Update Jagger - Part 2

[Brett_Tabke]

Continued from
[webmasterworld.com...]

[petehall]

Seeing three very distinctive sets of results now.

216.239.57.105 - These look like pre / mid Jagger2 to me. I certainly don't think these are fresh.

64.233.161.99 - Looks like Jagger2 end result and very respectable too.

66.102.11.104 - These are the most recent and I think these are going to spread...

It's almost like we have three stages of SERPs in chronological order here.

[thecityofgold2005]

This is a one off sample but here is how I see the situation right now:

Jagger1 Serps

20 DC TOTAL. Retreating.

216.239.53.99
216.239.57.99
66.102.7.99
66.102.7.99
66.102.7.147
216.239.57.147
66.102.7.105
216.239.57.98
216.239.57.105
64.233.179.99
64.233.179.104
64.233.185.99
64.233.185.104
64.233.187.99
64.233.187.104
64.233.189.104
66.102.7.104
216.239.57.104
216.239.53.104
216.239.63.104

Jagger2 Serps : First appeared last wednesday

16 DC TOTAL. Propogating.

216.239.37.99
216.239.39.99
216.239.59.99
216.239.37.147
64.233.167.147
216.239.59.105
216.239.37.105
64.233.183.99
64.233.183.104
216.239.59.104
216.239.37.104
216.239.39.104
64.233.167.99
64.233.161.99
64.233.161.104
64.233.167.104

Jagger 2.5 Serps : First appeared this Monday.

4 DC TOTAL. Static.

66.102.11.99
66.102.9.99
66.102.11.104
66.102.9.104

[discobiscuit]

216.239.57.105

I can't seem to conatct that datacentre

[fredde]

Hey, i guess Jagger3 is already active, but we are focussing too much on the serps ;) Here are the DC where the canonical problem seems to be fixed (in my case it is):

64.233.161.99
64.233.161.104
216.239.63.104
216.239.53.104
66.102.7.104
216.239.57.104
216.239.57.98
216.239.57.105
66.102.7.105
216.239.53.99
216.239.57.99
66.102.7.99
216.239.57.147
66.102.7.147

[walkman]

Guys,
if you don't rank for your name:
If Google thinks you got links in a sneaky way from ONE source, (I believe that) ALL your links are devalued, as suppose to just those ones. I guess they justify it by saying that if did it for this, you did for all your links. I know not all sites are affected the same way, but that is still flawed IMO; many sites still do.

Most importantly, it is open to abuse.

[thecityofgold2005]

fredde, that confuses things immensely since the dc's in which caconicals are fixed are spread across all 3 serp sets!

Think it goes to show that this isn't over yet.

Btw, has anyone heard anything concrete about whether and when Jagger3 happens? Unlike Jagger 1 and 2, Google has gone slightly off schedule with this update. I expected it to be live this morning (UK).

[fredde]

@thecityofgold2005
yes, the DC i mentioned are all pre-jagger2, regarding the serps not really new.

[cleanup]

Walkman,
Why from just one source? Surely any identified link monkey buisness and they could anull your links.

Links having no effect would fit what I am seeing, although there are some very very obscure phrases that should rate no even with no back links but they still don't so I think it may be a site penalty rather than just a links discount.

[synergy]

Btw, has anyone heard anything concrete about whether and when Jagger3 happens?

From Matt Cutt's blog

November 2, 2005 @ 2:39 am

P.S. I’m off to bed, but Jagger3 is coming along. I don’t know if it will be visible later today or not, but I’ll keep you posted when I know more.

October 26, 2005 @ 2:00 am

Jagger1, Jagger2, and Jagger3 are mostly independent changes, but they’re occurring closely enough in time (plus they interact to some degree) that it’s clearer just to act as if they were one update for feedback purposes.

[edited by: synergy at 4:36 pm (utc) on Nov. 2, 2005]

[Strider]

My 100% legit site got poundered into dust for probably the most commercial keyword in the web development industry (next to web development and website development i suppose) for nothing... Been in top3 for it for over 2 years and survived florida with it.

My company did a lot of web programming for a *VERY* huge scripts portal which i am sure is known to at least 50% of WebmasterWorld audience. Getting a "web development by" link from it was a great accomplishment for my company. Now as this portal belongs to a major web advertising agency and goolge DOES know that as they used to be buying traffic from them, I am seemingly suspected of buying this link and penalized!
I see no other reason for such obnoxios google behavior...

Suspend it for anchor value etc - fair enough - but why the bl**dy penalty?

