homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.163.72.86
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

    
is this sandbox?
what then?
samba




msg:212159
 1:20 pm on May 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

We have a 4 years old web (pr 5), most links to it are older than one year, but... for search keyword1 keyword2 we are #8, and for search keyword 1 keyword -widget1 -otherword... we are #1.

I thought the sandbox filter applied only to new sites and/or new links, which here it's not the case. Do you have an explanation to this?

[edited by: Marcia at 11:05 pm (utc) on May 21, 2004]
[edit reason] Fixed generic keywords. [/edit]

 

Marcia




msg:212160
 11:06 pm on May 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

You're ranking #1 for one phrase and #8 for another? How is that being sandboxed?

scumm_bar2




msg:212161
 1:05 am on May 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

This is like taking the tomato and bread out of a cheese and tomato sandwich, and then asking why the cheese is the only thing left.

samba




msg:212162
 9:04 am on May 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

for widget 1 widget 2 search i rank 8
for exactly the same search widget 1 widget 2 -****xx -xxxx -xxxx -xxxx -xxxx... we rank 1

Marcia




msg:212163
 9:20 am on May 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

OK, I see what you're saying. You rank #3 for a two-word keyword phase, but if you add -asdfg to the search (it can be done up to a total of 10 words for a search) you're ranking #1.

No, that's not being sandboxed, it's something else. Sandboxing refers to new sites that are included in the index but can't rank for any keyword searches until a certain amount of time has elapsed.

samba




msg:212164
 9:35 am on May 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

Yes Marcia, that is what I mean.

Maybe it is not sandbox, but the behavior is very similar. And I don't understand why it's happening..

JudgeJeffries




msg:212165
 9:17 pm on May 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

What the hell is a sandbox anyway? I'm English and I thought that was what I spoke till I joined up here. Everyday brings me more lingual mysteries!

Marcia




msg:212166
 9:20 pm on May 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

JJ, it's a coined expression for sites being "held back" for a while.

Children are made to stay in the sandbox when they're not being allowed out to play. New sites seem to be held back for a period of time before they're allowed out on the playing field to rank for search terms.

HayMeadows




msg:212167
 5:14 am on May 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

New sites seem to be held back.

Not a new site thing anymore!

tenerifejim




msg:212168
 9:25 am on May 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

This doesn't help Samba, but the term sandbox has been used in programming for many years to describe applications that use a runtime. e.g. Java. They are 'sandboxed' from the main environment, usually for security purposes.

trillianjedi




msg:212169
 9:29 am on May 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

We have a 4 years old web (pr 5), most links to it are older than one year, but... for search keyword1 keyword2 we are #8, and for search keyword 1 keyword -widget1 -otherword... we are #1.

Back on topic, can anyone explain what is happening, and what that search is showing?

I'm curious myself, I've never understood the "nonsense filter" and what it is meant to do....

Thanks,

TJ

trillianjedi




msg:212170
 9:23 am on May 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Cough.

Surely someone here knows what this google filter is doing?

Thanks,

TJ

gniland




msg:212171
 5:05 pm on May 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

samba - what recent changes have you made to the website? any changes to the ingoing or outgoing links?

i haven't come across any new penalties lately

samba




msg:212172
 5:18 pm on May 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

We used to be #1 for years till four/five months ago, then #3, ~#6..and now #8 (with the 10 times - **** string we still are #1) . We have several domains with some crosslinking, these domains have similar ips (same range) and around 15-20% of similar content. Maybe we are suffering a penalisation due to thsese facts that didn´t affect our domains before Brandy.

decaff




msg:212173
 6:40 pm on May 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Marcia...

To extend your analogy:
"Children are made to stay in the sandbox when they're not being allowed out to play. New sites seem to be held back for a period of time before they're allowed out on the playing field to rank for search terms."

Then while one is in the "sandbox" one needs to learn how to play within these confines...keep working on your site..building out content...acquiring links until you are "released" from the sandbox...count the grains of sand...

Google deploys the "sandbox" for obvious reasons...way too much ready made, ready linked, pr rich sites showing up for only one purpose...to dominate the serps....and the some aggressive ones are for dishing out adsense...yikes..but really don't offer real value to the targeted end users..usually a bunch of jibberish...troubling

tapanti




msg:212174
 6:51 pm on May 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Samba,

My company has a similar network structure and after being #1 on many highly competitive keywords we began to drop for the main keywords and stayed #1 for the “keywords + some other term”, but not on the keywords alone.

