Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Directories should never be listed ahead of the sites listed in it, searchers look for sites, not the sites listing the sites.
I disagree with this. A high quality niche directory on a particular subject could be an extremely valuable resource to a searcher and allow them to more quickly and accurately find what they are looking for.
Does that mean all directories should be ranked high.. No... It is more of an exception thing. But I don't agree that blanket such a statement is true.
What if I search for "free mp3 download sites". Then, the most relevant website should be a directory listing all possible website with mp3 downloads rather than a single mp3 download site that you actually dont know if it is really that kind of website.
How can a links page have natural link growth and relavent content? And I'm not talking page 100, page 2 for a money e-commerce term.
It's looking more and more like relavent results are falling victim to powerful spam filters and overly pumping up broad based major sites that even mention the term in passing.
back to watching
WW_Watcher
(Edited To Add, the rest of the serps for that query on that page did give sites to download MP3s, so a searcher could have gotten the files they were looking for, So G only missed on the #1 position)
Back to watching
WW_Watcher
Back to watching! Gonna go back in the corner and lurk, what I am best at
WW_Watcher
I'm looking for CNN. Taking me to a dmoz/news_media/ page, while not totally irrelevant, is still one step too many. I want CNN, not a list of sites similar to it.
One directory is more than enough and that's Yahoo.
Although I saw a few very funny SERP like a very relevant (fairly new: 2 years old) site about internet marketing insdustry being outranked on one keyword by a bunch of Viagr-a website with the word marketing somehwere on the homepage lol...anyways
[edited by: followgreg at 5:08 am (utc) on Nov. 7, 2005]
Is it that there's nothing else to talk about that everybody seems to be OT, or am I missing something?
g1smd gives a very good advice. One of the problems that I faced severely with Jagger is this issue. Google puts my index.html pages in supplemental where there are links pointing to. It looks like G is fixing it, but rankings are not stable and many aren't restored (as till now).
Another new Jagger3 day. Isnīt it great to be alive and enjoy the ride :-)
One of our good friend at the plex Matt Cutts remarks reminded me that:
there is definitely still some flux to go
And thats remind me of the flux after Borboun where changes happened of rankings of several sites of our fellow members.
So there mightbe something posative and good Jagger3 news still waiting for you.
Good luck to all.
One step less still if you just go to cnn.com rather than google.com to search for cnn.
I checked some dc's yesterday with an Algo that was perfect , then she dissapeared...
>>Wife is really starting to nag that I am on PC..<<
Just wish to ask; how is "life" this morning :-)
Just read on Mattīs blog very interesting remark:
After being hit by Jagger3 Update," one woman has a seizure and starts foaming at the mouth, another man cant shake a frog off his finger..."
Enjoy :-)
Looks like some of the canonicals have been fixed on uk searches...
A world famous branded store that I have been tracking as it was, according to google, selling spacer images up until last night, is now showing a sensible snippet and appears to have had a canonical problem fixed.
Also the DC's and cache IP have changed for the first time in days.
From Scotland and Pipex
www.google.com 66.249.93.99
www.google.co.uk 66.249.93.99
cache 66.249.93.104
WOW! Thank you, I'll do that next time. You should post the advice in a new thread, and hopefully it gets posted on the homepage. This way everyone else can see it and learn.
weather report for my site hopefully returning from Sep. 22nd dupe content penalty:
- my main site gained one from #10 to #9 for it's main
keyword
- i can see fresh tags for my main site. Did not see them until last night (around noon Pacific Time)
- According to matts blog Jagger 3 should be starting to spread after 2-3 days. Jagger started on Friday, so I hope to see something spreading today
- Still not seeing Homepage first for site:www.mysite.com
going to check more keywords now...
One more not: I'm really impressed by Google's openness during this update. You are really helpful Matt and GG. Much appreciated
I'm really impressed by Google's openness during this update. You are really helpful Matt and GG. Much appreciated
Taps, I will second that.
I know Matt said that command site: fetch pages on random. However, for the first time for ages, I see Jagger3 has brought with it something very nice. When run site: , I see now my homepage at top of results, always.
Doesnīt that mean that Jagger3 brought us an imrovement in order of listings, at least?
Thanks.
P.S. And of course a BIG THANK YOU to you GG and Matt for taking the time to keep us informed during Jagger update.
[edited by: reseller at 8:22 am (utc) on Nov. 7, 2005]
tell me about it GG 6 years work down the pan, but I'm sitting back and hoping for a recovery
Yes. I had that twice this year. This is definately enough for now ;-)
Happy to try to help, taps. I know any changes (good or bad) can be stressful.
The bottom line is that on this particular quality measure, Google, at least the Google represented by the so called 'Jagger 3' DC, is the least reliable of the three major search engines in terms of presenting major data sources for research searches.
My class developed a methodology and tested it against hundreds of topics. We integrated various checks and balances to reduce any prospect of subjectivity.
The results indicated that Google tended to bury many key or search-critical sources: far more than the other two. Certainly, significantly more than MSN, who scored particularly highly in terms of presenting good content sites in visible positions.
Are you aware of this? Have you performed rigorous tests in this area? What were the results? Will this issue be addressed?
I'm guessing that Google is rather too focused on cutting so-called spam sites out of its index, and consequently missing, at least to some degree, that a users search experience and success is equally based upon what they DO find. There appears to be babies disappearing with the bathwater in far too many topic areas.
If the other thread doesn't re-materialize, I will try to re-write the post if I get some time. I'm not sure at this stage whether anyone here will publish anything on this or not, but the research is certainly accurate.
[edited by: Salon99 at 8:36 am (utc) on Nov. 7, 2005]
Thanks for comment!
I see my good Norwich friend Dayo_UK still in bed, or his wife is still holding him away from his PC :-)
On behalf of fellow members whos sites are affected by canonical issues, I wish to ask:
Jagger3 was expected to correct some canonicals issue, as you mentioned in a previous post. Do you have any news for people with canonicals issues like Dayo_UK.
Thanks!
It's link count is also about 1/100 of any of the top 20. You do the math...
I saw some promising results on the weekend, now things looks stable until the dance happens again (hope so)...
Me too, I also found site in a keyword that I monitor. It appears in the first page. Its content is just a small picture, has a spammy domain, created last sept. 2005, and with less than 10 links with most of them originate from a forum.
>>Monitoring various serps/industries. Just found a site, it ranks top 5 in an industry where you have + -37 million sites competing. The site has no text, and "HOMEPAGE" title tag.<<
Did you mean its a url only, or do you suspect spam hidden text things?
If its a spam, then:
"Don't wait to send Jagger-related spam feedback; I'd send that now. Using the keyword "Jagger3" at [google.com...] will get someone reading and checking it out."
