homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 50.16.130.188
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 125 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 125 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 > >     
One year anniversary of the "Florida" Update
Can it happen again?
Heywood_J




msg:75253
 10:55 pm on Nov 7, 2004 (gmt 0)

As we approach the one year anniversary of the Florida update, I am curious if we can expect another radical google update right before the crucial holiday season. Many of us took a beating last year. I fully recovered my pre-florida rankings by January, but many of my cohorts took a lot longer to recover. I remember there was a lot of debate on if this was an intentional move by google, or some suggested google was broken. There were many theories circulating. But, there were very few concrete answers.

The biggest question I have is: Can this happen again?

I am curious of other thoughts on the Florida Update - one year later.

 

Jakpot




msg:75343
 9:56 am on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

"Why not? They dont owe you anything?"
Great response! Thoughtful and to the point.

Jakpot




msg:75344
 10:07 am on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

I doubt it will happen again.

It seems to be underway.

petehall




msg:75345
 10:41 am on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

It seems to be underway.

Can you elaborate on this a little?

jaffstar




msg:75346
 11:18 am on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

I believe that when Florida came, so did a new algo with far more sophistication than the old one.

The new one allows them to do adjustments( dampening factor) and to tweak it to perfection (in their eyes).

Dropping another drastic algo change now could do more harm than good.

petehall




msg:75347
 11:47 am on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

But remember the command that revealed the "real" or "old" results? -ddssfff or something like that (I think any non-word worked).

Now that, was strange.

Until they stopped us doing it of course...

RussellC




msg:75348
 2:58 pm on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Bottom line, at least to me, is that the sandbox (or penalty effect) for new sites still exists. Anyone see an end to this with the coming update speculation?

webhound




msg:75349
 3:36 pm on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Well I for one would welcome a "Florida" style update. The categories we manage are brutal and this stupid sandbox, or whatever you want to call it, takes the cake. Why a search engine would want to exclude new sites from it's index is beyond stupid. It's called having fresh and current results, hello?

So shake it up Google, your engines stale. :-)

petehall




msg:75350
 3:58 pm on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Why a search engine would want to exclude new sites from it's index is beyond stupid. It's called having fresh and current results, hello?
So shake it up Google, your engines stale. :-)

I agree with you 100%!

g1smd




msg:75351
 4:07 pm on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Should a new 10-shops supermarket chain be able to knock Wal-Mart off their #1 spot?

I would hope not.

Extrapolate that for other topics....

Powdork




msg:75352
 5:19 pm on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Should a new 10-shops supermarket chain be able to knock Wal-Mart off their #1 spot?
Absolutely, if they offer better value, or in this case better information.
Should wal-mart have a 10 mile radius around each location where no competition is allowed?

RussellC




msg:75353
 5:59 pm on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Should a new 10-shops supermarket chain be able to knock Wal-Mart off their #1 spot?

Absolutely not, but should they be given a fair chance to even rank in the top 100. YES!

steveb




msg:75354
 6:17 pm on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

"Until they stopped us doing it of course"

The command still calls up a different, weaker result set.

europeforvisitors




msg:75355
 8:12 pm on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

A sandbox is a great idea if it helps to prevent "I'll spam with my disposable domain until I get caught" sites from showing up on the SERPs. And to use another brick-and-mortar analogy, new businesses don't get listed in the Yellow Pages overnight, either.

Powdork




msg:75356
 11:02 pm on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Another important thing to remember is that Wal-Mart would lose it's top spot if they changed their name to WalMart

petehall




msg:75357
 9:33 am on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Until they stopped us doing it of course
The command still calls up a different, weaker result set.

I hardly see any difference.

This could very well be because I am only ever interested in UK search results.

zafile




msg:75358
 7:09 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

I agree. After sometime, threads full of bull**** and speculation take away the value of the forum.

HayMeadows




msg:75359
 7:13 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Me thinks a shake is coming, and the sandbox will be a thing of the past. Hmmm...there's not really a sandbox anyways, is there. Okay a little one that effects search by company name way too much. But they'll get around that once they fix the glitch.

lizardx




msg:75360
 8:59 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

"Surely 'sandbox' just means slow indexing of poorly linked pages; or something symptomatic of that."

Indexing speed of new domains has never been a problem that I've seen. The posts I like reading are the ones from before Novemember last year.

bears5122




msg:75361
 9:58 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Sandbox = Google's way of pumping up ad revenue for new sites who now have no chance of ranking in Google. This process is masked behind the notion that the filter is there to stop spam.

