Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
For the sake of argument, I am suggesting to webmasters who have sites with little of no inbound links to get out there and get some or else I don't believe they will survive Jagger. The whole concept of natural linking leads me to think there exists a ratio for age/pages/links/etc for the various sectors at which a website accummulates inbound links. AND if a particular site is off that mark by a large margin, it gets penalized.
[edited by: Yippee at 5:49 pm (utc) on Nov. 4, 2005]
Then, once I am done that, I am going to tackle the blog sector and write blogs where I mention every possible word once on a page.
Then I'll start a huge directory where I charge $299 per year for a link, sell as many as possible and write arbitrary content, gathered from other sites, about anything under the sun, cars, property, travel and business.
(I forgot to add for the paragraph above that I would create a sub-domain for each sector.)
I'll call my huge network Goohoosoft.
I'll get a pagerank of 9. Make loads of cash. Never get penalized for selling links or duplicate content, or canonical issues.
Once that's done, I'll start a search engine that has an update everyday. Each update will take the very last result and put in the #1 position on the first update. 1 by one the last results will get a day at #1. Should be very fair to everyone.
Any finally before I retire, I'm going to hijack every single site on the web.
Wish me luck. I'm already in my 30s so I should be done by the time I am in my 40s.
Now where is my black hat and irrelevant content coat?
Download the "Goohoosoft toolbar now! Pop-ups galore!"
Early, GG said
I expect Jagger2 to start at 66.102.9.x. It will probably stay at 1-2 data centers for the next several days rather than spreading quickly. But that data center shows the direction that things will be moving in (bear in mind that things are fluxing, and Jagger3 will cause flux as well).
Matt and GG have mentioned explicitely that jagger 2 will take at place 66.102.9.104. How come people are still saying that 66.102.7.104 is the jagger 2 results? these 2 datacenters shows 2 totally different results. It seems like that people want Matt and GG to give directions but we are reluctant to accept new serps at 66.102.9.104 because some of us don't do well on those. We just take the datacenters that favors us and assume it is the direction google is heading towards. But I rather believe GG and Matt and also [mcdar.net...] You can see from the data that 66.102.9.104 indeed shows the most fluxes during the jagger 2 update. the other ones just stay the same from jagger 1.
If it happens to be true that 66.102.7.104 is the jagger 2 final result, then it means that Matt and GG lied to all of us. If it is indeed like what Matt and GG said that 66.102.9.104 is the jagger 2, then why would google use 66.102.7.104 for jagger 3? it doesn't make sense to have jagger 2 if you are not going to use it for the upcoming jagger 3.
Just my 2 cents. Would really appreciate if GG and Matt can tell us which datacenter will be used for jagger 3 so that we can all stop guessing :)
I will be your Matt Cutts. I know how to deceive people and "do no evil" at the same time.
I would not use the word "penalized". You don't rank high because of the lack of links.
One of my sites got killed on the 9/22 update. According to the DC's that appear to be Jagger 2, that site is back in its position pre 9/22 update.
The weird thing is that ONLY my site is seeing flux on all of the DC's in the top 20 positions. And I was the ONLY site in my segment to get hammered on the 9/22 update.
I remember someone saying that 9/22 might have been a dup content penalty update. Anyone think its possible that G realized an error from the 9/22 update and tweaked it for what we call Jagger 2?
Just a thought...
If your site is good, has plenty of info, is a mom and pop information site with clean tactics.
You're outta here!
can you design an instant messenger service that has an auction system, a library, a wholesale business, a world maps section and incorporates any content you didn't write?
If so, great, send me your cv.
blogswithonereferencetoword@onfirstpage.com
Thanks
Dude, I am not talking rank here. I am talking staying alive period. I disagree with you on the lack of links point. I don't think ranking is entirely based on inbound links, however, it does have a big impact (quality and/or quantity links, you pick). G's hardwork on PR (which is based on links) might be going to the back burner while they tinker with TR, but you can bet your fannie it's not going away. G invested way too much in it to shelf it. It's still valid and viable component to factor in.
Now, I am not sure about the rest of everyone, I been paying particular attention to the TrustRank concept on this update. And although you might not agree, I believe the concept of having many legit links naturally built (per ratio I previously mentioned) has something to do with TrustRank... Again, something amongst the many other factors they take into consideration to build up your trust. If you take the time to read Google Patent 3/31/2005, you will see what I see.
