Jagger and the age of business failure

[v9designbuild]

The latest Google update, Jagger, has search engine optimisers all around the world in a state of disorientation. With Jagger, Google once again attempted to outsmart huge numbers of SEOs who had spent a vast amount of time trying to out-link their competitors by legitimately but falsely making their websites seem more relevant and important than they really are. But what comments would the architects of this disaster say to a company's debtors?

We all know that links carry significant weight within the algorithms of all the major search engines. As SEOs we have added value by swapping links and placing links on free directories. While there's nothing wrong with this in essence, we have to addmit that a lot of these sites don't really show that they are necessarily relevant or important to the host site.

Google much prefers it when the linking site adds value to enhance the value of a site's content or to increase credibility and authority. And that's exactly what Jagger was meant to do - when it found those sites, it simply adjusted their ranking to more accurately reflect their true importance, now deemed as:
1) Increased importance placed on Inbound Links Relevancy
2) Increased importance placed on Outbound Links Relevancy
3) Promotion of relevant Niche Directories related to Nos. 1/2)

Google is downgrading or eliminating reciprocal links as a measure of popularity. In short, Jagger undid the hard work of thousands - if not millions - of SEOs. As a result, hard-won high rankings and revenues plummeted.

All well and good, but I wonder then if the architects of this fine update could explain why the search term "web site design bangkok" had an error 404 page in French at the #1 spot (now #5), for a month (http://www1.oecd.org/error.htm)? So much for relevancy!

A colleague's site disappeared from the listings for 2 months. Now we find that Jagger has almost de-listed us - and there has been little link building involved in this site.

When I next talk to my clients and they ask the same question, will Google carry some responsibility for this latest raft of online business failures?

[lexiseek]

Hello.
I'm very sorry to hear that Jagger has upset your business.

Sadly, G shouldn't be held responsible for this. They are operating a corporation that has shareholders and investors.

Any successful online business shouldn't rely solely on free SE traffic. If you aren't spending any money for advertising, how can you be surprised when no one can find you?

You also mention that you have very few links.
New websites are built every day. If a webmaster has become more aggressive in linking and you have have standing still on your link campaign, the hustler will probably win out

Simple SEO still works.. fresh content and links. Add some advertising and you
wouldn't have to make excuses for clients.

[Linda Buquet]

Hi v9designbuild,

Welcome to 5 star and thanks for sharing that article with us. Sorry you suffered from Jagger. I did too but bounced back. It's important to have a varied SEO and traffic strategy so you don't ever find yourself dependent on only one engine for traffic.

[v9designbuild]

Hi Linda,

I think that Jagger has outsmarted us all. The reason for this view lies deep behind this update: to make AdWords flourish, thus pushing their stock market value through the roof for revenue generation to become forever stronger.

To quote CNN on Jan. 9, 2005: "Google closed last Monday, the first trading day of the year, at $202.71, the first time the company closed above $200 during its brief history as a publicly traded firm...Moreover, Google is trading at about 60 times 2005 earnings estimates and a stock split isn't going to make that valuation any cheaper, either."

Now, to quote NEWS.COM almost a year later, on November 17, 2005: "Google's share price got a dose of high octane in the past four weeks, soaring from $300 a share to hitting in excess of $400 on Thursday. Does zero to 60 come to mind? And the messages boards that track the sentiment of Google investors have been a buzz, with some predicting a further run up to $500 a share."

But have they got it wrong? I think this update, disguised as an attempt to bring in 'relevancy', is truly a market manipulation intended to push up revenues but through limited relevency, forcing users to use AdWords.

One client recently complained that his ad spend is almost 100% up against a year ago. He halved the price and still gets the same volume of hits. It is interesting to note that in this period Google's share price has witnessed an unprecedented but identical percentage uplift.

All very well for the shareholders but are internet users going to accept the return of useless blog sites instead of relevant companies and products in their searches? I think not. A growing number will migrate to Yahoo, leaving Google's shareholders, in the very near future, wondering why the share price has plumeted.

There is a quite brilliant stock advisor in Austria that believes this to be the real rationale behind the update. I now concur with his words.

[Linda Buquet]

Yes, I have read that theory many times and who knows it could be true. I know that when my site disappeared from Google I rushed to increase my Adwords spend to make up for lost traffic. Thank God my site came back - but come to think of it I left my Ad spend up where it was during Jagger.

[lexiseek]

They're going to have to make it up somewhere.

AOL is dropping G as their search partner and going with MSN.

AOL related revenues make up about 11% of their bottom line.
So the growth is going to have to come from somewhere..

..and that is going to be "the lowest on the chain".. web publishers..

This is a great time to evaluate your business strategy and come up with something that doesn't depend solely on G.. for free traffic or (stable) adsense payouts.

IMHO, anyway..

[v9designbuild]

Hi Linda,

Some people talk about age of a site being important, others refer to governmental bodies but on my own wen turf this is what Google have struggled for a year to get totally and utterly wrong.

For "web site design bangkok" we have in positions 5-9:
5) Bangkok hotel and Thailand travel guide (irrelevant to web site design in Bangkok and instead of looking at the title and on-page copy they have used the url of the designers, Web Design Copyright © 2005 by Asia Web Direct Co., Ltd.).
6) Asian Institute of Technology (irrelevant to web site design in Bangkok as the site is about "advanced education in engineering, science").
7) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with a title "" (irrelevant to web site design in Bangkok. This is the most ridiculous of all).
8)The Peninsula Bangkok (irrelevant to web site design in Bangkok as this is one of Bangkok's premier hotels and nowhere on the home page is there even the mention of the word "web").
9) Finally, Conference on Trade and Development (irrelevant to web site design in Bangkok as this has again not applied the title but has seen itself fit to index "Free Website Stats and Website counter by WebSTAT". Where exactly in Bangkok is Free Website Stats district?)