Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

PhilC · 12-03-2003, 07:28 AM

I've been doing some extensive study into Florida, and I am now becoming convinced that it is *not* an seo filter.

The results that we see when we use the -garbage search method are the 'normal' results that we would have seen had the Florida changes not been implemented. They are current and have been updated, although many serps will look the same as before Florida.

The results that we see when we don't use the -garbage search method are a different set entirely. Pages are not dropped from the 'normal' results, as an seo filter would do. It's a completely different set.

I'm basing this conclusion on my examination of all the results that Google will show for both 'normal' (-garbage) and 'Florida' searches for a number of searchterms. For instance, one searchterm produced 869 'normal' results, of which 624 did not appear in the 'Florida' results. Another has 619 missing results in 'Florida' from 924 'normal' results. That's a hell of a lot of missing listings. Judging by the URLs of some of the missing listings, e.g. a BBC page, all the missing URLs cannot have been due to tripping an seo filter, and we still see some highly SEOed pages in the top 10 of some search results.

Further evidence is that I see wild changes in the rankings between the 'normal' results and the 'Florida' ones. E.g. a BBC page is ranked over 800 in the normal results, but turns up at #1 in the Florida results. That cannot be the result of dropping some SEOed pages ahead of it. Yes, the searchterms are different when adding the -garbage element, but it's a hell of a big swing just the same.

Other searchterms also have high percentages of URLs that appear in the 'normal' results, but don't appear in the 'Florida' results, and some of the missing URLs are such that they must be squeaky clean. So I have to conclude that the Florida results are a different set entirely, and are not the normal results that have been modified by the dropping of SEOed pages.

If it's a completely different set of results, then it's not LocalRank, because LocalRank works on the original set, it doesn't produce a set of its own, and it doesn't drop pages from the set. It's much more likely to be Hilltop, a developement of Hilltop, or something along those lines.

If the change is along the lines of Hilltop, then it makes it even harder for us than we'd thought. LocalRank would have been easy to deal with but a Hilltop-like system isn't as easy, although it can be done. The quickest way to deal with it is to seo as normal, but for minor searchterms that Hilltop's system can't produce a set of results for. To understand it, see this thread:- http://www.internet-marketing-resear...pic.php?t=1993 and read the paper that John points to.

12-03-2003, 07:28 AM	#1 (permalink)
PhilC Crap Bag Join Date: 10-12-03 Posts: 1,727 iTrader: 0 / 0% Latest Blog: None	Florida theories are wrong? I've been doing some extensive study into Florida, and I am now becoming convinced that it is not an seo filter. The results that we see when we use the -garbage search method are the 'normal' results that we would have seen had the Florida changes not been implemented. They are current and have been updated, although many serps will look the same as before Florida. The results that we see when we don't use the -garbage search method are a different set entirely. Pages are not dropped from the 'normal' results, as an seo filter would do. It's a completely different set. I'm basing this conclusion on my examination of all the results that Google will show for both 'normal' (-garbage) and 'Florida' searches for a number of searchterms. For instance, one searchterm produced 869 'normal' results, of which 624 did not appear in the 'Florida' results. Another has 619 missing results in 'Florida' from 924 'normal' results. That's a hell of a lot of missing listings. Judging by the URLs of some of the missing listings, e.g. a BBC page, all the missing URLs cannot have been due to tripping an seo filter, and we still see some highly SEOed pages in the top 10 of some search results. Further evidence is that I see wild changes in the rankings between the 'normal' results and the 'Florida' ones. E.g. a BBC page is ranked over 800 in the normal results, but turns up at #1 in the Florida results. That cannot be the result of dropping some SEOed pages ahead of it. Yes, the searchterms are different when adding the -garbage element, but it's a hell of a big swing just the same. Other searchterms also have high percentages of URLs that appear in the 'normal' results, but don't appear in the 'Florida' results, and some of the missing URLs are such that they must be squeaky clean. So I have to conclude that the Florida results are a different set entirely, and are not the normal results that have been modified by the dropping of SEOed pages. If it's a completely different set of results, then it's not LocalRank, because LocalRank works on the original set, it doesn't produce a set of its own, and it doesn't drop pages from the set. It's much more likely to be Hilltop, a developement of Hilltop, or something along those lines. If the change is along the lines of Hilltop, then it makes it even harder for us than we'd thought. LocalRank would have been easy to deal with but a Hilltop-like system isn't as easy, although it can be done. The quickest way to deal with it is to seo as normal, but for minor searchterms that Hilltop's system can't produce a set of results for. To understand it, see this thread:- http://www.internet-marketing-resear...pic.php?t=1993 and read the paper that John points to.