☯☼☯ SEO and Non-SEO (Science-Education-Omnilogy) Forum ☯☼☯
SEO => SEO => PR (PageRank; Page Rank) => Topic started by: PageRank on August 17, 2011, 04:45:33 PM
-
Let me write for you about the other Google algorithms.
-
1. BOSTON algorithm (March 2003)
Objective: Emphasizes incoming links, targeted phrases and unique content.
Debriefing: Users report a noticeable decrease in back links. Heavily cross-loaded linked sites pay a penalty and report lower PageRank. Update favors sites with constantly updated content and impressive back links.
http://www.seo.com/blog/google-wages-war-spam/
See you later, when I'll continue to write about these Google algorithms.
-
2. CASSANDRA algorithm (April 2003)
http://www.seo.com/blog/google-wages-war-spam/
-
3. DOMINIC algorithm (May 2003)
http://www.seo.com/blog/google-wages-war-spam/
-
4. ESMERALDA algorithm (June 2003)
Objective: Gives preference to pages offering specific information to visitors. Determines where key phrases fit the hierarchy.
Debriefing: Spam is considerably less than it was after Dominic and Cassandra. The update advises users to compate link counts from Dominic and Esmeralda, which offers a fairer picture than compating Esmeralda index and pre-Dominic link counts.
http://www.seo.com/blog/google-wages-war-spam/
-
5. FLORIDA algorithm (November 2003)
Objective: Eliminated spam with simple linking and other features ensuring that tightly optimized and cleanly liked sites do really well.
Debriefing: Shows a clear progression in indexing, helping to clean up spam. Searchers' interest is given top priority. Update attempts to encourage white hat websites, which adhere to the quality requirements.
http://www.seo.com/blog/google-wages-war-spam/
-
6. AUSTIN algorithm (January 2004)
http://www.seo.com/blog/google-wages-war-spam/
-
7. BRANDY algorithm (February 2004)
Objective: Emphasizes quality content and the importance of the Latent Semantic Indexing.
Debriefing: Offers useful insights into the workings of Google. Google gives more credit to words like trust, authority, reputation, rather than branding terms.
http://www.seo.com/blog/google-wages-war-spam/
-
8. ALLEGRA algorithm (February 2005)
Objective: Identifies spam sites that rank high in the search engine.
Debriefing: Encourages users to give feedback about sites that deserve higher rankings. Many users report their websites dissapearing from the Google rankings. Some complain that a few sites with spam still receive high rankings after the update.
http://www.seo.com/blog/google-wages-war-spam/
-
9. BOURBON algorithm (May 2005)
Objective: Responds to spam complaints and re-inclusion requests.
Debriefing: The update attempts to implement strategic changes in search processes and make them more effective. Update focuses on switching from old data centers to new ones.
http://www.seo.com/blog/google-wages-war-spam/
-
10. JAGGER algorithm (October 2005)
Objective: Changes how links are valued and updated PageRank for public view. Encourages user groups to report sites employing black hat SEO techniques. Excludes spam sites from the search engine. Websites with low-value links lose rankings.
Debriefing: Many high trafficked websites turn upside down overnight.
http://www.seo.com/blog/google-wages-war-spam/
-
11. BIG DADDY algorithm (February 2006)
Objective: Changes how websites are crawled and determines PageRank by relevance of their incoming/outgoing links. Sends spam sites into a supplemental category.
Debriefing:Users notice that even after complying with Google's "help" their websites are still going "supplemental".
http://www.seo.com/blog/google-wages-war-spam/
-
12. PLUTO algorithm (August 2006)
http://www.seo.com/blog/google-wages-war-spam/
-
13. CAFFEINE algorithm (August 2009)
http://www.seo.com/blog/google-wages-war-spam/
-
14. MAYDAY algorithm (May 2010)
Objective: Implements long tail algorithm change for sites that are losing rankings on long tail keywords.
Debriefing: Websites that depend on long tail keyword searches now rank higher.
http://www.seo.com/blog/google-wages-war-spam/
-
15. PANDA algorithm (February 2011)
Objective: Designed to hit large content farms by lowering the rankings of web pages with high bounce rates and low-quality external links.
Debriefing: People are furious. Some companies lay off workers. Most content farms are hit hard. Despite this, Google remains vague about what people can do combat the Panda update. Panda affects 11% of U.S. websites.
http://www.seo.com/blog/google-wages-war-spam/
-
[Infographic] Google Wages War on Spam
Dustin Williams*, August 15, 2011
To maintain dominance in the search engine optimization market, Google constantly researches and adjusts its algorithm to provide the best search results for users. Google makes small updates all the time and these updates have become known as the Google Dance. Major algorithm updates, which have a big impact on search results, happen far less frequently. These updates are usually targeted at a specific problem, usually an area that is allowing spam to rank well in the search results. Major algorithm updates have had such an impact on search results that Webmaster World decided to start naming the updates at SES in Boston in 2003. The first update to receive a name was called the Boston update.
(http://www.seo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Google-war-on-spam-infographic.jpg)
Boston Update (March 2003) – The Boston update focused on incoming links and unique content. The result was that many webmasters reported a drop in backlinks and a corresponding drop in PageRank.
Cassandra Update (April 2003) – This update focused on domain name relevance. The idea was that companies should choose a name that reflects their domain name.
