Update Jagger, Google Update Oct 18th, 2005

When can we expect a new PR update?

[jretzer]

Continued from here:
[webmasterworld.com...]

---

Anyone have any guesses as to when we can expect a new systemwide PR update?

[try2]

hmpf:
Coincidentally I just saw, that G means that the sites of my link partners are related to one of mine, even if they don't link to their sites! I have an other site, which is a very small link portal, from where I link to some of them (in different categories) - and to that site that is 'related' to the others, too.

These two sites haven't wether the same IP-adress, nor the same class-c.net. One of my link partners, who is an ODP editor, appears in this list as 'dmoz.org/profiles/hisnick.html'? These two sites are not listed in DMOZ anyway, so what?

Funny, the site from who I link to doesn't seem to be related...

What will this mean for future links exchange? If I link to a panlized site and G thinks it's related to mine?

Does anybody see something like this?

[steveb]

try2, it's been like that a long time. You are related to sites that are linked to by a site that links to you. Likewise if you link to yahoo and cnn from a page of yours, that makes them related... not enough usually to make them appear as related, but they could.

===

Notice those webmasterworld pages that are supplemental have caches, and Brett is rather enthusiastic about preventing WebmasterWorld pages from being cached. Another bit of strangeness.

[More Traffic Please]

This update has been very good to our 4 mega authority sites and very bad to our 20 smaller more niche type sites.

That's the one overriding trend I see. This update is about rewarding sheer size and content be damned.

[Atomic]

This update is about rewarding sheer size and content be damned.

From where I am standing this is just not true. I have both large and small niche sites and none of them has been hurt by this update. You'd think it would be universal if your claim was true. If what happened to you is not happening to everyone then it's probably not fair to say something like that. It's not going to help you find the real answers if you fixate on something so obviously wrong. If you are sure you are right then you could probably show how every search term has eliminated niche sites from the results. But that hasn't happened has it? Sure some niche sites have taken a hit but to conclude that if some have taken a hit then all have taken a hit makes no sense.

[reseller]

steveb

>>Notice those webmasterworld pages that are supplemental have caches, and Brett is rather enthusiastic about preventing WebmasterWorld pages from being cached. Another bit of strangeness. <<

Would you be kind to tell us, why those pages went supplementals. They are unique contents and not duplicates at all. And I can't imagine that somebody else has copied the said pages and added them to his/her site so that Google think that WebmasterWorld pages are the copies and not the original ones.

[Markoi]

Just a thought. Using G toolbar (for vieuwing PR) and visiting SEO sites hurts your SERPS.
G is implementing all data info now in jagger update the have received by the TB?

[theBear]

Markoi,

I sure hope so since I don't run a toolbar.

That is one thing I can cross off my list ;-).

[steveb]

Naturally I wish I knew why sometimes Google made things supplementals...

but in this case it's easy. Notice the format of those URLs that are supplememtal. Webmasterworld allows people to show 10, 15, 20 or 30 messages per page. Obviously if at least two of those four are crawled, there would be a considerable amount of duplication, especially for the 15 message view which would be similar to both the 10 and 20.

Notice webmasterworld.com/forum30/29782-1-15.htm is supplemental, while webmasterworld.com/forum30/29782-1-10.htm and webmasterworld.com/forum30/29782-1-20.htm each have (different) pagerank.

[marketingmagic]

I am seeing tweaking of the way the bl's are calculated as well as where they are grabbing the titles/descriptions.

[Webmeister]

I just checked my stats for the week before Jagger 10-9-05 through 10-15-5 and compared them with my stats from 10-16-05 through 10-22-05 (post Jagger). You're not going to believe this. I lost traffic from Google (as most of us did) - but I made it up on Yahoo! My search traffic from Yahoo doubled during the week after Jagger even though my rankings on Yahoo never changed. The unique IP address visits for my main website (not the one in my sig) showed 3,361 unique IPs for the week pre-Jagger and 3,241 unique IPs for the week post-Jagger. As far as MSN traffic goes, mine stayed about the same for both weeks.

This says a lot. It says that web surfers are not finding what they are looking for on Google in the post-Jagger results, so they are switching to Yahoo to see what comes up there. I find myself doing this more and more often lately too. If I don't like what comes up on Google, Yahoo is my next stop.

Once people start switching their default home page to Yahoo, look out. Could Jagger be the dagger in Google's back?