure out a more coherent research model if you can get enough funding to actually assemble a real research group, but I'm not going to spend much time waiting for either event.
Anyway, have fun teaching your classes.
I 100% agree that quality sites are missing.
The reason they are missing IMO has nothing to do with anti spam measures - but another problem.
Google are hopefully still working on this problem so would be intresting to see your test results again in a month or so.
