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?

[CainIV]

I notice significant overall loss in pr on homepages of sites in the genres I work in. Could be you are right Steve, that on page factors are weighing in more heavily, and it could also be that Google is (winkwink) displaying this as the TBPR to attempt to put a damper on trading across unrelated themes.

I see this whole update in stages as:

Stage one: Determine authorty seed sites and aged link / aged sites based on the factors in patent.

Stage two: Rank indescriminately based on that seed and on other factors. Put out and push spam report to attempt to filter off scum.

Stage three: (Hopefully) fix issues with 302, 301 / canonical issues, then do a deep crawl and open the flood gates.

Any thoughts?

[reseller]

texasville

>>Reseller-
Obviously you did not read my entire post. You seem to be pushing this spam report stuff. <<

You are absolutely right ;-)

But should I need to explain why I'm supporting Google WebSpam Team in reporting spam? shouldn't all of us whitehat webmasters do the same?

Those filthy spammers have been killing our sites, stealing our contents and preventing legit sites of ranking and spam is poisoning the serps.

And yes I both know and agree, that Google WebSpam Team didn't treat spam reports seriously in the past. And you can read several war stories of our kind fellow members who reported spam in the past with no proper actions from Google WebSpam Team side.

But recently I sense from reading our kind members GoogleGuy posts on WebmasterWorld forums and Matt Cutts posts (on his blog) that they really mean business this time. And I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Therefore fellow members:

Please start reporting those spammers here:

[google.com...]

In the "Additional details:" section, you would use the keyword "jagger2" (that's "jagger" and the number two with no spaces in between).

And listen Matt and Google WebSpam Team:

You take prompt actions on my fellow members spam reports, or else ;-)

[Atomic]

I think I will keep using AdWords because it works so well and the more of you that pause your campaigns the cheaper my bids will be. Google exists for the people doing the surfing, not the webmasters. Our sites may go up or down and we can cry about it all we want and decide to quit. No worries for Google because there are 8 billion web pages waiting to take up the slack. Talk about boycotting Google is a little silly. It's almost as if you think they did something wrong. It's their search engine and they run it the way they think is best. So what's the plan? Boycott Google until food and water run out and then try to negotiate their surrender?

[reseller]

CainIV

>>I see this whole update in stages as: ...<<

Good morning CainIV

And I see Jagger stages as follows:

Jagger1 : PR & Backlinks update

Jagger2 : Spam Terminator

Jagger3 : Dealing with canonical and supplemental issues. In addition to 301/302 redirects (as you mentioned).

Flux : Tweaking..tweaking...tweaking :-)

[bonedome]

I think G really mean business this time on getting rid of spam sites.... but they need our help to do it.

It looks like whatever they have done so far is like cooking minced beef. You boil it up and simmer it for a while and the scum rises to the top. You skim that off and leave the succulent tasty meat behind.

According to Matts blog last night, there's just two days to have your say on the spam sites

if you do a jagger2 keyword spam report today, someone might read it today. Probably the earliest round-time reaction where you might see spam going away would be late Friday, I’m guessing?

Time to get those reports in.

[asher02]

I wish Google had a dedicated team for treating these site that are not spamming and were caught in the cross fire.

I own a legitimate rich content site that has no spam in it. I took a nose dive this update.

If they had such a team and a form to fill I guess they will be dealing with only honest webmaster Because I don't see any Black hat SEO flagging Google with its crappy site.

[mzanzig]

Just a side note - my wife made an interesting comment yesterday, potentially related to Jagger. She is not tech-centric or web-centric at all, she works in financial investment sector and is merely an end-user. Here's what she said: "Today I was really annoyed by Google, I did not find anything I was looking for. For example, I was searching for the homepage of a well-known industry event and Google just did not manage to find it, at least not on the first few pages. Gosh, what's going on?"

That is the second comment of this nature, coming from two non-web persons, both complaining about the SERPs quality. Interesting.

[followgreg]

I personally would like to address something to GOOGLEGUY:

- I know of a company, a major Spammer...I mean they do everything: cloaking, hidden text, stuffing etc...

- 95% of their backlinks are from....Cloaking pages!..placed on their clients' websites....and trust me there are 1000's of these pages

Their results: a PR7 and a few great rankings

I have reported these guys here and there for over 6 months but nothing seems to affect them not even the Jagger stuff. They are in Europe though but I've never seen such spam throughout the net and find amazing that Google is still buying it.

Should I keep on report them? (I can send the info by PM...not nice but they deserve it in my opinon:))

[foxtunes]

So Jagger 2 is percolating on the 66.102.9.104 datacenter, but it will stay there until after Jagger 3 is finished?

Or will the results on 66.102.9.104 roll out to google's other datacenters before Jagger 3?

[sit2510]

GG,

RE: Canonical URL problem and supplemental issue
Report: Problem with index.html file

In Jagger3 when your team work on Canonical URL problem and supplemental issue, could you please take into consideration the problem of index.html as well?

Normally Google can resolve www.yourdomain/productnames/index.html correctly to www.yourdomain/productnames/ but this time it seems that Google consider them as duplicates by pushing www.yourdomain/productnames/index.html into supplemental result and making www.yourdomain/productnames/ as url only. (Because we use relative url so we points internal links to ../../index.html)

Moreover, non-www and www versions adds to the problem. Because I did not use 301 redirect (mod-rewrite in .htaccess crash with FP extension), thus Google has another copies of the above as non-www version line with either or both yourdomain/productnames/index.html and yourdomain/productnames/

Therefore, I believe that G has about 3-4 copies of that index.html in the databases and that trigger duplicate content issue while infact there is only 1 copy in existence. As a result, most of the pages are wiped out.