Jagger1, Jagger2, Jagger3, what'd they each do?

1 and 2, to me, nothing at all except I moved a handful of places up
and down at the top of the serps. This I think of as natural, like
ripples on a pond, and reflected what was going on around me.
Who got hit by 1 and 2 please? What are other people's experiences?
When were they affected and have they come back yet?

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone

__/ [Big Bill] on Tuesday 15 November 2005 12:57 \__

1 and 2, to me, nothing at all except I moved a handful of places up
and down at the top of the serps. This I think of as natural, like
ripples on a pond, and reflected what was going on around me.
Who got hit by 1 and 2 please? What are other people's experiences?
When were they affected and have they come back yet?

BB

The 'schedule' of this update was not clear and neither was its impact on the
datacentres. However, here are the numbers, which I think reflect on what
was going on and when. The number of referrals are in tight agreement with
SERP positions. Things began to be shaky in the end of September.


Date | Unique IP's from Google

30/Sep/2005 229 (21.0%)

01/Oct/2005 319 (20.6%)

02/Oct/2005 335 (20.6%)

03/Oct/2005 468 (28.4%)

04/Oct/2005 491 (29.2%)

05/Oct/2005 434 (20.2%)

06/Oct/2005 375 (16.8%)

07/Oct/2005 362 (16.9%)

08/Oct/2005 255 (10.7%)

09/Oct/2005 251 (8.0%)

10/Oct/2005 301 (12.4%)

11/Oct/2005 317 (8.1%)

12/Oct/2005 274 (3.9%)

13/Oct/2005 292 (8.3%)

14/Oct/2005 301 (16.2%)

15/Oct/2005 261 (14.3%)

16/Oct/2005 151 (7.5%)

17/Oct/2005 49 (1.7%)

18/Oct/2005 41 (1.5%)

19/Oct/2005 52 (1.8%)

20/Oct/2005 50 (2.0%)

21/Oct/2005 38 (1.3%)

22/Oct/2005 27 (0.9%)

23/Oct/2005 34 (1.3%)

24/Oct/2005 34 (1.3%)

25/Oct/2005 47 (1.7%)

26/Oct/2005 49 (1.9%)

27/Oct/2005 47 (1.8%)

28/Oct/2005 23 (0.8%)

29/Oct/2005 30 (1.1%)

30/Oct/2005 24 (1.0%)

31/Oct/2005 23 (1.1%)

31/Oct/2005 12 (2.4%)

01/Nov/2005 39 (1.8%)

02/Nov/2005 48 (2.2%)

03/Nov/2005 45 (1.9%)

04/Nov/2005 36 (1.5%)

05/Nov/2005 28 (1.2%)

06/Nov/2005 37 (1.6%)

07/Nov/2005 80 (3.4%)

08/Nov/2005 106 (4.2%)

09/Nov/2005 106 (4.2%)

10/Nov/2005 113 (4.5%)

11/Nov/2005 107 (4.0%)

12/Nov/2005 77 (3.3%)

13/Nov/2005 101 (4.0%)


I hope it provides insight to someone else, or at least reflects on Jabber's
general behaviour. I know it does not affect all equally as it depends on
the theme of the sites, age, links, and so forth.

Roy

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote

1 and 2, to me, nothing at all except I moved a handful of places up
and down at the top of the serps. This I think of as natural, like
ripples on a pond, and reflected what was going on around me.
Who got hit by 1 and 2 please? What are other people's experiences?
When were they affected and have they come back yet?

Following the Sept. 22 comeback (which lasted 3 weeks) I went beyond
previous levels of visitorship. Normal for me for that time of year would've
been 5-7,000 visitors per day. Instead it was 7-9,000 per day.

Jagger overall began for me in the middle of October.
Jagger's 1 and 2 were much worse for me than the Bourbon aftermath. Current
numbers barely reach above 2,000.

Jagger 3? I've seen changes in SERPs for keyword phrases I follow but it
still hasn't been beneficial for me.

But, I do extremely well through MSN. So, are surfer bob and jane migrating
to MSN and other SEs in lieu of Google? Who knows.

__/ [WhoTurnedOffTheLights] on Tuesday 15 November 2005 16:27 \__

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message
news:uemjn15iq7obe5biq64bh7eb2h60qjebun (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
1 and 2, to me, nothing at all except I moved a handful of places up
and down at the top of the serps. This I think of as natural, like
ripples on a pond, and reflected what was going on around me.
Who got hit by 1 and 2 please? What are other people's experiences?
When were they affected and have they come back yet?

Following the Sept. 22 comeback (which lasted 3 weeks) I went beyond
previous levels of visitorship. Normal for me for that time of year
would've been 5-7,000 visitors per day. Instead it was 7-9,000 per day.

Jagger overall began for me in the middle of October.
Jagger's 1 and 2 were much worse for me than the Bourbon aftermath. Current
numbers barely reach above 2,000.

Jagger 3? I've seen changes in SERPs for keyword phrases I follow but it
still hasn't been beneficial for me.