Another suggestion, you all should make sure your DNS records are clean and in order. Get to know CName alias, where they are hosted, and the Int'l Laws involved in maintaining your DNS. It's purely a reflection of how professional your organization is. Another point G will use for TrustRank. Read the patent.
[edited by: Yippee at 6:23 pm (utc) on Nov. 4, 2005]
our canonical probs are BEING resolved.. (looks like they're getting resolved based on rank within the domain). we're hoping it continues this way!
... actually I should have been more specific.. the canonical problems in conjunction with url only is being resloved. I would assume the next step is to merge these results with the supplementals which are still not canonically resolved, but valid pages
I bet alot of people would pay the $50,000,000 per share to get in on this!
66.102.9.99
looks really tasty.
But of course the reality probably is they have not released Jagger 3 so there is nothing to see...
They have clearly layed out that different datacenters have different parts of the first two updates in place. Consider the Jagger Triplets three different lens filters for your camera. If you partially invoke one and fully invoke a second and do not use the third, the results will be different than if you fully use 2 of them all 3 of them or any other combination of above.
All the different results people are seeing are likely just the cause of this various mixings of the first two jaggers and the foundation of the serps. Add everflux into that mix as well.
So it continues to be not terribly useful to sit there and make wacky predictions about how you see Jagger 3, where there is likely nothing to do see. There is almost no chance any results you see on any DC now is going to be the final results when it is all over, so stop pretending like it is. You are misleading people.
BTW make sure that when people complain that you are scraping their content you tell them they should have opted out in the first place :)
[edited by: Eazygoin at 6:29 pm (utc) on Nov. 4, 2005]
1 256 stick of RAM, a keyboard, etc... I will be selling the network.
On another note, I love finding sites, with the same PR and blah blah blah, all that jazz, that have 30% of the valuable content I have written myself, outranking me for specific search terms, pretty much across the board on over 30 topics.
Especially when the people who wrote it, just opened a book and paraphrased. Once sentence from this book, one from this one, another from this one and voila. Nevermind that the theme of the paragraphs falls apart after sentence one.
Brilliant.
64.233.189.104
216.239.53.99
216.239.57.99
66.102.7.99
216.239.63.104
216.239.53.104
66.107.7.104
216.239.57.104
216.239.57.98
216.239.57.105
66.102.7.105
216.239.57.147
66.102.7.147
... and everything else showing another - well, at least for the DCs listed on McDar.
The strange thing is that the above DCs are all showing results similar to pre-Jagger. Although these were showing on a few DCs, I am pretty sure this was not on so many. If this is not the way things are headed, then why would so many DCs be rolled back?
If this is new data, then I cannot believe my luck and am a very happy camper -- somebody please put my mind at rest and either kiss me, or shoot me ;)
[edited by: LegalAlien at 6:39 pm (utc) on Nov. 4, 2005]
66.102.7.99 A
216.239.57.99 B
I just checked those two for a couple of keywords and the results were 100% identical for the first page.
Dude, I am not talking rank here. I am talking staying alive period. I disagree with you on the lack of links point. I don't think ranking is entirely based on inbound links, however, it does have a big impact (quality and/or quantity links, you pick). G's hardwork on PR (which is based on links) might be going to the back burner while they tinker with TR, but you can bet your fannie it's not going away. G invested way too much in it to shelf it. It's still valid and viable component to factor in.
Pretty much every comparison of allinanchor and rankings I have ever done has been fairly close. There are always exceptions, but you can always see a heavy correlation in google between ranks and allinanchor. So I think you might be too dismissive of backlinks as a major component for rankings.
Quite the contrary, I think they are still relevant and important. Walkman was saying that you dont need many links to rank high. I was saying you need links to survive this update. I think we were talk 2 separate issues.
>>Nevermind, lets not crash the DC try to see the changes... appears to have stabilized
[edited by: spaceylacie at 7:01 pm (utc) on Nov. 4, 2005]
Could you please check allinanchor seraches @ 66.102.9.104 (or .99)...they're completely different to yesterday's and a tremendous change from anything I've seen in the last 6 months
However regular searches have not varied at all...
Pls do the exercise and let me know...
Pls do the exercise and let me know...
In my sector, I see no difference in the allinanchor on this DC. It appears to be the same as any other.
