|Beating the penalty effect|
All my sites are old and indexed.
Thinking about new sites. Will high quality content sites get indexed quickly? Is anyone doing anything to get indexed quickly?
There is rumor they are working on a search engine that has been reworked from the ground up. Here is what I know about this rumor that is based on a conversation with a google sales rep:
1) They will be using a 10 point system
2) Links will only represent one of these points
3) One of the key features is the capability to make judgements about the quality of the content on the page
I think maybe it's true the search engine is in need of improvemements and they are scrambling to rebuild everything. In the mean time, I think its going to be a bummer for new sites, and its probably best to focus efforts on building traffic from Yahoo and MSN, but hopefully after this is all over, Google will come back stronger than ever.
I think with the news that MSN is planning to give google the greatest challenge they have ever faced, Google is moving much of their engineering team's focus on the rebuild. This is why there are fewer updates and improvements. Basically, they are just using the sandbox to minimize spam, rather than trying to use more creative means that are less cold hearted.
It's kind of like when you are building a new site. Why continue to add content and products to the old site when you are going to have to do it all over again on the new site?
So I think very little will change until next Spring (regretfully).
>>>I'm not so sure this is workable either.
It does work but links still take a while to have an effect.I wouldn't jump to conclusions about Bretts links at the bottom of this page.
Google can't compete with Microsoft regardless of the technology. You have one company run by businessman and another by engineers. Take your pick at who will win.
|3) One of the key features is the capability to make judgements about the quality of the content on the page. |
In what way, I wonder...
|Google can't compete with Microsoft regardless of the technology. You have one company run by businessman and another by engineers. Take your pick at who will win. |
It is also a matter of economics, he who is willing and can afford to outspend the best of his competitors will win everytime. Of course, we also know who has the most money to spend.
|...we have just decided that it is better to wait for a year before showing people new websites that are being produced. That way we can safely say that we provide the most mature results on the 'net." |
That pretty much sums it up. Maybe they truly believe they are somehow doing some good by not scoring new sites, but it would be awfully hard to publicly explain the reasoning behind this.
"Since we are unable to fight aggressive search engine marketers we have been forced to no longer rank new sites for common queries. Even though the web is growing at an incredible rate, we feel that it does not adversely affect our results to never show new sites"
We are broken and cannot index the web anymore so we were forced to stop allowing new content and to remove millions of pages from large sites.
Of course, a few that are out of touch here will say, "new sites should never rank". If you honestly believe that, you are not in the software industry! Hodling sites in niche software areas back for 5+ months is absurd. There are also those who seem to think that new sites are getting in on "real" terms. I have a large monetary reward for anyone who can show me ONE SINGLE SITE that has been launched in the past 3 months that is ranking for a competetive phrase. (For those who do not know what competetive means, it is a keyword that people are constantly spamming to rank on.)
Some people on here are saying that to beat the sandbox you get links 2-3 months before you want to go live and such. However, I have heard things that sites aren't sandboxed, rather the links pointing to your site are sandboxed and don't help you until a couple of months, regardless of how old the site is.
What do you guys think, sandboxing links or sites?
Again, it's not that simple:
1 incoming link to site a, new domain, number 1 in serps after 5 days for 1 term, has stayed there. 2 word search phrase but very specific.
Site B, on the other hand, rebranded domain, 301 from old domain, lots of new links, sandboxed apparently. Would I have been better off not creating a whole pile of links to the site? Maybe so.
There's something slightly more complicated going on than the generic word sandbox, for a while I thought maybe the sandboxing of inbound links was it, but again, not consistently, maybe it's a whole bunch of new incoming links, that might be what triggers that, since really only SEO types and slashdot victims and so on will ever suddenly get a whole bunch of incoming links at once?
Re Brett's links to BBS, take a closer look at this page before you make deductions like that. Use Firefox user agent switcher, WebmasterWorld likes to hold its page rank as close as possible, doesn't let any slip out that I am aware of.
|1 incoming link to site a, new domain, number 1 in serps after 5 days for 1 term, has stayed there. 2 word search phrase but very specific. |
But does it pass the 'fuzzy pink sock puppet test'? It's not so much the number of words but the competition. I bet you could rank for 'ishkabible' or 'whackadoodle' without any problem.
|Re Brett's links to BBS, take a closer look at this page before you make deductions like that. Use Firefox user agent switcher, WebmasterWorld likes to hold its page rank as close as possible, doesn't let any slip out that I am aware of. |
Agreed...a redirect is being used, but red.cgi is still having pagerank passed to it, and then passing that pagerank to bestBBS.