Well google you are definitely going insane...

I am getting about 2-3 RFP a day from that link only - something I could never expect from that keyword so basically, google - keep going insane :)

[thecityofgold2005]

What time zone is Matt Cutts in? What is the difference to GMT?

[jenkers]

216.239.39.104 looks good to me (I dominate my terms).

[Kangol]

I keep hitting the refresh button on my IE and I see 2 sets of results on that DC. One have a lower number of results and I rank well there.

[iszatmary]

"216.239.39.104 looks good to me (I dominate my terms)."

this DC is showing Jagger 1 results :(

[lee_sufc]

Kangol - I am the complete opposite - I rank worse with the lower numbers

[Maverick4two]

I just went to number 1 or 2 for all the terms I have been taggeting ;) and all the spammy results have dissappeared but my pages should genuinely be in top positions because they have the best, most indepth content but I have been link building for a while too and the terms are genuinely revelavant and descriptive of the content (with high prominence and density, they are also the link words too).

Jagger is looking good to me ;)

[longen]

My non-www domain.com has a url only listing on 216.239.57.105 - hopefully a canonical fix is on the way.

[Phil_AM]

Guys,

These 4 DC's have completely dropped my site. What does everyone else see on these ones?

66.102.11.104
66.102.9.104
66.102.11.99
66.102.9.99

[stinky]

Walkman
"if you don't rank for your name: "
Do you mean if we dont rank for our name as, ex: "My Site Name" or do you mean MySiteName.com or both?

[jenkers]

216.239.59.104 look even better (I've never seen these results for my terms before).

[fruice]

Guys,
These 4 DC's have completely dropped my site. What does everyone else see on these ones?

66.102.11.104
66.102.9.104
66.102.11.99
66.102.9.99

Phil_AM
My rankings have also dropped significantly on those DC's

[BradStevens]

Definately interesting movement on 66.102.11.99.

Formerly, one of my active pages had been labeled supplemental. It had two "//" between the domain name and the page.html (www.example.com//page.htm)

It really did not surprise me. That particular page was a direct copy off one of my other websites, albeit altered very, very little.

However, now it's showing a duplicate listing of the same page that is not a supplemental.

I hope that is a good sign, cuz I got the lazies and I don't feel like doing a rewrite!

Now, don't get on me for dups ... I know, I know. This is the only dup I have, so I hope it passes muster.

[jenkers]

66.102.11.104
66.102.9.104
66.102.11.99
66.102.9.99

I have an older site ('97) dropping off the first page on these but a 2 month old site jumping straight to 2nd spot for some terms.

[ou812]

Just checked 66.102.11.99

It says I only have 3 months to live

Damn Google :-)

[jenkers]

apparently some of my pages already died according to those last 4 datacentres. If this is the shape of serps to come I'm in dead lumber...

[Murdoch]

What time zone is Matt Cutts in? What is the difference to GMT?

He's on Pacific Time, so it should be 8 hours behind GMT.

[Hollywood]

FYI - I have talked with three established SEO firms all whom have recently reported legit spam, hidden text, keyword stuffing etc, using the SPAM reporting methods on Google. None of the sites have been removed.

I think once again that they only want the reports to be sent in to help THEM with the Algo. and not to remove the spam.

Anyone else finding this issue the same way we are?

[tomapple]

66.102.11.99

Many year old site is on page 5 in the SERPs in that DC for it's most popular term (had been #1, 2 or 3 for years)

[sfgirl]

"in which canonicals are fixed"

What is the canonical fix exactly? What is it that you are seeing to determine that canonical URLs are fixed?

Say we have http://www.example.com/Music/12345.html for one of our pages, but Google sees another URL (that works also) for the same page http://www.example.com/MP3/12345.html - what is it that I am supposed to be worried about?

Why are the search engines worried about this to target it in their update?

I understand that we need to fix them, but dont quite understand how this update is targeting canonical URLs.

[followgreg]

>>Hollywod

I have reported a few small spammers in US and they've been romoved.

I have been reported a MAJOR spammer (an SEO company, talking 100's of cloaking pages on 100's different domains) in France and they keep on shining with a PR7 and more client everyday. They NEVER get penalized and keep doing business everywhere, they even have an office in US now(lawsuits upcoming soon :) )

Dunno what to say, probably Google has a double standard - They remove what can't hurt them. For the one mentioned above it is so well known and obvious that I can't find another answer.

For the rest they might just get busy with spam reports like: "my competitor is #1 and I'm sure they are cheating because I am better than them" ...