Jagger Comments and the Co-op Network or Link Vault

This question has to do with the impacts of Jagger and questions about the Co-op Network and Link Vault.

Anyone here have big impacts from Jagger that was also part of the co-op network or Link Vault?

If so were the impacts positive or negative?

If the impacts were strong did either network make up a majority or a significant percentage of bls?

All comments appreciated.

Dave

 

my sites had no effect , but my m8s site had a positive effect from Jagger even though he uses Link Vault, people say if you were participating you would be penalised, hmmm bull because a few sites have link vault and have improved.

Luck of the draw on a lighter note have left the sandbox or aging delay

 

The Jagger Update made not-static links not important anymore in my opinion. Systems with static links should be still good for us. And I agree with Jim Hedger:

The Jagger Update was introduced for three main reasons. The first was to deal with manipulative link-network schemes, sites generated with scraped content and other forms of SE-Sp@m. The second was to allow and account for the inclusion of a greater number of spiderable documents and file types. The third was to allow and account for new methods of site acquisition beyond the use of the spider Googlebot.

The update made its first public appearance in late September but had its greatest impact in early October. At that time, hundreds of thousands of websites that enjoyed previously strong listings were suddenly struck and sent to the relative oblivion found beyond the second page of results.

Most of those sites lost position due to participation in what Google obviously considers inappropriate linking schemes. This was actually one of the first conclusions we came to in late September based on the experience of a few clients who joined link-networks that had not been recommended or vetted by our link-experts. This is nöw backed up by discussion in various search engine forums. While most of those hurt by this part of the update are good people running honest businesses, Google put out notice that irrelevant link-networks, no matter how simple or complex, are unhealthy additions to what might otherwise be a good website.

The problem Google faced was some webmasters misunderstood what links are for and how Google uses them to rank documents. For some unknown reason, many webmasters or site administrators participated in wholesale link mongering, bulking up on as many inbound links as possible without consideration of the most important factor (in Google's estimation), the relevance of inbound links.

Google is judging sites on who they link to along with who links to them. Before the update, a link from your site to an irrelevant site was more a waste of time than a waste of opportunïty. Today irrelevant links seem to be both. Google's desire to offer stable and highly relevant SERPS while preventing outright manipulation of those SERPS was the biggest cause of the shift.

The second and third reasons for updating the algorithm at this time is the allowance for indexing documents or information obtained through alternative sources such as Google Base, Froogle, and blogs and other social networking tools. Google's stated goal is to grow to include reference to all the world's information. That information is being expressed in multiple places using several unique file formats, some of which are difficult to weigh against others. By checking the file or document in question against the long-term history of documents linking to it, Google is better able to establish its theme and intent.

Google faced problems with forms of search engine sp@m such as fake directories and on-page sp@mming techniques such as hiding information in CSS files. The Jagger Update seems designed to deal with these issues by applying Google's vast knowledge about items in its index against every document or file it ranks. A site that scrapes content, for example, might be weighed against the documents that content was originally published on and the intent of the republisher. One that hides information in the CSS file will similarly trip Google's memory of how the same domain looked and operated before the sp@m-content was inserted.

The third reason for the algo update comes from the expansion of Google itself. Google is nöw much largër than it was when the Bourbon update was introduced in the early summer. Audio and video content is spiderable and searchable. Google's comparison shopping tool Froogle is starting to integrate itself in with Google Local, just as Google Local and Google Maps are beginning to merge. There is some speculation in the SEO community that Google is preparing to integrate personalized data into the search results served to specific individuals. A strong assumption is that Jagger is part of Google's movement towards personalization though there is little to firmly point at to support this idea.

 

Hmm obviously you didnt read my comment increase in google on kws and pr and traffic benefitted by LINK VAULT lol. Direct improvement with addition to LV.

 

The OP was NOT asking for someone to regurgitate the popular spin regarding Links and Jagger.

He was asking for personal experience on specific sites.

If you have a site that is in the co-op

1. Was the site effected by Jagger?
2. If effected, was it positive or negative?
3. If negatively effected, has it recovered?
4. What percentage (est.) of the incomming links are from the co-op?

Thank you,
Caryl

 

Mixed results:

Some of my sites using coop for links lost serps and then came back up.

Most of my sites using coop way down and haven't recovered.

Both sites that came back up, and sites that are still down, have a good number of static links as well. About a third static, two thirds coop.

I don't think coop is a factor, or maybe a small factor, but there may be many factors, or maybe google is just messed up, I don't know. My sites are seo'd in a similar manner, but all acting differently.

I'm frustrated, confused. I'm losing money. Bah - humbug.

 

I didn't notice any significant changes in the positions I track in GOOG, whether or not I was using Coop or LV on that specific keyword/page. Nothing more than a blip on the radar screen for me. Yahoo's been the one coming and going for me.

 

What can I say... None of my sites had a positive effect of using coop or LV but, and that's the point, none of them had a negative one (I mean a hesitation like more than +/- 10).

In comparison, a few of the older services uses non-static links systems got down hard. Conclusion? The Jagger Update made not-static links not important anymore. Coop or LV still are alive.

I thought that Hedger's opinion would help to understand what was happened and get appropriate conclusions, that's why I quoted him. Never to much info, isn't?

 

Not intimating at all that co-op was the reason but my main sites with co-op all dropped off the RADAR in Google and have not recovered. The only sites I have LV on were not ranked well to begin and didn't improve or drop so no effect on those sites.

 

1. Was the site effected by Jagger?

Yes.

2. If effected, was it positive or negative?

Negative.

3. If negatively effected, has it recovered?

A little.

4. What percentage (est.) of the incomming links are from the co-op?

Pages that have recovered a little had around 30-40% coop links. Pages that have not recovered at all had pretty much 100% coop links.

 

The problem with your conclusion is:

1. coop links are "not-static" so why are they still alive?

2. a lot of sites with coop ads, including mine -- and apparently yours -- were not adversely affected by the Jagger update

 

I asked this question relative to the McDar experiment.

It is nothing more than an effort to try and determine why the experiment page has been blown off the map by Jagger. We will probably look at a number of possible causes.

any comments on whether the sites with co-op links or link vault links were affected are appreciated.

Dave