| 7:47 am on Jun 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Your site theme and content are the main reason your site will be sandboxed.
The last 2 sites I built (in the last 2 months);
Both are absolutely clean with very few links and one is at #1 in G's serps the other nowhere to be found, though fully indexed.
Just build a clean site, let links come naturally, don't have too many outgoing links and hope for the best. This has helped me avoid the sandbox twice, however depending on keywords there can be no avoiding the sandstorm
| 8:52 am on Jun 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
phantombookman just wondering if it is a competitive search term you site is in the serps for? I doubt it.
| 4:02 pm on Jun 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
anyone on the sitewide link issue?
| 4:40 pm on Jun 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>>Is there any evidence that sitewide links lead to being sandboxed?
A lot of anecdotal evidence, yes. It's not that they are sitewide, but that it doesn't look natural. Google is looking at natural patterns of development.
On a sidenote:
Many of the search engines are also looking at the authoritativeness of the link pointing to you, which takes into account who is linking to who is linking to you.
I remarked on this to an MSN Search person at pubcon NO, that some links will not result in a spidering and his response was that it was probably because of the authority factor. Not saying that's gospel or anything, just reporting what he told me.
| 5:38 pm on Jun 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|phantombookman just wondering if it is a competitive search term you site is in the serps for? I doubt it. |
Just under 6 million matches for main 2 word search term, so fairly competitive but not Britney Spears I grant you.
The real point being, the site that was sandboxed has sub 2 million matches.
I also had one site in the sandbox for a year and another for just 2 months, both same link structures etc. I am convinced that if, due to keywords or site theme/content, you trip the sandbox then it's unavoidable. Links etc (unless getting 100's a week) will have no affect either way
| 11:45 pm on Jun 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think gradual linking is the key. You may want to try adcaliber...it looks new, but it lets you gradually grow backlinks.
| 11:46 pm on Jun 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
From my point of view, if I were to launch a page and it instantly started off with 100 identically anchored text links on DIFFERENT sites, I would say that is much more unnatural(spam) than 100 links all coming from the same site. I really don't see one set of sitewide links as 'unnatural', but you believe SE's see it that way? If so, I had better start over on these sites before I waste even more time with the proverbial 'wait and see' method.
| 4:37 am on Jun 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
What is this AdCaliber thing?
| 8:29 am on Jun 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
try going there with the .com
| 12:01 pm on Jun 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>> if I were to launch a page and it instantly started off with 100 identically anchored text links on DIFFERENT sites, I would say that is much more unnatural(spam) than 100 links all coming from the same site.
Either you get 100 identical text links on "different" sites, or on the "same" site, I believe your new site will be sandboxed anyway. Unnatural link growth is not good as you know it, but only 100 links at start up are trivial and not an alarming number. Once you get your PR in next update, you should start building links in more natural way and wait for 6-9 months to see effect.