| 12:47 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Kind of a stretch to put them in the same category isn't it?
| 1:14 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
From an individuals/individual site point of view any update could be traumatic?
Which update affected (in a drastic manner) the most sites?
Which update altered the serps most from prior update to post update?
Did the serps improve or degrade on each update?
Do we have definitive answers to what changed in each update?
Are the same people affected by both updates?
Can we categorise the updates at all further than simply 'update'?
| 1:36 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
No doubts, it's florida!
Depends upon who's hit when!
| 1:38 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
And yes i would agree with Brett_Tabke both are very much unlike to be compared together.
| 1:39 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hate to say so here when so many are hurting but I have done extremeley well out of update Allegra.
Florida hit me hard!
| 1:46 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|And yes i would agree with Brett_Tabke both are very much unlike to be compared together. |
Can nothing be gained even by looking at the differences?
What made Florida so much 'worse'?
|Hate to say so here when so many are hurting but I have done extremeley well out of update Allegra. Florida hit me hard! |
I thought things might head this way.
Is it the same site that has done well in Allegra that did badly in Florida? What did you change after Florida? Apart from seeing the end result of Allegra do you understand why you have done well out of Allegra but badly from Florida?
| 4:09 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Many of us has been affected by both of these updates, but which one was more servere? And, I know that some of us got it worse from Allegra and others got it worse from Florida. But overall which update makes the least sense and is hard to justify the end results? |
By "worse," do you mean:
- For individual Webmaster World members, or...
- For users?
If you mean for individual Webmaster World members, then I'll say that I felt no negative effects from Florida and have received a big traffic boost from Allegra. (Other members obviously have had different experiences.)
If you mean for users, then the answer probably depends on what the user is searching for. I've found that Allegra has improved the quality of search results, but others have reported the opposite.
Here's something else to keep in mind as far as search quality goes: Since Florida, Google has been inundated with millions (billions?) of junk pages. So it's hard to make a valid quality comparison of the Florida and Allegra algorithms based on search results alone.
| 5:54 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Florida was a nightmare for us, plain and simple. But we came out and really took a hard look at our sites and changed so much. We have experienced improvement with Allegra, other than one nice PR6 site that seems to have gone out for a nightcap and never came home.
| 6:15 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Allegra - chaos for both users of Google (ie. poor SERPS) and for us as SEM and our clients.
Florida - a bit of a blip compared to Allegra. At least Florida 'blew over', as far as I can see Allegra is still causing damage indescriminately...
| 6:24 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Florida was a grenade, Allegra is a shotgun. Both are hitting innocent bystanders, but Allegra's damage is far less severe.
[edited by: PatrickDeese at 6:25 pm (utc) on Feb. 17, 2005]
| 6:25 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't believe I have any right to good positions for any keywords, however I do think that my site should be number one when you type in the full domain name including the .com.
Allegra definitely worse than Florida.
| 6:39 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think Allegra is more dangerous.
Google admitted on some way their mistake with Florida, while now...
Maybe they think everything is fine with Allegra.
| 6:44 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Allegra was very damaging for us. Prior to Allegra we had over 5,000 links reported by Google, and now it shows only 254! We've dropped form page one to the bottom of page two (not quite as bad as I would have expected, but still very damaging to our traffic) Strange thing is, we still retain our PR7.
Our competitor now has over 30,000 links listed in Google where they used to have fewer. Making sense of this is kind of difficult.
[edited by: SEOMike at 6:51 pm (utc) on Feb. 17, 2005]
| 6:46 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
do you understand why this page is #1 search for "table lamps"?
Yep, on page factors.
Looks like the handiwork of someone on another forum.
|Dabu The Dragon|
| 6:59 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well as for me, Florida or any other update didn't do it real harm to my sites. Allegra is the first to totally wipe me out. It's a little disheartening, but I have worked hard to give my visitors the best, so I expect my serps to came back to papa. Hopefully some day soon.
I always knew my turn would come. But I'm not going to cry. Dragons don't have tears. lol
| 7:19 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
On page factor? "keyword" appears three times and a whole bounch of unrelated ads.
what thread, can you show me?
| 7:45 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|do you understand why this page is #1 search for "table lamps"? |
Wow, yes I think I do and thanks for pointing this out.
and remember it is (table AND lamps). The strength is in the pages linking to it. Latent Semantic Indexing.
| 8:08 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Allegra is slightly worse than Florida. Although that's like saying getting shot in the left eye is slighty worse than the right.
| 8:13 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I can understand Florida, after Florida SERPs made sense. Alegra is more of a bug in Google algorithm.
| 8:23 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Ask me after Allegra is done, if it's EVER done! :-)
| 8:42 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Florida was worse.
