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?

[stevexyz]

Its noticeable that "home pages" have decreased in PageRank - looks like G has implemented something in their algo to make SERPS more specific to a page - IE more on page relevant content.

I really wondered why Matt didn't use his home page for his blog - it seemed strange when I first saw it but maybe there is a good reason for this?

[walkman]

to report or not to report?
I know of two sites that use obvious linking schemes. One with counters (he got PR7 this time, and all his internal pages are PR6), and another just has sitemaps on dozens of other sites. I think I will not though. If my site wasn't slammed, I would've probably done it. Now it looks vindictive, so I'll wait till I come back. I hope it's just a month: I rank around #50 for "domain.com"...imagine the rest.

Looks like Google just wiped out everything when doing the SERP calcs because it detected something fishy (all fixed now). Robots can't tell intent as someone said.

[edited by: walkman at 1:01 am (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]

[WebPixie]

"I really wondered why Matt didn't use his home page for his blog - it seemed strange when I first saw it but maybe there is a good reason for this?"

I seriously doubt he's worried about the PR of his blog.

[WebPixie]

"Now it looks vindictive... "

I'm in the same boat, Walkman. There are a few sites in my market I could report. But I can't help but feel petty in doing it. None of them are wearing midnight black hats, but their tactic are outside Google guidelines.

[ltedesco]

Bad results. Only a miracle on Jagger3 to save Google.

[Ankhenaton]

I have understood the following about what will happen in Jagger1-3:

[bharatbista]

Google gone crazy!

[Yippee]

You know, it is soooooo useless to sit and talk about an update that is sooooooo not over. In the mean time, I suggest you all look into your DNS records. Make sure G has your blessings on that (perhaps Google's 3/31/2005 patent might shed some light). I commented on Matt's blog under the name Mojo (my original name) in the DNS for Dummies Book post. I think you will find some useful info there.

You guys are arguing good points, but they are fruitless until old hag Jagger is over (DNS, get it?).

[joeduck]

GG -

Some day I hope you or the guidelines will clarify to a greater degree what types of NON deceptive practices Google still considers spam, and also why severe downranking is not considered a penalty by support.

In a recent thread somebody was complaining that the "top listing is spam" when in fact it was an excellent user review site.

One person's spam is another's caviar. It's not an objective measure so the guidelines should elaborate more about good vs poor content. I think this would push people here to create better sites more than thwart the process.

[walkman]

>> Some day I hope you or the guidelines will clarify to a greater degree what types of NON deceptive practices Google still considers spam

I doubt they ever will, and I don't blame thems since no two sites are equal. For better sites they will allow more, for bad sites, you just gave them an excuse to nuke you. I'm pretty confident that counters with
2 0 2 0 5 4 5
keyword here

cloaking, hiding text, and hiding links are black hat.

[edited by: walkman at 2:59 am (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]