Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
Interesting results (possibly the next phase of Jagger) on /



Massively horrible and incorrect!!!

It rewards fairly irrelevant 1 to 5 page sites to up-to-date and larger
sites with hundreds of pages for no obvious reason.

Lets hope Google commes to it's sences soon!

Quoted text here. Click to load it


__/ [Timmermans] on Wednesday 09 November 2005 17:18 \__

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It reflects on what could be seen across a few datacentres earlier this week.
It often tends to reflect on pre-Jagger results, but just as often it makes
irrational prioritisation, which is worrying (if not to me, then to Google).



Quoted text here. Click to load it
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm all for giving smaller and new sites a chance and all, but for the love
of it... I'm starting to see pages last updated between 1999 and 2003, now
how relevant can these page be?  How much weight does Google/Jagger place on

You think they might reverse it if it turned out a severe mistake?


On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:18:30 +0800, "Timmermans"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Absolutely. My understanding is that's partly why they're doing this
thing in stages, so they don't unintentionally leave a shell-shocked
client-base when they're done.
It would be useful if someone with more daylight hours than I have
could read Matt Cutt's blog and report back. I've had my night-time
snooze, I've had my morning snooze...synchronise watches, kids, I'm
feeling kind of stretchy-yawny...


         The buffalo have gone

Re: Senior Pages (was:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You mean like this ?

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Site Timeline