66.102.7.104 Vs 66.102.9.104

I would love it to be .7, from a completely bias point of view of course

 

On the keywords I monitor the results are much more relevant from the 7 datacenter than the 9.

From what I can see, 9 values older websites more than it values relevance.

 

GoogleGuy has updated since then, on WebMasterWorld, saying 7.104 will be taking data from 9.104 aswell as its own, and is phase 2 of Jagger 3.

 

I love how on the three part update, each part has seperate phases. I cant wait to see each phases sub-phase.

 

Google has to bring together all the information that it has acquired in J1 and J2, and add it into J3 in stages, to ensure that everything runs smoothly. J3 has to put into effect the previous stages, such as alogarithm, supplementals, omitting spam sites wherever possible. This is a major update, and needs major effort on the part of the Google technicians.
Some of you who aren't SEO experts, may wish to look at : http://www.google.com/webmasters/seo.html to get an idea of what they expect.

 

google deson't like SEO's plain and simple.. everything on that page makes it quite obvious IMO.

 

But they do like certain optimisation attributes, which many webmasters can do themselves.

 

they pretty much say don't optimize

so that way if you do and your site drops then you can't be mad a them

those guidelines change too

 

SEO is basically marketing. guess you should just build the site, then wait patiently for google to find you..

 

Not really, in this Interview with Matt Cutts:

Matt Cutts says whitehat SEO such as finding what people are searching for and putting those words in the content is ok, but hidden text and keyword stuffing aren't.

 

yeah ok you will definitely get top rankings if you just do that

why don't we all just do that and everything will be great

let me rephrase that google says don't do any type optimization that actually effects your rankings

 

problem is most SEO's including myself follow proper SEO guidelines... then you get things like this Jagger fiasco, where you have an abundance of sites in the top 10 which are nothing but spam. IMO google needs to cleanup their own house...

 

I did until this dang jagger update.

 

you got top rankings with no links just by writing stuff on web page?

Unless you are writing a lot of content, like hundreds of pages I can't really see that being effective.

if you wrote hundreds of pages of unique content, that might work, of course you would still need link populaity to get it indexed

I like this quote from that interview

 

Yes, I run a store with about 500 products. Lots of cross linking happens nautrally from item to item, category to item, etc. I have about 1,700 pages in all [with quality content], all xlinked to each other. It looks like jagger valued the image links over the text links because the bots followed the way to the shopping cart, and I have lots of pages in google with no text, only the link to an item that redirects to the cart. I've coded robots.txt for those links now so I have my fingers crossed that they'll vanish from google and the bots will follow my directions in the sitemap.xml.gz

 

.9.104 is looking very good for my main site and it was only established in Sept 2004. I hope it sticks but at this stage I'm prepared for anything.

 

c'mon .9! The API is showing .9 results I believe, Keyword tracker agrees

 

.7 is by far the most releavant

 

definitely 66.102.7.104 shows the most promise. Look outside of your own keywords and you'll see results seem to be more relevant

 

Things are getting better...

But even in these "new" results I still have Infoseek SERPS from search. com listed above or around me where my site appears...

I ask you, SERPS from search. com in the google results