It disrupted results much more violently IMO.
Remember how the Google FEMA team had to come in and fix things after Florida?
| 9:29 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Allegra IMO is yet another extension of the general approach that became very apparent starting with Florida (especially dup filters of various kinds, stemming, and semantics-based evaluation). But there are some interesting new aspects to Allegra too...some algo based and some bugs (I feel sorry for those whose branded domain names have vanished...but I'm guessing that that problem is short term).
Seems to me that with Allegra, G found some interesting ways to out sites that focused too much on repetitive and/or unoriginal methods of:
- extending their presence on the Web (IBL dev)
- mechanically targeting kw phrases (internal and external link filters, plus stemming and LSI-like hurdles).
The trick, as always, is to sort out what hurdles must be overcome and what filters must be avoided (and how), and equally important, to difffereniate between highly related pieces of the algo.
IMHO, if you get Florida and the so-called sandbox (I still hate that very misleading term), Allegra is not very remarkable. Paying close attention to what appear to be the two main indexes G is playing with is revealing. The index that is not being shown much is way too loose for their tastes, if recent past behavior is any indicator of future action. But the one not being shown much also does not suffer as badly from the problem of nixing some sites that should not have been nixed, which is probably why they're still studying it.
<wild guess in form of a prediction>
Those who have seen your internal pages rise to new heights: Don't bank on it lasting forever, or even more than a few months.
</wild guess in form of a prediction>
| 9:31 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I was mostly unaffected by Florida but Allegra has been BAD! Worse, I look at the results and cannot figure out the great scheme of things. I run searches and sites I know to be "authority" or at least one of 4 or 5 best, are getting whupped by lessor sites. So I know the impact of Allegra runs across many topics, sites.
| 9:55 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Florida was Google at close to its best, where it was clearly trying to do its best.
Allegra is Google trying to pull itself out of the mud.
Florida was all about the algorithm. Allegra has almost no algorithm component. They aren't on the same plane of exostence.
| 10:20 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Florida was Google at close to its best, where it was clearly trying to do its best. |
Allegra is Google trying to pull itself out of the mud.
Florida was all about the algorithm. Allegra has almost no algorithm component.
Very interesting post can you or anyone else venture to fill this out a bit?
Are you saying with Florida Google brought out a radically different new algorithm, a completely different way of determining relevance?
But Allegra did not alter this algorithm in any significant way instead google applied various filters, patches and traps as well as making the usual calculations?
Am also interested in the 'mud' what was google trying to rectify, compensate for, do with Allegra, in the course of trying to present something resembling sites in order of relevance?
| 10:27 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Florida was not all that radical, but it ranked sites quite differently than the previous all-anchor-text-all-the-time method Google was using previously.
Allegra isn't about filters or any of that armwaving stuff. They tried to end the sandbox for at least some sites, and simultaneously the amount of pagejacking increased dramatically. Just like their previous brief experiment with ending the sandbox, there was collateral damage. They went from a sandbox and some pagejacking to a sandbox and more pagejacking, but presumably they will make another attempt to fix the problems sometime "soon".
| 10:59 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
So you feel that Allegra was an attempt to end the 'sandbox' somewhat and did not/failed to address the issue of 'pagejacking'?
Do you think people who disappeared have done so not because of some refinement to a mechanism/filter but rather due to a 'bug' or 'pagejacking'?
| 11:27 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Florida was not all that radical |
There might be a few who disagree with that statement. A question of semantics, I guess. ;-)
Staying on the subject of which update was worse, few updates compete with Florida in terms of marketplace impact, or algo shifting.
Allegra seems like simply more knob twisting of the algorytmic approach that started with Florida. I can only guess at reasons, though I'd agree they're experimenting with helping some sites out of the freezer, in part. At least, that is one of the results.
It's not just that however. Some highly SEO'd sites that passed muster in prior updates got hit on this go round, seemingly related to dup filters, LSI like tweaks, and site structure issues. Requirements WRT backlinks have changed too. This time, having lots of backlinks did not, by itself, help highly-SEO'd sites as much as was the case in the past.
Whatever Allegra is trying to achieve, it is still grounded in the philosophical nature of the world since Florida.
| 11:58 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think caveman has made things a bit clearer in my mind.
Regarding latent semantic indexing in both Allegra and Florida.
Was LSI first introduced with Florida?
Also do people feel LSI is used solely to judge a page/surrounding pages for penalising/points off/filtering? Looking for the bad basically.
or is LSI now integral into the scoring of pages. Is a pages merit now judged on the content (related words) of linking pages and not just the anchor text of the linking pages and the title perhaps. If this is true when did it become true? (not that clear but hopefully you understand)
| This 43 message thread spans 2 pages: 43 (  2 ) > > |