| 1:36 pm on Sep 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
just because I started that out of topic and in topic discussion I strongly believe the future political developments they will infect the web. Don't forget Europe China and India they have more population then the whole English speaking world, I am somehow sure that lets say one day a zillioner will buy all the stocks of Google in NYSE then what?
| 1:38 pm on Sep 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
oh by the way Newton sayed "what goes up must come down"
| 1:54 pm on Sep 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I would like to hear from guys who are managing sites which were not affected with sandbox.
Do you host this new site(-s) on the same I.P (or on the same hosting) with your other sites if you have them?
| 2:44 pm on Sep 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I would like to hear from guys who are managing sites which were not affected with sandbox. |
Do you host this new site(-s) on the same I.P (or on the same hosting) with your other sites if you have them?
I started a site about 4 months ago, new domain (non-expired). Google indexed in two weeks after launch. Im on the 2nd page for competing KWs. Last month, I added 7 more sites, linked out from first domain. All landing pages were indexed within one week, the following week, all domain pages were indexed. These are all on the same IP hosted box. Im getting lots of hits from Google and Yahoo.
| 6:05 pm on Sep 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>I would like to hear from guys who are managing sites which were not affected with sandbox.
I would put it a bit differently. We have sites...um, I mean page...that have not been badly hampered by this algo, but even our our sites that never felt much pain from it are affected in some ways. And we have other new ones that have not got past it....yet. :-)
The algo is there for all pages to get past, or not. But it's like running thru water.
IMO, the more tuned in one is to the changes that occured over the last year (Florida, Austin), the closer one is to getting new sites ranked sooner rather than later.
| 7:02 am on Sep 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
i know this is off topic for this thread, but
I uploaded the index page to a brand spanking new domain, when the ftp program said "done" I went directly to the page. Voila, Adsense was perfectly on target. Theoretically, this page could also be in the serps immediately too. yet Google seems hell bent on taking it to the other extreme. I wonder why they would do thi$?
|On some of my brand new websites, months ago, AdSense didn't understand the site right away. |
OK, I guess it wasn't completely off topic.
| 8:02 am on Sep 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"I wonder why they would do thi$?"
to stop spaming,with adsence its obvious that thousands of webmasters of every range they will and are launching thousands of new sites on new keyword targeted domain I am sure those pages are have nothing to offer at the end user because they "have been made for SE" like yahoo guidelines say. Just look here at this forum I'm sure over 60-70 % running adsence to get an easy back (I don't by the way run adsence)thats why all of them are in agony, they have launch thousands of no content pages with thousands of links and wondering when they will hit the top because they know very well if they hit the top because there pages have nothing to give the user will click on the ad words so they will make the few cents EPC,is not the same case though with SEO's indeed all those Pro guys they are facing the problem of loosing there customers because of the sandbox and there job is not run adsence for the absence they optimize pages for companies ,they have now to face that confusion Google I believe is in a dilemma im sure they knew it will happen when they started adsence so that was there solution, it will be the most hard think to do in future ,to hit the top using the old ways.
| 9:36 am on Sep 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
osfp you seem to be segmenting SEO's into groups.
I beleive Googles algo changes over the past year have been to combat SEO full stop.
All of this segmentation is rubbish IMO - you are either trying to manipulate the results or not.
| 10:17 am on Sep 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
i believe it is so ,as i mention ,there are pro SEO's that there job is to optimise clients pages and there are webmasters who earn there bread from the net.Those are 2 categories,and i know each one of us in that forum earn partly its family bread from the net and all of us we are depending from Google #1 and the others #2.In those days a kid without A levels can make websites and optimise them and earn money ,the point is what kind of information you will provide to the user without content and knowledge and just spam the web with keyword targeted pages.i just want to say that to get a high position in the SE's world you need global knowledge depending of the area you are working , resources and hard job ,not only IBL recpl links and all the usual stuff.Plus the ability to update your content sometimes when needed every day.
| 4:30 pm on Sep 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Possible TV ad by a Google competitor:
Roll footage of a guy in a supermarket, pushing shopping cart to meat department, produce and dairy departments, inspecting the food.
"When you buy food, you want to make sure it's as fresh as possible."
Roll footage of guy closely inspecting "sell by" date on a package of meat, puts it in cart.
"After all, you wouldn't want to give your family anything that may have been on the shelf too long."
Roll footage of the guy inspecting, squeezing, and putting a head of lettuce in the cart.
"On an Internet search, you want to know about important new websites. Well, for about the last six months, Google has been quarantining most new websites...."
Roll footage of man lifting a jug of milk to his nose, sniffs near the cap, reacts badly to the odor.
"...and giving you the same old sites."
Roll footage of logo.
"We give you the fresh new websites, along with all those that have been on the shelf for a long time. Next search, try (insert name of competitor's search engine.)"
(Note: I make no copyright claim to this commercial advertisement, any search engine company is welcome to use it for free.)
| 5:11 pm on Sep 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I personally wouldnt care how old the website is, as long as it has the informaiton I am searching for.