Dominic Update (May 2003) – This update was named after the pizza restaurant in Boston that was visited often by PubCon attendees. The update focused on making the search process theme based, and linking a data center to a particular search. The update made it clear that each data center was meant to do different things.
Esmerelda Update (June 2003) – The third in a series of updates that gave preference to pages that gave more specific information to a visitor. The update revealed that internal pages within a website may have better relevance for the Dominic update, which seemed to give the homepage preference to even searches that were aimed at a specific query. Users reported that spam was considerably less than after the Dominic and Cassandra updates.
Florida Update (November 2003) – The update reflected Google’s shift from simple filters to an attempt to understand contextually the scope of the search and potential search results. The update cleaned up spam with simple linking and other features that gave more weight to well optimized and cleanly linked sites. Webmasters welcomed the update and it showed that Google was giving top priority to the searchers’ interests. The update was an attempt to encourage white hat websites, which adhered to the quality requirements.
Austin Update (January 2004) – The update focused on a practice called Google Bombing, where people manipulated the system to produce misleading results. The focus shifted to sites with minimal keyword density and good internal linking. Relevant links were given more weight in that sites that linked to other sites in a similar industry did better in the search results.
Brandy Update (February 2004) – Google placed more emphasis on words like trust, authority and reputation. Update showed that providing relevant information is the key. There was greater importance placed on the quality of content on a website. Google also stressed the importance of Latent Semantic Indexing.
Allegra Update (February 2005) – This was an attempt by Google to identify spam sites that still managed to rank high in the search results. Google asked users to give feedback about sites that actually deserved higher rankings but did not receive them. Users complained that their sites disappeared from the search results and that some spam sites still ranked well.
Bourbon Update (May 2005) – Google launched this update in response to spam complaints and re-inclusion requests. Strategic changes in the process were implemented to make it more effective. The update also focused on moving from old data centers to new ones.
Jagger Update (October / November 2005) – Google encouraged users to give feedback concerning websites that used black hat SEO strategies to rank well. Sites which were found to be using such techniques were removed from the search results. Google cleaned up canonical problems and focused on relevance in reciprocal linking.
Big Daddy (February 2006) – Google focused on inbound and outbound links. Sites that have very low trust in links, or linked out to many spam sites saw pages disappear from the index. Spam sites were moved into a supplemental category in the search results. Users noticed that even after complying with Google’s “help” that their websites were still going “supplemental.”
Pluto Update (August 2006) – Update focused on backlinks reported by Google. There were no significant changes in search engine results.
Caffeine Update (August 2009) – Update focused on infrastructure to allow Google to better index information online, and do it much faster. It enabled deeper processing, which allowed Google to deliver more relevant search results. This update eventually allowed Google to introduce page speed as a ranking factor.
Mayday Update (May 2010) – Google launched update that focused on long tail traffic.
Panda Update (February 2011) – Google cracked down on content farms and sites that had low quality, thin or scraped content. Focus was placed on unique content and content depth. Many websites were affected by the update. Most content farms got hit hard. The Panda update has been rolled out in several steps throughout the year.
Major updates from Google were typically focused on improving search results and the ability to index information on the Internet. Google has also launched updates to give more information to users and improve the overall experience. These updates include:
Universal Search (May 2007) – Universal Search ranked images, videos, news websites and other results into the same search results pages. The feature allowed people to search everything on a specific topic.
Real-Time Search (December 2009) – Google incorporated information from sources like Twitter, Facebook and blogs into its search results, giving users the ability to find the most recent information on trends about a certain topic.
Google Instant (September 2010) – Google Instant took what users typed and completed it with the most likely string of words. The result was a smarter, faster search engine that was interactive, predictive and powerful.
Google Places (October 2010) – Places were Google’s new local search results that organized information based on location. The results allowed users to easily decide where to go.
http://www.seo.com/blog/google-wages-war-spam/
_________
* Dustin- (http://www.seo.com/wp-content/uploads/userphoto/dustin.jpg) is a Utah SEO specialist who has been actively involved with web design and website promotion since 2001. In 2004 he was hired full-time to promote and optimize a website of an Internet based retail company. In the summer of 2007, he joined the experienced team of SEO specialists at SEO.com. He has spent much time studying search engine optimization in various web master forums, blogs and other resources on the web. He enjoys seeing the results of applying his knowledge to market websites and has seen much success from his efforts. Dustin currently works as the Senior SEO Analyst at SEO.com.http://www.seo.com/author/dustin/
-
An algorithm to solve the all pairs shortest path problem in a sparse weighted, directed graph. First, it adds a new node with zero weight edges from it to all other nodes, and runs the Bellman-Ford algorithm to check for negative weight cycles and find h(v), the least weight of a path from the new node to node v. Next it reweights the edges using the nodes' h(v) values. Finally for each node, it runs Dijkstra's algorithm and stores the computed least weight to other nodes, reweighted using the nodes' h(v) values, as the final weight. The time complexity is O(V²log V + VE).
-
The Page rank has a vital role to increase traffic to your site. The site above all are high page rank. But one need more time to get the links from these sites.
If you have no free time to do that we are for you and providing one way link building service (http://"http://selfservebacklinks.com
") in cheap rate.