Update Jagger - Part 2

[Brett_Tabke]

Continued from
[webmasterworld.com...]

[Markoi]

[google.com...]

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]

[Yippee]

>> Therefore I guess Mr. Paines wouldn´t mind at all to discuss what he wrote on forum 30, The Mother of All Forums. <<

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]

[LegalAlien]

In the sector I monitor, if 66.102.9.99 is the way this update is headed, then keyword-stuffing seems to be the way forward. The 900lb gorillas remain as before, but every clean site lacking trust rank, or whatever it was that caused these sites to be stomped on, has been replaced by affiliate-linking review sites so stuffed with keywords, that they now rival the gorillas for weight. Perhaps that’s the secret – lack in trust can be compensated with keywords ;)

<--Added--> this actually appears to be most apparent with 3-word phrases

[walkman]

>> BUT no inbound links on a site that has matured the "so-called" sandbox age would be suspecious I think.

inbound to a page or site? Big difference. Many inside pages have inbound links, but may not have external ones.

[Miop]

Canonical issues completely fixed now - inner page rankings almost back to normal, now just major keyword issue.
Google traffic worst it's ever been today!?!

[Dayo_UK]

>>>>Canonical issues completely fixed now

I beg to differ on that (but I guess you are just talking about your own site :)), however some things look encouraging.

[jaggerbugger]

<<<In the sector I monitor, if 66.102.9.99 is the way this update is headed, then keyword-stuffing seems to be the way forward.>>>

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.

[Miop]

<I beg to differ on that (but I guess you are just talking about your own site :)), however some things look encouraging. >

I take it back actually - completely fixed (for my site!) on .com, but not.uk.

[Yippee]

>> inbound to a page or site? Big difference. Many inside pages have inbound links, but may not have external ones. <<

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.

[MHes]

> The way I see it is that a perfect site with out any inbound links whatsoever might get penalized.

Er, yes.... it won't get indexed at all.