They don't need to show new sites. They just need to focus on relavent content. If a new shop opens in a mall, that sells the same thing as one thats been there for years, I'd be more inclined to go tot he established site then the new bird.
| 5:22 pm on Sep 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I would definitely want to see what the new shop had to offer. This isn't really relevant though because in many cases the sandboxed sites are the only ones with a particular content set.
For instance a site about a region has the most complete information on the beaches for the lake in said region. Information about many of the beaches in the region can only be found on this site. If someone searches for 'obscure beach name' the page will show in Google. But if someone searches for 'region beaches' it is as if the site doesn't exist, even though the content clearly outweighs anything else around.
| 5:44 pm on Sep 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Honestly I'm not gonna read 29 pages of relies... anyone want to summarize this thread?
| 6:36 pm on Sep 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There is probably a penalty on new websites and/or new links causing sites to become slower to rank highly for some/all search terms. This penalty may or may not apply to all keywords and may or may not, gradually or suddenly, lessen its penalising effect on those sites or links with time.
Thats about it!
| 8:08 pm on Sep 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>I personally wouldnt care how old the website is, as long as it has the informaiton I am searching for.
They don't need to show new sites<
Well bit of a major sports event going on;
search for "ryder cup latest " or even "rider cup latest" take a look at the top ranking site/s
Then take a look at a "main rival" search engine for the same thing. I think they really do need to show "new sites'at the very least new pages"
Ok widgets are different, but this gives a perfect example how poor g is right now, widgets - I'd like to see new widgets, some may be cheaper, some sites may be more user friendly etc etc
| 8:55 pm on Sep 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Livenomadic, the thread was actually titled 'sandbox' originally, not penalty blah blah, that's a much more accurate term, since penalty implies an action on the part of google in reaction to the activities of people putting up new sites on the web. It's very unlikely that this is the case, much more likely is that due to highly debated causes google is no longer willing, or perhaps able, to handle new content quickly, thus creating what's much more accurately called the sandbox affect, which itself is not consistently applied, since some people have put up sites that got listed quickly, others no. The end result of this is that the freshness and accuracy that google built its reputation on is now a rapidly receding memory, but one that its competitors probably won't be forgetting. Best estimates seem to indicate that the more money the keywords are, the tighter the sandbox, or penalty is, this is what makes the suggestion that this is an antispam measure highly questionable to put it mildly, since miraculously new sites with less targetted keywords seem to be avoiding this 'penalty'.
| 9:17 pm on Sep 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
thanks netnerd and isitreal!
| 8:07 am on Sep 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I sent an email to google outlining what i thought was wrong with their current policy regarding this. I gave them a list of search terms where my site clearly should rank in the top five. These are not opinions as the pages represent the "only" relevant content on the web (barring any other sandboxed sites that may exist). They gave me a completely unsatisfactory reply. Below is the email that I may (or may not) send back to them.
I think you have missed the point.
Please note that we do not manually assign keywords to sites, nor can webmasters submit a list of preferred keywords for which their sites will appear.
I never asked for either of these. I gave you a list of queries where your search engine comes up short. Do with it what you will but don't try to pass the blame.
Our crawler analyzes the content of webpages in our index to determine the search queries for which
they're most relevant.
So your crawler (not the algorithym?) found the content to be relevant while it was on example.com, but when it was moved to example2.com, it was no longer relevant?! Perhaps you could have someone that can understand my previous email read it and give a suitable response, instead of the canned 'blah, blah, try adwords' response.
In addition to our free web search results, we offer advertising on our site. Our AdWords program offers a fast and affordable way to promote your website to your target audience using keywords you select. Within minutes, your ad could appear on Google.
I tried. Signed up on Friday, emailed on Saturday asking why the ads still don't show up. Still have had no reply, nor do the ads show up. On Monday if I have not received a satisfactory response I will-
1. Drop Adsense altogether from all sites I control.
2. Demand my $5 Adwords activation fee back or chargeback the credit card. I know it's only $5, it will probably take $50 of my time to get it back. That alone should tell you something about how I feel about your currrent performance.
My Real Name
| 8:24 am on Sep 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It's tempting, Powdork. Those canned responses are just a waste of time and are designed to make people's blood boil.
| 11:55 am on Sep 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Our crawler analyzes the content of webpages in our index to determine the search queries for which
they're most relevant"
Interesting - implies that Google IS using a (finite) database of queries to assign relevence of a page at crawl time.
Powdork - do your example2.com pages have ToolBar PR - if so are they the same as your example1.com pages?
| 2:30 pm on Sep 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Example2.com used to be a subdirectory of example1.com. The entire subdirectory was 301'd to the new domain, which was crawled completely within 2 weeks of the move. It was approx 3 weeks after the move that the pages from the subdirectory of example1 were removed from the index.
|Powdork - do your example2.com pages have ToolBar PR - if so are they the same as your example1.com pages? |
| 2:15 pm on Sep 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Has anyone been able to elucidate a possible direct relationship between TSPR (topic sensitive page rank) and "sandboxing."
If they're going to use TSPR, they're going to need a lot more pages in the index in order to get it right -- maybe this is the reason for delay -- A tardy and hesitant attempt at taking a more involved view of the web?
| This 292 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 292 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  ) |