>That pretty much sums it up. Maybe they truly believe they are somehow doing some good by not scoring new sites, but it would be awfully hard to publicly explain the reasoning behind this.
Depends on what the search is. For example, if the search was "Plato philosophy" there is good reason to suspect that if I were to put up a site tomorrow about that, it likely wouldn't be as good as the older sites. And, I actually do know quite a bit on that topic; philosophy is what I studied at college. However, I honestly doubt that my content would be better than what can be found on notable .edu sites. Almost surely my SEO skills are at least an order of magnitude better than .edu webmasters, and without the sandbox it is quite feasible that I could rank high on that SERP if I tried. I'm not sure it would be a Good Thing if I could easily rank well for that SERP just because I know SEO.
|Depends on what the search is. For example, if the search was "Plato philosophy" there is good reason to suspect that if I were to put up a site tomorrow about that, it likely wouldn't be as good as the older sites. |
And this is a good example of old information that does not change frequently, but there are plenty of areas where new sites or new information are important, and google is missing the boat:
new bands and new tours by old bands
new political events
Basically, if you have a new product, service, band, invention, event, war, or event, don't make a new site or even a new page! Depend on other sites that already exist.
Or go buy some Google Adwords. Google Adwords are the solution to the sandbox effect.
rfgdxm1, have you entirely missed the point? What on earth are you talking about?
OK, you are right, there is not much new info on Plato. So this is a wonderful reason to hold back every new site. What about a site about nanotechnology, a new software product, a fan site for a new celebrity, a new store with incredible deals, a new search engine better than google, etc...?
Geesh, sometimes I wonder if you are just posting for the sake of argument or you truly believe in what you are saying...
BTW, why couldn't a new site about Plato be better than the existing crud out there?
If a site is on topic to the search, it shouldn't matter when it went up. Sandbox is simply Google's way of dealing with their inability to produce quality SERPs. Spend the time blocking spam and crap I see on the first page and less trying to knock down SEOs.
You know, this experience somewhat mirrors what happened with AltaVista some years back.
At one time, you could submit a page, and the next day find it ranking well in the AltaVista serps if you optimized. This evolved into an avalanche of doorway page spam which overwhelmed AV. For months on end, they didn't index new sites or pages to the utter consternation of webmasters and SEOs. In short order AV's serps became almost useless.
We all know what happened to AV. Could it be that Google has forgotten that lesson?
>rfgdxm1, have you entirely missed the point? What on earth are you talking about?
>OK, you are right, there is not much new info on Plato. So this is a wonderful reason to hold back every new site. What about a site about nanotechnology, a new software product, a fan site for a new celebrity, a new store with incredible deals, a new search engine better than google, etc...?
>Geesh, sometimes I wonder if you are just posting for the sake of argument or you truly believe in what you are saying...
"posting for the sake of argument"? OK, let me address you criticisms. Precisely how much of the WWW is "a site about nanotechnology, a new software product, a fan site for a new celebrity, a new store with incredible deals, a new search engine better than google, etc...?" I'll put a .jpg of me eating a plate of crow on my main site, and post a link to it here, if you can prove this is >0.1% of the WWW. If the sandbox kills less than 1 in a 1000 legit sites, this can be considered acceptable collateral damage. Spam is rampant on the WWW, and someone has to lose to fight it.
Looking over at Netcraft, it seems about 3 million active sites have been added to the web in the last 6 months. Would you call filtering 3 million sites significant?
I just found this although many of you may already be familiar with it.
Check out #5
How many of those 3 million new sites show up when typing in their company name and hitting the "I feel stupid for trusting Google" button. I know mine doesn't, not even with quotes. Yet Google has 540 pages indexed which include the company name in the title, and all the URL's include the company name (that's why I got the new domain).
|Google excels at producing extremely relevant results, and flat out nails many queries such as company names. |
|If the sandbox kills less than 1 in a 1000 legit sites, this can be considered acceptable collateral damage. Spam is rampant on the WWW, and someone has to lose to fight it. |
The sandbox is killing a darn site more than 1 in a 1000 new sites. It is killing ALL of the new sites that I have created during the last few months. Where did you get 1 in a 1000?
If the sandbox is a response to spam then it is ineffective. Holding new, quality sites back for up to a year is unforgiving, inefficient and just plain wrong. It's time the press made something of it. Google has got shareholders to consider now so it's time to put their college dorm "principles" away and face the fact that only manual editing will clean things up effectively.
What is so wrong with manual editing anyway? They could outsource a team of people to do this no problem. If offending sites started disappearing, even gradually, and Google told the world that is was manually deleting offenders what do you think the net effect would be? I know that I would be going through my sites with a fine tooth comb to ensure that they were whiter than white. Here's another "press release".
Forget that you are a webmaster for a moment. If you are Joe Public (or a shareholder!) how does this read?
Google Takes Decisive Action on Spammers in Massive Internet Clean Up
Search Engine says that ALL Offensive Websites are to be removed
A spokeswoman at Google's Mountain View, California HQ yesterday announced that they are to take pioneering and decisive action on spam and offensive websites in an action that will greatly increase the quality of sites that they make available on the Internet through their search engine results pages.
Janey Doe said that a new watchdog team has been formed to scan the net and delete criminal and offensive web pages from their index of over 4 billion. Spamming sites will also be deleted. These are sites that deliberately use techniques that contravene Google's quality guidelines to artificially increase their position in the search engine results.
"We believe that we have to be seen to be doing something about this problem." said Ms Doe, "We have a responsibility to our shareholders to ensure that we deliver the best results. The search engines have been huffing and puffing about this for long enough now and we have to recognise that the halcyon days of totally "natural" search results are in the past. Only manual intervention is now going to be effective. This also means that we can concentrate our technology on indexing and delivering the best search results without having to be concerned with filtering out the spam and wasting resources on trying to automatically combat offending sites."
Informed observers say that this is a major undertaking but that it will prove effective. A spokesman from WidgetWorld said that the net effect will probably be that when webmasters start to see their sites being banned by Google they will ensure that those remaining DO comply with the quality guidelines. This will have a massive effect, virtually overnight.
The cost to Google is thought to be minimal, much of it being financed by a reduction in the R&D costs that are necessary in the aforementioned effort to automatically filter out this spam.
|The sandbox is killing a darn site more than 1 in a 1000 new sites. It is killing ALL of the new sites that I have created during the last few months. Where did you get 1 in a 1000? |
He meant that only 1 in a 1000 fell under mfishy's examples including nanotech, new celeb, etc, etc.
Sorta like only 1 in a 1000 of the posts in this thread are related to "beating" the sandbox.
So why not beat the sandbox to death and implement manual penalties, which are evidently the only way to beat the spammers?
Sandbox is bringing business back into the real world.
A new business or a new website of quality takes time. Even if you have worked in that sector, a few months, maybe more, is a reasonable time to iron out all the problems and make the site really useful. A new shop in a high street would expect to pay for advertising, rent, training staff etc. etc. to give the service that the public should expect. This takes time and is a factor of establishing a new business.
Google may now take the same attitude. Why should they show a new site that is untested? If they know the site has been around for a reasonable time, it is more likely to be of some quality. If after a set period it has been linked to, only then will they take the links as a recomendation. It may slowly rank up the pr flow from that link the longer it exists.
This approach has the added advantage of denying seo instant success, which is the preserve of the few. It is also only part of the equation. The links need to be relevant, hence the effectiveness of hilltop. To get out of the sandbox, you not only have to wait for your links and site to mature, but they have to be relevant links.
I think this was applied last December. All new sites are on probation until the following happens:
1) Links in mature with age.
2) Links in only are counted at run time, via hilltop. This explains toolbar pr being pointless.
3) A site has been given time to mature with experience.
Sandbox is all about maturity. The 'fresh content' and 'news' issue is addressed by the small honeymoon period given to new content, however, hilltop is still applied. Older sites have an advantage with news and new content, and so they should, they are more established and the advantage is given via hilltop and the established links they already have. If there is no other site but a new one carrying the keywords, it will rank well by default. There is also Google news to look at.
A new examination and review of Pluto is not within the remit of Google. It cannot assume the new content is worthy of immediately displacing the old views. As with commercial sites, it will have to earn its position with links in and time. However, established sites are still the root of providing a user with access to new sites, if they link to them. Google will wait for an authority site to link to it and if the link remains for sometime, the new site is deemed worthy to have that link counted.
I suspect many people are assuming they are in sandbox when they are not. They don't get traffic because they don't have the relevant links, evaluated by hilltop. Google, in other words, is letting its established sites decide (via humans) which sites they should take seriously in the longer term.
The new factor in seo is time and relevant links. The assumption that a spider knows a good site when it see's one has been reduced, and replaced by the assumption that a trusted site knows when a new site is good or not. This has introduced a more human review, especially if you start to ignore recipricol links.
The other factor that makes people think they are in sandbox when they are not is duplicate content. Google has ranked up its algo for two main reasons:
1) Reduce the number of directories and affiliates using the same feeds.
2) To identify one way links that are part of a feed rather than a genuine 'vote'.
The combination of sandbox, duplicate filters and time is the test for a site to be ranked well.
|The new factor in seo is time and relevant links. |
This is simply false. A page with loads of 100% irrelevant backlinks ranks every time, it is just held back for a few months. People seem to miss this point every time.
A site will go from nowhere to #1, once it is released, with the VERY SAME LINKS. This is not hilltop at play, rather google admitting that they cannot keep up with people trying to game them.
|If the sandbox kills less than 1 in a 1000 legit sites, this can be considered acceptable collateral damage. |
How has the sandbox improved serps? The same garbage that was there 5 months ago is still there - minus anything new, good or bad.
<<if you can prove>>
That is silly and I would imagine you know that. It is odd that someone who has posted around 4000 times in google news forum....errr..forget it
>google admitting that they cannot keep up with people trying to game them
How could they? Google has one algorithm to build the index. That one algo has to try to figure out what pages, that were published using thousands of algorithms and SEO tricks, are high quality. They could probably knock out a lot of "directories" using duplicate content if that's what they wanted to do, but there are all sorts of text munging games being played.
Mhes you make some good points but ...
<Why should they show a new site that is untested?>
... does not make sense.
Who says that the site is untested and untested by whom? They should show it if it is providing content relevant to the search - full stop! Here is Google's own claim about their technology.
|Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful ... |
... Google is now widely recognized as the world's largest search engine -- an easy-to-use free service that usually returns relevant results in a fraction of a second.
Relevant results in a fraction of a second? This is a deliberately misleading claim when they know full well that they are deliberately preventing sites with relevant results from appearing for up to one year. I note that they use the word "usually" but they should be informing people that fresh websites less than 6 months old will not "usually" feature in the results regardless of their worth and relevance. Failing to keep their users informed in this way while making these claims is totally wrong, perhaps bordering on the unethical.
No, I am sorry but I am afraid that Google are becoming a law unto themselves in this respect. If it is a spam prevention measure then they should be up front about it. The problem is they can't because they don't want people to know that their results are stale. Perhaps they are not lying but they are definitely being economical with the truth.
|At one time, you could submit a page, and the next day find it ranking well in the AltaVista serps if you optimized. This evolved into an avalanche of doorway page spam which overwhelmed AV. For months on end, they didn't index new sites or pages to the utter consternation of webmasters and SEOs. In short order AV's serps became almost useless. |
We all know what happened to AV. Could it be that Google has forgotten that lesson?
Good point, Go60Guy. It's still a mystery to me why Google is doing this but as soon as I find an answer to the question on how to beat the sandbox, I will certainly share it. For now, it seems the only way go is to carry on developing and publishing sites and hope Google starts to recognise them within the next few years.....
|Pass the Dutchie|
The reason for Sandbox is to scan and check new sites, remove the spam and release the potential of 'clean' sites over a probation period. Before the sandbox effect, spammy sites were and are (in theory) ‘monitored’ and routed out of the index over time. The sandbox effect (Initial Filtering System) is an attempt to not let the cr*p in in the first place...automated sifting if you will. Perhaps this process will eventually require human intervention but if the IFE works then it will help boot spam and will be a hell of a lot cheaper for Google then if they were to manually check all new sites.
Over time the IFS process will have to become more accurate and the whole process must speed up. Both MSN and Yahoo are way ahead on this one as their entire indexing process is much faster and the results are far cleaner. In Google’s defence 95% of spammers are primarily concentrating their efforts on Google so it’s hard to draw that line, however results speak for themselves. If you want to know how well your site will do in the next update…check the current results in Yahoo and MSN ; )
At the end of the day spam is a much greater threat to search engines then delaying the `full´ inclusion of new sites and currently for Google it is a toss up between the two. Some may disagree but my reply to some provious posts in this thread may sound a little something like this.....
Question: What about new sites selling new software?
Ans: New software will always appear in the index on established sites.
Question: What about new restaurants and bars?
Ans: Get your new sites listed in guides and directory sites until the probation period has passed.
Question: What about news, political and current events sits?
Ans: Google News
> A page with loads of 100% irrelevant backlinks ranks every time, it is just held back for a few months.
Not in my experience.... show me an example (but not your fluffy pink widget one :)
Pass the Duchie what you say makes some sense but it does not explain why Google is not telling its users that they are being provided with results that are stale and that they will not find any fresh websites amongst them.
|If the sandbox kills less than 1 in a 1000 legit sites, |
If so, Google could safely extend the time-to-rank to, say, 5 years with no major consequences, eh?
Reminds me of Wisenut, except with Google you can at least get in with pages on established domains.
If another search engine wanted to make a move to the top, now sure would be the time.