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?

[Atomic]

I think that for Google to start losing market share the other SE's are going to have to demonstrate that they have better search results and maintain obviously superior quality for some time. I don't think Yahoo or MSN are better than Google at this point. Different but hardly better.

[Atomic]

It's hard to fix something when you don't know what's broken - as many white hat sites here have said

There may not only be nothing broken to be fixed but nothing at all to do. Why not just explore alternate traffic generating methods whether that means AdWords or something else? It beats checking for Google traffic that's not there day after day.

[2by4]

alika, the point he's making is that we have two choices.
We can compare notes, learn, find out if we can get a better sense of the issues, technical factors, etc. We can look at sites that have not changed. We can check out allegedly whitehat sites that have dropped. My guess is that almost all whitehat sites that dropped had engaged in some type of link development scheme, that's a guess, because too few specifics are being given.

Or we can complain about stuff we can't change, that we don't know, that simply doesn't matter in terms of getting our sites fixed.

There's always a lot of good insight in these threads, but it gets buried in prophecies of google's impending demise. For those of you who don't follow update threads through the years, all big updates feature this prophecy, it's like clockwork. As I noted, despite years of such prophecies, google has posted record income and profits this quarter.

I'm with Brian_M and reseller [post 518 I think it was] on this one though, I want to see junk seo go, I hate it, it's time for halfwit seo work to vanish from the web, and its time for that sleazy industry to suffer a serious hit. If google is even hinting at being serious about doing that, then good for them.

[edited by: 2by4 at 8:15 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]

[jd01]

I have a site that appears to be coming out of "the mechanism within the algo which causes new sites to not be ranked for an extended period of time, until sufficient data can be collected to determine if it is authoritative enough to enjoy being displayed in the index." (Formerly know as the sandbox.)

The pages/content of this site (it's large) have been mostly static for ~6mo., and the rankings on the jagger2 DCs are solid. The biggest change in the last 4mo's is the number of solid one way back-links (~50).

I expected it to make an emergence soon, but not where it is... I thought it would take some more time to be in competition with some of the other large sites in my niche.

So, my speculation, is my one way links are counting for more than some of the well-aged BLs the other sites in my area have -- they have a greater spread and age in quantity, but the quality of the ones I have seems to be playing an important part...

Justin

OR maybe GG got my reinclusion-request/suggestion and is way cool =)

[2by4]

"but the quality of the ones I have seems to be playing an important part..."

jd, I've seen the same thing, congrats on your site getting desandboxed by the way.

[walkman]

jd01,
did you really send a reinclusion request?

[webdude]

I am still seeing fluctuations in the SERPs for 64.233.161.104. One of my sites just gained 10 spots. I believe phase 2 is still not over yet.

OMG - I just realized something. I have turned into one of those SEO guys who checks the SERPs every half hour for various datacenters! Anybody know how to get this monkey off my back?! :-)

[alika]

There will ALWAYS be people who will do nothing to complain during these updates. And yes, the doom and gloom scenario :o)

For us, after holding the top spot for years and disappearing in many keywords, one of the first things we did was to stop linking to others. We removed our Add URL page. After years of not engaging in exchanging links, we started again -- only to disastrous results. We also stopped accepting article contributions (we use about 5 a month at most) so the site will purely be original content.

But it is difficult to watch your site pushed down, especially if it seems that YOU'RE the only site being pushed down in your sector.

[ssjxxx]

A quick observation:

There's a certain keyphrase that I monitor daily. This phrase always returns 4mazon for the first two links followed by hundreds of its affiliate sites. Today, on my standard google.com search, the affiliate sites have completely vanished. The same search on 66.102.9.104 still shows the affil sites---still in the same position---but marked as supplemental. The changes for this type of site surviving in the G index are looking very slim.

-S

[jd01]

did you really send a reinclusion request?

Yes, it was actually more of a thought, that had to do with links that cannot be bought. When I said the links I picked up were strong... that was not a joke, I actually have more of them than anyone else in my niche, except .gov sites, and major organizations.

I did not know if G was already taking into account the fact that to have a link on some sites (or sections of sites), you have to be correct in what you present or they can't link to you -- not that they may not want to, but really can't.

The only way I knew to get the message anywhere was to send it in a reinclusion request.

Justin

Added: I would guess they already did this, but was not sure.

Added2: Thanks 2by4 =)