Jagger 2 Update Info - October 26, 2005

What about these:
64.233.183.99 64.233.183.104

 

One of my sites is three months old and does not show up at all in Google. Another is two weeks old and already shows up.
Two other sites (few years old) lost all ranking for many of their keywords.
This update looks more like a random shuffle.

 

Excellent advice.

You may be the Most Exalted Grand Poobah for a dozen sites. You still don't have an inside track on what Google is doing and your "evidence" (2 sites?!) simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Remember, your "theory" doesn't just have to account for what's happening on those two sites - it also has to account for what's happening on the other 8 to 10 billion sites in Google's database.

Every major Google update seems like this to some webmasters... except #3 isn't quite right... it should read:

 

I thought the comment about you going home meant that you were going to stop posting for the evening.

Well if you are still up please enlighten us with what is going on, your talk would indicate that you have a good grasp what what g is up to. Oh don't forget to back it up with factual data (I have only seen mcdar doing this here on DP lately).

If you don't let us rookies, theorize and if you want to chanledge those theories then provide data. Right now this is just shouting matching about who is right...

I am hope that out of your 6,996 posts you provide more then just side comments, if not get a life!!!

 

@All:

Can you provide any sample search queries that are currently returning particularly bad SERPs?

 

Um... no... another example of you jumping to premature conclusions? did you miss the part where I referenced South Park?

If you'd actually read any of those 6999, you might have notice that I'm not claiming to know what Google is "up to" -- you were the one doing that. So where's your evidence?

No it isn't. You are claiming Google is penalizing or discounting reciprocal links. So far, the only data you've put forth is an illusion to two sites that only you know about... two of of more than 8 billion.

As I said, if you have any information we don't have and wish to share it, i'd love to look at it.

 

What a worthless post. Not saying anything after polluting a good thread with hot air. What a shame Minstrel, you just come here to troll. With your energy, you should educate yourself a little more to actually be of some sort of service to someone. I shall call you Minstroll from now, because that is all you have been doing here.

added: Minstrel is living proof that intelligence and education are 2 completely different things. If he is left to think on his own ... oh boy

 

So what are you saying, Toots? That you also think Google is devaluing or discounting reciprocal links?

I am stating that I don't believe it and I'm asking you and the other guy to show me what that conclusion is based on... how exactly is that "trolling"?

 

...and some people with recip links on their site moved up in the serps...

 

Precisely. Thank you.

 

Obviously, it is going to be almost impossible to determine which aspects of the algorithm changed until we are sure that the update is fully completed and stabilized.

 

minstrel, sense i have posted my last comment to now (about 9 hours). You have made 18 posts. Does any of those posts add any value to DP, or just a bunch of side comments.

As for data, I have stated some in a past posted.

While it is not serious data, but just a quick look. I could care lesson about the billions of websites effect for now, currently I am looking at my own.

You have deliver NOTHING, but bickering...

 

Did you read the rest of this thread, marques? Or the other threads on this and other forums? Or are you content to sit there with blinders on looking at your two sites, convinced that Google is penalizing reciprocal links?

 

it is my theory as stated before. if I am wrong so be it. But if YOU are going to say that I am wrong at least back it up.

 

1. you don't have enough points to red rep me but thanks for the thought

2. you have advanced a hypothesis (that I and others know holds no weight) about something you allege Google is doing - it is up to you to present some evidence to support that if you believe it to be true, not up to others to prove you wrong. That said, see the posts earlier in this thread - if your hypothesis is correct, how do you explain (a) sites with heavy reciprocal linking that stayed the same and (b) sites with reciprocal linking that actually increased ranking in this ongoing update?

If you can't address that, all the personal insults and blue-repping in the world isn't going to alter the fact that you are trying to claim something that you can't back up.

 

I am no longer going to waste my energy on you.

I have not attempted to red rep you, I have no idea why you posted that comment.

If you someone else attempt to red rep you, they must have had good reason.

 

Uh-huh. That's about what I expected. Thanks for sharing your "theory"...

 

...............

 

On those I see the Jagger2 results. Thanks.

 

Today's results:
Postion #28 allinanchor: #800 -10/30/2005

Position:
2 DCs #13 (64.233.183.99 & 64.233.183.104)
13 DCs #26,
20 DCs #28

Allinanchor:
#800 on 17 DCs,
#801 on 2 DCs,
#802 on 9 DCs,
#804 on 4 DCs

Caryl