If you are experiencing a constant drop, I'm afraid you can expect this to continue and to get even worse if you don't make some changes.

I couldn't tell you exactly what to do, as I'm experimenting myself, but so far the 3 approaches I'm testing are:

1- Consolidating all of my sites into 1 megasite

2- Eliminating excessive interlinking, basically not to use more than 1 link to a specific page per page ( widgets.html shouldn't have more than 1 link to widgets2.html )

3- Pull out the wallet and spend some money on AdWords.

So far I can tell you that the 2 last approaches have at least stopped the drop, and have even gained me back some main positions for "solo" keywords; the 3rd one, I don't know yet, but anyway, I'm convinced that consolidating everything into 1 megasite has much better "long term" benefits.

Hope this helps.

stevenb 1959




msg:212175
 10:35 pm on May 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

This sandbox is Googles way of evaluating whether a new webpage will be around for awhile. I deal with approx 30 new websites everyday and a great majority are dead within a very short period of time thus I can understand why Google does this sandbox to prevent itself from having to delist alot of dead abandoned webpages.
From my tests I have confirmed that closing new webpages with links from at least one PR 5 webpage or 2 PR werbpages of PR4 will be indexed and stay in index without disappearing. What I mean by closing new web pages is linking back and forth between web pages in question and the pages must have a relationship to each other, whether you call it theming, semantic or whatever. All I know is it works for me and I now only link to webpages that are authority for a keyphrase that is related to my website,. I in turn give them a link from a web page that is authority for a keyphrase( highly competitive in serps) of three words of which one word is of my link partners choosing. It works great for me and them. I realize if I make them strong they make me strong which is the basis of algo called share which is 180 degrees from philosophy of hoarding page rank and spam/over optimizing, etc or whatever you want to call it.
Just my 2c opinion of my analysis

samba




msg:212176
 3:44 pm on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Tapanti,

Then you are similar measures as in the case of the overoptimisation issue, aren't you?

tapanti




msg:212177
 9:58 pm on May 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Samba,

I'm not sure what measures you are talking about, but I assume they must be at least similar, as you might consider the use of excessive interlinking and the use of duplicate content/nav structure as "overoptimization".

Remember that it is not the use of a magic key what will achieve and maintain good positions on SEs, but instead it is the combination and balance maintained in the use of several optimization elements.

Remember that those elements increase or decrease in value from time to time, according to SE's momentum and your site must be flexible enough to adjust as they change.

My advice... don't worry too much about optimizing for the "momentum", but instead try to use the most balanced combination of "magic keys": balance every part of your pages for approximately 66% keyword density, always use fair marketing tactics, build a content rich site and work the hardest you can on building a strong network of high quality external links focusing on those sites relevant to your own site and always try to avoid excessive linking sites.

HarryM




msg:212178
 12:13 am on May 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

66% keyword density

...really?

samba




msg:212179
 2:01 pm on May 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

I not optimizing for the momentum, but now it's been more than four months with decreasing ranks.

I am trying the following measures to "deoptimize" my site:

- Avoid some cross-linking among domains
- Lower target keyword density.
- Erase all alt tags
- Change internal links text from "target keyword" to "home"

tapanti




msg:212180
 4:50 pm on May 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

66% keyword density

...really?

HarryM:

I know this number isn't absolute for all page areas, but according to my experience, if you stay close or below this density, you can play around with all the other optimization elements, trying to always keep them within a decent range to avoid “over-optimization”. But other than that, there's not much you can do in regards of optimizing your pages; the overall success or failure of your site will depend on many "external" tactics, as external links structure, banner and pay-per-click ads, etc.

Samba:

I am trying the following measures to "deoptimize" my site:

- Avoid some cross-linking among domains
- Lower target keyword density.
- Erase all alt tags
- Change internal links text from "target keyword" to "home"

I agree with the first two measures, but I'm not so sure about the last 2: Normal use of Alt tags doesn't seem to be damaging my SERPs, but overuse might; keywords on links text should be balanced as in any other part of the page. IMO the key is BALANCE.

Good luck.

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