Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
One thing that is consistent in all my research on this update is that sites that rely heavily on internal linking schemas with next to nothing inbound links will suffer under the Jagger knife. In other words, if G sees you have a great site with no inbound links, there is a good chance that site will get a penalty. Seems kind of logical I would think. At some point someone would link to you via natural linking, right?
I have seen this to a degree, but it would only be logical if Google wasn't too interested in new relevant content that hasn't been around for the two years or so it can take to gather natural links. I have certainly seen pages (forgotten and broken - riderless horses) maintaining a rock-solid high rank through Jagger even though they haven't been updated since 1995.
I'm talking about searches for information, not shopping money-type searches. It can often be very time consuming to have to wade through several pages of poor quality Google results before one comes across anything useful. As has been said before in this thread, if you are doing research on something you have to get past those useless thin-content pages from online so-called encyclopaedias.
As far as Jagger is concerned I am hoping the balance will be adjusted so that good quality information comes to the fore at the expense of old-aged junk that nobody bothers to manage. I'm talking about search phrases other than "money" phrases and where Adsense is not something the site owner would ever contemplate.
Matt Paines, MSN Search Champ [masternewmedia.org], the only SEO from the UK. and too my knowledge, not retired :P
It seems more likely they are simply having to deal with conflicting demands from users in a situation where the web is being swamped with new and often unscrupulously created content. Thinking about what is going on with Jagger, it may be more productive to sit back and look at the whole thing in the long term. Of course it's fun to do the trainspotting thing with all the DCs, but in the end it's how Google and the web will be looking months from now, not next week.
Some people here doubtless know of Brett Tabke's post about "Success in 6 months" - can't quite remember its title but I sent it to someone the other day and it seemed to make good reading still.
OTOH, what kind of spam would we see then?
66.102.7.99
216.239.57.99
66.102.11.99
216.239.59.104
66.102.7.104
216.239.57.104
Now, 4 of these contain one set of results, and two contain another. There are no other variations in my segment.
Also, the 4 only appeared about 3am New York time yesterday (so I highly doubt they are J1, perhaps J3?!?)
From the way you have them listed, looks like the *.99 DCs have the new SERPs and the *.104 have the old SERPs.
66.102.7.99 A
216.239.57.99 B
66.102.11.99 A
216.239.59.104 B
66.102.7.104 A
216.239.57.104 A
the latest results i've found are on 66.102.9.99 as one of my target keywords has dropped from 10 to 17, but both sites still rank for fairly competitive terms.
i doubt any are jagger3, but the last set of jagger2 results (which have since disappeared) were pretty good in my opinion. i'm hoping they make a return with j3!
[edited by: Yippee at 4:02 pm (utc) on Nov. 4, 2005]
I hope not. It would be brutal to survive 1 and 2 and get slammed in what we saw.
I guess we can assume from this big G aren't happy with what they are seeing in the test environment. It may be that they decide to drip feed J3 rather than open the flood gates (unless the elements are inter-dependent). If J3 is technically the most challenging of the 3 updates and the one they need to get right, does this make it the one with the biggest impact?
">>Reseller: Matt! you want to say something, come here and lets discuss it.<<<
Why does he need to come here? Seems rather demanding to me. If you wish to respond to his comments, then contact him directly or navigate to where the man is posting the comments. "
And I thought I´m among supporters :-)
Ok. I like blogs where people write what they wish. But what I don´t like is that those blog owners discuss, ON THEIR OWN TERMS, visitors comments. Not a fair or balanced discussion at all. Take a look at some popular blogs, and you shall see what I mean. Its really mostly a one-way discussion, where the blog owner can also delete comments which are not in accordance with what he/she wish to see on his/her blog.
Mr. Matt Paines has refered in his post to:
"... the forums were a wash with people watching datacentres ....."
Therefore I guess Mr. Paines wouldn´t mind at all to discuss what he wrote on forum 30, The Mother of All Forums. Here we have common TOS which apply for both of us and no one of us shall have any prior advantages.
The guy is crusty, old, and everybody agrees that it's time for him to give it up. It is clear the real Jagger is going down kicking....just like this update.
66.102.7.99
216.239.57.99
66.102.11.99
In my market (UK), the other DC's & the current ones being used throw up totally daft resuts. If I search for the type of 'Widget' that we sell (a very popular term) the #1 result is for the widget but powered by a hampster! - it's just ridiculous!. The next 10 / 20 results are then for Chineese suppliers of these 'Widgets', Amazon & all the other big companies.
Refreshing this forum for a new post is causing me RSI! - come on GG & MC, put us out of our misery!
and
[search.msn.com...]
Jag 1, 2 ,3?
I know which results are better.
Google gifs very bad results, and not only at this search. Directories rule in google, and thats not what i'm looking for when i use a SE.
[edited by: Markoi at 4:56 pm (utc) on Nov. 4, 2005]
GO RESELLER! I wanna see an intellectual fight for a change :) LOL, he even kept the respect by using "Mr. Paines". I like this guy's style. You can take him Reseller!
As for >> no...I think that Jagger is appropriate. <<
Agreed. In the words of a respectable fellow poster, they look like real world SERPs.
[edited by: Yippee at 5:00 pm (utc) on Nov. 4, 2005]
<--Added--> this actually appears to be most apparent with 3-word phrases
inbound to a page or site? Big difference. Many inside pages have inbound links, but may not have external ones.
I beg to differ on that (but I guess you are just talking about your own site :)), however some things look encouraging.
Don't agree with this for our sector - We have never done keyword stuffing, or anything else that Google would penalise - Our site was ranked #1 for a popular phrase for over 4 years but the current results have totally ditched us.
66.102.9.99 for us shows far better results than before Jagger - i truly hope this is the way ahead.
I take it back actually - completely fixed (for my site!) on .com, but not.uk.
Well, I am thinking that a sites that don't have inbound links (home or inside) whatsoever seem to get penalized. Especially if they have thorough internal link structures, lots of content, structured, etc. The way I see it is that a perfect site with out any inbound links get penalized.
Er, yes.... it won't get indexed at all.
