Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
I guess an old site on the history of the Roman Empire may be old but still valid - I don't go with the age of site thing - the age of a page maybe.
One site that was launched only last Sept. 2005 whose content was just copied from various websites including mine, and has a PR0, rank higher than mine which has a PR4. By the way, this is a results from 66.102.9.104.
To be honest with you, even though [66.102.7.104...] seems to have glitches like one of my favorite sites that totally disapeared for one of its most relevant KW's, it is a breath of fresh air.
It shows more fresh results, of course since you guys have pretty old websites (I guess) you might be upset because some new competitors pop up on top, they are out of the sandbox and you have to count with them now.
Just guessing :) Now I 'm sure I won't have my T-shirt! lol
Not had time to look at the results will probably wait a few more days for things to settle -- given that we've not seen any fresh tags and the index has yet to settle.
Meanwhile, my listing for the original content that these directories are paraphrasing, which used to rate in the top three, is down the page or off it completely, despite the fact that I'm a PR6 site, around since 2002.
I get 100's of hits from these directories - because people sent there by Google aren't looking for yet another page of links (after all, didn't they just see a page of links at Google)? What they want is the content on my site and other content-based sites; the solid stuff that they used to find, weeks ago, in a search at Google. Now they find it listed on a directory that's listed in Google. A very roundabout way for Google to give people relevant search results, if you ask me.
Rant over. I had canonical issues, now partly resolved, and nasty hijacking issues, also partly resolved. Google was excellent in dealing with my hijacking reports, except for instant meta refresh listings that I can't shake.
WebmasterWorld has been a blessing, particularly posts by reseller and dayo_uk, and I've read every page of the Jagger saga.
Now I'm praying that 66.102.7.104 sticks, because I'm rating ahead of the potluck directories and seeing some other meat-and-potatoes sites seated back up at the main Google table too, where they belong.
Bye Bye MOM and POP.
I vote 66.102.9.104 for canonical issue being resolved and
66.102.7.104 for the supplementals which show up on our "of interest" key words.
Maybe after Jagger, Google will DROP the tracking or use of the term "supplemental". To me, it has no meaning other than it gets pulled into the results under certain conditions (who knows what). Why do we have to give it a name "supplemental"? It's either of value or not!
Does "supplemental" have any REAL meaning?
I have never seen these results before!
That said, I moved up considerably in this update. However, 50% of the page 1 stuff is way off the mark. This was a bittersweet update for me – and if you were looking for a big advance in SERPs, this one was hardly worth waiting for. I thought they could do better.
If this is the future platform for Google, the door is wide open to newcomers.
Not worth starting a new thread I think, but just had a gander at how G has been handling synonymous terms in multiword searches, and have never seen such accuracy when swapping one term for another inside a two or three word search phrase.
Only did about 100 variants, but it was enough to impress. Not that the order stayed the same exactly with synonymous variations, but basically the top 10 listings just reordered themselves in most cases. Hat's off to the G engineers for that one!
Wonder if that was a point of focus, or a byproduct. Hmmm.
Nor have I, but it appears to be just a variation of other J1/2 iterations.
Those results are 4-5 days old...have been visible in Spain as default google.es and do not have the latest Jagger developments...and I deeply regret to say so...if only it were the final outcome...but unfortunately (for me) will not be...
Appalling results from that datacenter.
Only did about 100 variants, but it was enough to impress.
Care to share a handful or so of those 100 variants that are so impressive?
Ok, enough of my pitiful poetry!
How long before G will release Jagger3 to the rest of the datacenters?
Back to watching
WW_Watcher
We are pretty unhappy with this Jagger. Two of our sites have disappeared completely off the bottom. One site went from #4 to #1,000+, one went from #22 to #700+, and our most important site went from #1 to #5.
In the case of #1->#5, one site above us now is very thin on content; probably with 1/10th the quality content that we have. The #1 now is a gambling casino, not what kids expect when they look for the Taj Mahal.
So, we are hoping for some more relevant listings in future. Our content is superb, and unless we've broken a "secret rule" with Google, the destruction of our two sites (#1,000+ and #700+) is VERY unfair.
[edited by: engine at 9:45 am (utc) on Nov. 8, 2005]
I hope y'all are taking snapshots for comparison at a later date. It's all here if you look, no?
Enjoy the ride...
As far as our own sites, this is how it was pre-Jagger2, so we would be happy with that, BUT I suspect that 66.102.7.104 is NOT what we'll end up with. (Tears of frustration o o o o o o o )
[edited by: engine at 9:46 am (utc) on Nov. 8, 2005]
Let me add my voice to the agreements already posted with what was said there. I see exactly the same problem.
I've written to Google three times now using the "dissatisfied with results" link but so far have received no response.
Google eventually finds files in directories other than the obvious ones that would be correct. So, when searching for an album review, it'll return a gig review or a video link, for instance.
And we're still getting lots of sites linking to and quoting us in results before we get us.
Oops you may soon be #6 below WebmasterWorld ;-).
Take them out... Don't worry about why they say remove spam...
