Part 3 Update Jagger

[soapystar]

Continued from
[webmasterworld.com...]

---

if it rains they will need a replay!

[300m]

Well, after this expierence, I would say that WebmasterWorld just picked up another subscriber come the 15th :).

[SEOTard]

well - we are number 3-5 for most relevant terms in our industry so I could not be happier.

However, 3 of the top ten are still directory keyword stuffed sites and 1 of the top 20 is actually an excite.co.uk directory site. Kinda funny.

Either way, we are back where we should be and business is back to where it should be.

Rock on Jagger 3.

[sailorjwd]

annej

supplementals

I've had those stubborn supplemental pages hanging aroudn since jan when I renamed a bunch of pages because the names were too keyword-filled.

Added them to robots.txt about two months ago - no results. Sitemap chews on 2 or 3 every week and says 'resticted by robots.txt' but the cache copy still exists.

Only way I've been able to affect them at all is to create a dummy ' this page doesn't not exist page', remove them from robots and put a link to that page from my homepage. This technique started to work about 10 days ago and I'm slowly turning them into a nearly empty pages. I'll delete them once all this jagger stuff settles.

But sometimes they seem like those birthday cake candles that light up again after blowing them out.

[joeduck]

duplicate copies even though they are gone from our site but still in sup results.

light up again after blowing them out

More "supplemental" clarification needed GG! It appears to be the kiss of death for a site and/or pages in a site but the guidelines imply that supplemental is not fundamentally different from a standard listing when it certainly is. This really appears to be a misleading description

Google Guidelines writers. Please don't be evil. Transparency is a virtue

[edited by: joeduck at 6:29 pm (utc) on Nov. 5, 2005]

[Dayo_UK]

Ok - definetly last post for a while.

Dayo Theory.

IMO - Although the site search is clearly showing the canonical page at the top :) - this canonical page has not fully recovered - eg say the Canonical url is called www.example.com - and you search for site:www.example.com www.example.com - eg searching for www.example.com within the site - the page does not rank well (well not in the sites I am seeing.)

Soooo - this might be part of the settling. :)

[300m]

I can not say that its 100% business as usual for me, but its is going to keep the CEO happy soon. One heck of a ride, never thought it would end. I will sleep tonight...

[StriderUK]

Some of my keywords are now showing, but most are way down even though they are of equal importance/ relevance. If I search our index page title we rank down past 30 pages. I assume this is the flux...at least I hope so.

[Eazygoin]

Matt just stated " there will still be some settling on canonical name fixes. My hunch is that sometime next week I’l put out a call for people who believe that they have canonical name issues after that. I wouldn’t mind spending some time in the future collecting indexing reports, looking for bugs, etc. and trying to making sure that we get them into good shape"

[sailorjwd]

transparency.

I recommend G use the open kimono philosophy.

[Armi]

Hi,

what do you think about

66.102.7.104
64.233.189.104`

?

There I have a big penalty :-(

[FattyB]

Hmm not impressed by these results. Just looks like ones from a while back to me.

Search on "site name" yields the site but as per older results shows older sub-domains and mostly sites that have whipped an article or two from us.

I did try a search on "movie photos" and we have shifted from page 1 to page 3 or such, though in fact we are one of the best places for them...imho. I also note our peers are missing from that as well. With some very difficult to navigate sites listed instead.

But I have not really had a good poke about so I guess will turnout OK.

[zztracy]

<tigger - on the datacentre, when you get the SERPS up, click on the "dissatisfied" link on the bottom right - hope that helps >

are u talking about on a regular Google search? I don't see any dissatisfied? link

[reseller]

Dayo_UK

>>Dayo Theory.

IMO - Although the site search is clearly showing the canonical page at the top :) - this canonical page has not fully recovered - eg say the Canonical url is called www.example.com - and you search for site:www.example.com www.example.com - eg searching for www.example.com within the site - the page does not rank well (well not in the sites I am seeing.) <<

Ok. Would you be kind to explain for us your "Dayoooooo Theory" ;-)

Using this example:

site:www.webmasterworld.com

[66.102.9.104...]

Thanks!

[Dayo_UK]

No - I cant as Webmasterworld does not have the problem.

However, I know a site that does (and can be posted here - I think) :)

Mirago:-

[66.102.9.104...]

Canonical(home) page is top on this search.

Now if the homepage was ranking it should rank for a site:www.mirago.co.uk www.mirago.co.uk search - but look:-

[66.102.9.104...]

Nope not ranking.

Ok - perhaps for the title of the homepage:-

[66.102.9.104...]

Nope - In fact it is last of the returned results.

Sooooo - Google are sort of halfway there ;) - it should not be a huge leap to get the rest of the way there :)

My head hurts - cant think anymore for now

[edited by: Dayo_UK at 6:52 pm (utc) on Nov. 5, 2005]

[Eazygoin]

Someone just asked me if GG and MC are the same person. As I'm new on here, can anyone throw any light on that one...sorry if it sounds ignorant, but its kinda interesting!

[Armi]

I have on those Datacenters a big new filter on one project:

64.233.189.104
216.239.53.99
216.239.57.99
66.102.7.99
216.239.63.104
216.239.53.104
66.102.7.104
216.239.57.104
216.239.57.98
216.239.57.105
66.102.7.105
216.239.57.147
66.102.7.147

Curiously I have 30% more visits today.....

[g1smd]

There has been much speculation as to who GoogleGuy really is, and a few of the Moderators here at WebmasterWorld are in on the secret I believe...

However, the fact that GoogleGuy posted here, while Matt Cutts was writing on his Blog, leads me to be fairly certain that they are the same person...

They'll (he'll) tell us if they (he) wants to, when the time is right...

[reseller]

Dayo_UK

Thanks for taking the time to explaining that canonical problem for us. Very kind of you.

Lets hope that Jagger3 will solve that canonical issue too.

[johnhh]

Dayo_UK - good post - very clear. Yep finally woken up now!

[walkman]

>> Also I'm not clear if these deleted pages could still be counted against us as duplicate copies even though they are gone from our site but still in sup results.

GoogleGuy,
can you PLEASE answer this ^^. I'm interested too; I think I got re-"sandboxed" because of too many links, too fast (apache re-write & search engine error made the index page of my other site into 8000+ pages).

I removed all the offending "pages" with the link via [services.google.com:8882...] , but I'm wondering if Google still counts them or not when calculating the SERPS.

If you do, it would not be fair since they're "removed," and because I'd be toasted for many months (have to wait for the 6 months removal to expire, and then link to those 404 /ghost pages hoping that Google eventually removes them). I registered the name in 1996 and had the site up at least since 1998, and it sucks to rank #40 for "domain.com".

Please see if you can comment.

[edited by: walkman at 7:17 pm (utc) on Nov. 5, 2005]

[reseller]

Eazygoin

>>Someone just asked me if GG and MC are the same person. As I'm new on here, can anyone throw any light on that one...sorry if it sounds ignorant, but its kinda interesting! <<

Let me put it like this.

GoogleGuy is our kind fellow member and he is an employee at Google.

Matt Cutts is the head of WebSpam Team at Google.

I hope this helps.

[dmje]

Ok help me out here somebody, when I do a site:mydomain.com search I get a mixture of non-www and www pages plus many urls. When I do a site:www.mydomain.com search I do not get any non www but still get lots of urls only.

I assume that means that the cannonical issue has not been resolved but hopefully will be when the update is finished?

When I do a search on the keywords/phrases that I watch they seem to be stable, generally on page one.

It would be much appreciated if someone would take a look at my site and tell me if the worst is yet to come or I am worrying for nothing.

Also, I already have placed the 301 to direct the non www pages of the my domain to the www pages, this was done some time ago.

I checked my stats and for every keyword/pharse that my vistors are searching for we are appearing on either page 1 or page 2...so do I need to be worried about what is to come with J3?

[Dayo_UK]

Well - anyway - I would guess that both MC and GG are doing whatever Americans do on a Saturday (Er - they dont have much (proper) Football so Shopping, Listening to Music etc?)

With ref to the Mirago example - that is what I call an extreme Canonical url problems - and tends to happen after a month or so if not fixed - I know I have had sticky conversations with people who seem to have this problem but dont have the same symptons as Mirago.

[Eazygoin]

Thanks Reseller....although I'm still not sure :-)

[steveb]

I must say I am absolutely shocked.

Zero canonical fix with Jagger3, and in fact more canonical problems.

Zero improvement with Jagger3 in handling in Supplementals.

The "ordering" of pages in site searches is ludicrous, completely missing the boat most of the time, except perhaps revealing the heightened canonical problems.

Very weak results overall, moderate levels of spam, and even more trivial pages... but in a way that is hard to judge due to increased screwups in the index.

I can't imagine what they are thinking here. How can canonical issues get worse? How can supplemental rot be ignored?

[reseller]

Dayo_UK

>>Well - anyway - I would guess that both MC and GG are doing whatever Americans do on a Saturday (Er - they dont have much (proper) Football so Shopping, Listening to Music etc)<<

I heard that they have something good in soccer going on in detroit.

And talking about sport. IMO, one of the the greatest sportsmen USA has is Lance Armstrong. I'm a big fan of him, you know :-)

[Newman]

>I must say I am absolutely shocked.

>Very weak results overall, moderate levels of spam, and even more trivial pages... but in a way that is hard to judge due to increased screwups in the index.

steveb I TOTALLY agree with you!

[edited by: Newman at 7:40 pm (utc) on Nov. 5, 2005]

[Spanish_eye]

Oh dear, If this is it then I think it's time for a career change.

[McMohan]

Missed on spotting Jagger3 as Jagger3. I felt Jagger3 was more of the kind of flux that happens at the end of an update, than an update. Overall (with exceptions of-course) updates leading upto Jagger3 were in tune with what we first saw in Jagger1.

[thebug151]

steveb's post #85
I could not have summed it up better. Thanks