What's been done since Jagger to bounce back

It is interesting that I haven't seen a lot about this topic (specific things that people changed) ever since the latest 'Update' fever died down.

Here are a few things we've done for clients that have helped:

Cleaned up all html
Took out all comments
Added a few more header tags
Made titles and copy more succinct
Tried to get more Relevant links
Culled Partners sections to only have a few high-quaility link partners instead of lots of irrelevant ones
Reviewed internal linking structures and improved on them where necessary


These days, after Jagger, trying to learn what Google likes specifically, is more difficult than ever.

We set up number of test pages where we tried different strategies for each page to see what made the most difference. But every time I check, each page's ranking position changes along with the number of total indexed pages! So it is such a moving target, very frustrating sometimes.
(For example, on Monday one term ranked #21 out of 1.3 million, then on Wednesday, that same term ranked #18 out of 4.2 million! So that's an improvement, but it doesn't necessarily tell me anything regarding what I did, it looks like it may be affected more by all other indexed pages)

I am curious what others have done since Jagger to get back to their pre-Jagger traffic.

What have you done or changed that has made a real difference?

 

I havent seen any significant changes from Jagger. So i havent really changed anything.

 

I just did what many people did. Nothing.

My rankings went to hell, but it was obvious to me that google fouled this update up.

After time, things pretty much came back to normal on their own.

 

I've heard that story over and over again. Sadly, none of my 3 sites have recovered like that... I've crept up from nothing to nothing+1% or so of my pre-jagger traffic since Jagger... I've tried many of the items mentioned above, but none of those have helped either. I guess the time for waiting for me has far expired, and it's time for me to do something... I think I've tried all the whitehat I can... What else... hmmm....


--
Derek

 

A good idea but makes not a lot of difference in the rankings [some of my code is rubbish and I haven't been penalised because of that]!

No indication at all that that is a problem - G doesn't take any notice of them, but I leave them in just in case someone does! One site I launched last week as a shell is already high in rankings with a comment in.

I have just taken them, headers, out, and, in two new domains have been listed no1 in the allinanchor, allintitle, allintext as well as heading well up in the normal serps

It is how you write these that is now very important

Not that important - it is interesting to note that the two new domains I mention are still not showing any links by G and yet a scoring well. However I still believe relevant links are important.

I have always regarded reciprocal linking as not cost effective and so I have never done it - todays Google does not value these links

This is more important than external linking - it is what you link from and to where it is linked that is important

 

How should titles be written? Or maybe more importantly-- how should they NOT be written? Maybe point to a thread if I just missed it? Thanks.

Other than link depth, what is Google looking for, as far as you know?


--
Derek

 

We cleaned up code (made everything xhtml compliant). Ran some test pages with different keywords to check on placement variance. Our site was fairly new and was sandboxed for about 7 months (we have very specific keyword targeting with regards to our market environment) so from my standpoint, it’s pretty tough to gauge overall. I think there might be some credence to site age v. position rank depending on target markets.

We did see some interesting results regarding our competitors' sites. Right after Jagger, some of them fell 30 to 50 + in placement for targeted keywords. Our site actually gained rank. Over the past month, our site has dropped an overage about 7 to 9 positions hold fairly consistant between 18 and 30, while our competitors' have...for the most part...regained much of their original placement prior to Jagger (something I am not thrilled about!).

One competitor even launched a completely overhauled site during Jagger. They had never placed within the top 40 and now are holding steady page 1 ranking.

Jagger seems to have turned allot of fundimental ideas upside down and sent many webmasters and SEO companies scrambling. Whether Google intended the algo update to have such a dramatic effect..who knows.

The sad part is; many of us are looking for answers and making changes to get back to where our sites used to rank and for all we know....we might just be shooting ourselves in the foot. Jagger could have been a glimpse of the future or just a botched update that wasn't supposed to cause as much flux as it did.

ps: sorry for the mnor rant...

 

I have seen more odd fluctuations since jagger. I do think internal linking changes have had a positive effect for me.

I was like some others, fell and in some cases rebounded without reason.

I think alot of us make so many changes its very hard to gauge what works.

I really think this is becoming much more voodoo and less science. A sense of humor helps a little.

 

What kind of internal linking changes? I think it's time I start making changes to experiment, but I have no idea what, as I've always been very traditional(i.e. pre-Jagger) whitehat SEO... From my knowledge, my sites are already optimized-- now I have to learn the new rules, and I don't know where to go!


--
Derek

 

In my eyes not much has changed, just quality content and blogs seem to be the key also rss news feeds.
The other additions you already know.

 

Thanks for the replies.

It's amazing to see how Google/Jagger messed with so many SEO's - does anyone else have a CONCRETE SPECIFIC thing they did and then saw improvements? (with all else being equal).

So far, all I have read is writing titles better and improving internal linking, but can you be much more specific and/or are there other things?

Caryl/McDar - You out there?

 

mobilebay - specifically what do you mean by 'blogs'??

 

On one site I took a big hit from Jagger but it's about 60% back to where it was and I didn't change anything, it seems to slowly be returning back to its previous rankings so the links must have been de-valued and for whatever reason and now being given their value back.

 

After the Jagger I am still in the hell (sandbox). I am now concentrating more on link building and refreshing my content.

 

This frustrates me as well. It's so very hard for me to believe that internal linking and titles are key. There has to be something clearly that we did 'wrong' in Google's new algorithm's eyes, and I really need to know what that is... Obviously it's something fundamentally with how I optimize my sites, as all my sites have dropped and none have come back...

Caryl is MIA. No one has heard from her in a while... It's a concern over in the sleeping bag experiment thread... Google has likely abducted her. First they take out websites, then they take our tool creators. We're probably next...

This reminds me a lot of how all those people not affected by Jagger have reacted...





--
Derek

 

dkalweit - finally! someone who is on the same page as us! I agree, I am so sick of people saying, "hey, I was fine after Jagger, so why do I care?" - What about the next update?! and the next, etc.?

sji2671 - one of our main sites had the same thing exactly happen, to a tee, we are back at 60% of pre-jagger levels. But, we have made some changes (which I mentioned at the top of this post) and that seems to have helped a little. But the changes we make are all Google-compliant, I mean, they are not drastic changes and they are all white hat.

Any more specific ideas?

 

I did nothing, it all came back on it's own after some weeks.

 

blindxdk - thanks for the highly illuminating post

 

Internal Linking: I found - like everyone else - that this far more weighted now. What I also found is that links from pages higher up in the site-map have more wieght than links lower down. So a link from a larger category page to a product page is worth much more than vice versa. I don't know if that's how it's always been, but it is working great for me. So much so that I have added tables with deep links on each of my major category pages, and have seen all of those subsequent smaller keywords shoot to the first page in the SERPs.

 

You're welcome, my point was that both I and others did nothing and went back up, so who is to say if any of the changes people talk about here actually had anything to do with them rising in the SERPS again?