But, I do extremely well through MSN. So, are surfer bob and jane migrating
to MSN and other SEs in lieu of Google? Who knows.

Sooner or later people will perceive Google the way same Microsoft is
perceived by most. Some suggest it is the case already, but let's remember
that Google are Open Source-oriented. It appears to be /size/ that make them
evil as they soon become a monopoly that is difficult to compete with.

Microsoft's crimes: bundling of software, acquisition of small companies,
proprietary software, etc.

Google crimes: privacy is compromised, algorithms get misused, one product
relies on or benefits another. This leads to dependability.

My two cents...

Roy

"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote

Sooner or later people will perceive Google the way same Microsoft is
perceived by most. Some suggest it is the case already, but let's remember
that Google are Open Source-oriented. It appears to be /size/ that make
them
evil as they soon become a monopoly that is difficult to compete with.

Microsoft's crimes: bundling of software, acquisition of small companies,
proprietary software, etc.

Google crimes: privacy is compromised, algorithms get misused, one product
relies on or benefits another. This leads to dependability.

My two cents...

Yup, I agree.

Personally, I find MSN to be providing very good search results. I can't
help but think of how folks' use of Google might very well be attributed to
the widespread use of the Google Name. You'll hear it mentioned on
television shows, "I googled this..." & "I googled that..." amongst other
places.
All one needs is to do a search for "Google now a verb" and find how
embedded in our minds the google name has become.

Like a trained robot, I still use google for my personal searches even
though subconciously I know full well that at the moment, I'd be better off
using MSN. Funny isn't it?

I lost all my sites which dropped to oblivion. But the same exact thing
has happened to me for 3 years in a row this same exact time of year for
abour 3-4 months and then they come back again real strong. Before the
algo change I had average 7-8 sites on page 1 of my serp and my guess is
after 3 years of this they'll all be back again in another few months.
Since I made over 50 grand up until last month I can handle a few bad
months with nothing coming in. I call this algo the 'Fall Algo' since it
always effects me the same exact way at almost exactly the same time of
the year in the fall. You can keep jagger and florida and bourbon and
whatever other names they use to me it is the 'Fall Algo' partly because
it always happens in the fall and partly because my sites they do indeed
fall! But they REALLY spring up in the spring! The spring is my best
time and had 9 sites on page 1 of my serp for a couple of months and
even had all 10 sites for a few days here and there during the spring.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:57:16 GMT, Sam <. (AT) mail (DOT) com> wrote:

You can keep jagger and florida and bourbon and
whatever other names they use to me it is the 'Fall Algo' partly because
it always happens in the fall and partly because my sites they do indeed
fall! But they REALLY spring up in the spring!

I want to submit, to the hat where they pull out the names for the
Google algo changes, a slip of paper with "Screaming Orgasm" as a
hopeful name. Yes I do know there is an alcoholic drink with the same
name, but there was an algo nicknamed Bourbon *shrug* I think the name
of hte drink would work for a Google algo change,too, as some people
scream (perhaps not always happpily) while others feel some
satisfaction about their SERPs

Carol

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:57:16 GMT, Sam <. (AT) mail (DOT) com> wrote:

I lost all my sites which dropped to oblivion.

When? 1, 2 or 3 or variants thereof?

BB


--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone

__/ [WhoTurnedOffTheLights] on Tuesday 15 November 2005 18:37 \__

"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dld7m6$nuu$1 (AT) godfrey (DOT) mcc.ac.uk...

Sooner or later people will perceive Google the way same Microsoft is
perceived by most. Some suggest it is the case already, but let's remember
that Google are Open Source-oriented. It appears to be /size/ that make
them
evil as they soon become a monopoly that is difficult to compete with.

Microsoft's crimes: bundling of software, acquisition of small companies,
proprietary software, etc.

Google crimes: privacy is compromised, algorithms get misused, one product
relies on or benefits another. This leads to dependability.

My two cents...

Yup, I agree.

Personally, I find MSN to be providing very good search results. I can't
help but think of how folks' use of Google might very well be attributed to
the widespread use of the Google Name. You'll hear it mentioned on
television shows, "I googled this..." & "I googled that..." amongst other
places.
All one needs is to do a search for "Google now a verb" and find how
embedded in our minds the google name has become.

Like a trained robot, I still use google for my personal searches even
though subconciously I know full well that at the moment, I'd be better off
using MSN. Funny isn't it?

From what I can gather, MSN is still inaccurate in many cases. Yahoo is said
to be okay, but it is slow, messy, and still plagued with spam.

People like to praise what is different on occasions, namely MSN and Yahoo. I
agree that there is a certain lock-in within people's minds. Only yesterday
my supervisor used Google as a verb (I refuse to do so myself) and in the
film Constant Gardener, which happened to watch last weekend, Google was
mentioned as if it was the holy grail of Web search. It makes me want to
hurl. It even annoys me when Coca Cola pay filmmakers to have the stars
drink from a conspicuously branded can.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "My signature is never intended to be offensive"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
1:35am up 12 days 21:33, 4 users, load average: 0.13, 0.58, 0.78
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms