Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Shouldn't Google be reading feedback from webmasters and act on them and not just concentrate on spam reports? After all, it's when you lose your WH sites that you start thinking about the dark side.
I am fed up with these updates and Google in general.
Site #1 - new hand written content everyday since 1998. No SEO, I don't even follow Google traffic. 95% of visitors come from bookmarks because they like the website so much. Survived all updates until now. Dropped nowhere in Jagger 1. No change in Jagger 2. Possible canonical url problem. Feedback sent to Google. No answer, not even the automatic response.
Site #2 - clean clean clean. Dropped September 22 and dropped even more with Jagger 1. High budget Adwords campaign for brand awareness only. Google traffic close to zero. No change with Jagger 2. Manually checked by Google but still being filtered out of the results.
Five weeks of pure hell. I have two websites that people know well so they enter the site name to Google but find nothing but - if they're lucky - pages that link to my site.
In one particularly laughable instance ..the same person is paying for the first 5 adwords spots on the page returned for a one word query ..plus they are also in the blue band ..and they and their friends and family are at numbers 1 to 5 in the "organic" serp slots ...and every site has amongst it's backlinks the same interlinked spam directories and link farms...
Add that to the clumsily applied geo targeting by "g" and soon I'll only be able to see ( for any given query ) sites owned by folks who live in the same village as I do!
Ah well! back to the cartons :)
BTW .."H" ...Your literary style is showin'...as are the insights ..;)..
g'night Brett ..
g'night lawman ..
g'night vitaplease ..
g'night johnboy ..
g'night gg ..!
What happened to make it so folksy and Walton world all of a sudden ...? ACK! ..i'ts an update fer x sake! and "G's" PR guy is being thanked and tucked up for the night 'cos he saw your emails?!..we are all just considered as potential collateral casualties in "G's" pursuit of a good bottom line .. pre xmas adwords shakedown ..just like last year ..! and some folks are still swallowing the line about how they cant find spam and hidden text etc unless you tell them in an email ..!
Those who can ..take out your checkbooks ..those who can't ..cross your fingers ..and look out for "G's" 4th quarter 2005 figures when they come out next year ..then bring it on with the talk of "conspiracy theories" ..
"Sympathy for the devil" ..:)
always did say that the stones were the best background music for coding
I too am a single site webmaster since 1999 with no SEO, nothing funny at all, and not even showing for the brand name that WE created....
Appreciate your time and help.
I have also filed a Jagger 1 and Jagger 2 report on it now, so I hope the spam team is paying attention, because this sites abuse of the <noscript> tag is just unbelieveable. (e-mail me for the url if you want to see some amazing use and reward for spamming this way)
For some reason, I thought Google previously dealt with this common form of spam, but for some reason, they have never touched the site I'm reffering to.
[edited by: Ledfish at 1:38 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]
Of course, all I can do is speculate the things I am see and I know this does not affect all industries, but I see it happening to mine and many others from what I am reading.
Maybe GG could touch base with that and rule out that this is not the case? that way we can at least be 100% certain that is a myth.
[edited by: 300m at 1:42 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]
Many of his (500+) inside pages have like 100 or so unique backlinks from counters, and no Google update touched him. How can you compete with a person like that? We (well most of us) do a thing here and there (directories, maybe ask for a link, position keywords on page), but this is wholesale cheating.
[edited by: walkman at 1:48 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]
n 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.
This is a significant issue.. Some people are claiming they keep reporting spam sites and nothing gets done, yet we have no idea if they are actual spam sites by Google standards or just something a particular webmaster has an issue with..
On top of that this is probably the least objective audience possible as everyone has a horse in the race and all of us believe OUR pages should rank in the top 20 even if there are millions of other relevant sources.
So all complaining has to be swallowed with a healthy dose of salt.
post number 51 I made on sept 16th 2004"Massive swings in the algo will be constant now to stimulate adwords sales which is there sole source of revenue.
They have a billion and one risks and need to post profits as large as possible to maintain growth in there stock"
Judging from there recent earnings I will still stick by this statement.
Of course your prediction would be more useful if you actually could prove that there was an increase in adwords revenuue directly tied to algo changes. As others have noted, some sites go up, others go down. Just shuffling the rankings don't necessarily mean an increase in adwords. It could just as equally mean a decrease.
