)

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 sear

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 outsmart 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 disastrous update 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 searc

portant than they really are. But what comments would the architects of this disastrous update 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 sear

ng 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 sear

as 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 sear

)

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, doesn't Google carry some responsibility for this latest raft of online business failures?