Stop spam? If you need to essentially ban sites for 9 months to stop spam, your engineers aren't doing a very good job.

The results are poor, stale, and useless for anyone searching for "new" information on "new" sites. Sandbox is nothing more than a way of increasing ad revenue by screwing their most valuable commodity, searchers.

MultiMan




msg:75362
 12:13 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Not just commercial sites were dishonestly wiped out into the neverthelands of SERPs, but authority sites in non-commerce keywords too. And that is even more infuriating, given that a non-commerce site having to pay the blackmail of AdWords is outrageous simply because it is not even a commerce keyword to pay for the cost.

No conspiracy, as the the sycophants of G$ like to mockingly malign those of us honest white hats who were so raped by G$ this way. Rather, G$ simply perpetrated a deliberate naked strategy of dishonest, irrelevant SERPs specifically for obtaining profits without any valid ethics or legitimacy.

europeforvisitors




msg:75363
 1:41 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Rather, G$ simply perpetrated a deliberate naked strategy of dishonest, irrelevant SERPs specifically for obtaining profits without any valid ethics or legitimacy.

How does libel contribute to an intelligent discussion?

MultiMan




msg:75364
 2:13 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

How does accusing an honest person of libel contribute to an intelligent discussion?

otnot




msg:75365
 2:16 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Has anyone noticed that Google is really,really slolw tonight?

MLHmptn




msg:75366
 2:43 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Amen to that bears!

They can deny it all they want but that is precisely what Google did! And to this day it hasn't changed much either. "SandBox" is a joke, Supplemental Results are a joke and furthermore Google is a joke.

Bring on the new MSN search already! :>~

ronin




msg:75367
 10:43 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

A little bit tired of all this Google-bashing.
I am not for a moment a huge fan of Google one way or the other, but Google's results are either competent or incompetent, relevant or irrelevant. There's no dishonesty or cheating about it. Google isn't a public service and isn't obliged to provide the most relevant results it can, it provides the most relevant results it wants to.

If Google's results fall in relevancy and countless millions of searchers still continue to use Google, whose fault is that? Google's or those who can't be bothered to check queries against multiple search engines?

Back on-topic, it's now over a year since Florida. I haven't seen anything notable... has anyone else?

europeforvisitors




msg:75368
 2:50 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Back on-topic, it's now over a year since Florida. I haven't seen anything notable... has anyone else?

I haven't, but then, I didn't see much impact from Florida, either. :-)

Critter




msg:75369
 3:06 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Of course you all realize that those of us that have *not* super-optimized our sites and have seen our traffic continue to rise are sitting back and watching these b*tch forums with some amusement.

Herenvardo




msg:75370
 4:40 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

If Google's results fall in relevancy and countless millions of searchers still continue to use Google, whose fault is that? Google's or those who can't be bothered to check queries against multiple search engines?

It's users' problem if they dont find what they want 'cos they only search on one SE. But I also find that taking profit of users' ignorance is dishonest.
Of course, G is a private company and they have the right to provide the results they want. They even could, if wanted, provide random results. And it's still legal. But being legal doesn't mean being honest.
Going out of what is legal is illegal.
Going out of what one feels would be good is evil.
There are lawful good, lawful evil, unlawful good and unlawful evil people. I begin to feel that G is a "lawful evil" comapny.

Greetings,
Herenvardö

Spine




msg:75371
 5:16 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hey Critter, that's a very smug sounding comment.

I haven't 'super optimized' and have sat around for several years watching complaint threads come and go, but now I realize that anybody can be dealt a death blow, no matter how clean the site.

Watch your karma.\

Powdork




msg:75372
 5:31 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

There are lawful good, lawful evil, unlawful good and unlawful evil people.
OMG it's 'Dungeons and Webmasters';)

Hey Critter, that's a very smug sounding comment.
I actually found efv's post to be the smug one. If you think your site survived Florida because of the quality of your content or for any other reason within your control, you are mistaken. If you think you could rename your site europefortravelers and hope to regain a portion of your G traffic eight months down the road you would again be mistaken. Google cannot keep up with the pace of today's internet and the holes become more glaring every day.

HayMeadows




msg:75373
 5:44 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Of course, G is a private company and they have the right to provide the results they want.

And what if they went public?

<grins>

This 125 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 125 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved