| 3:50 pm on Sep 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
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.
|Pass the Dutchie|
| 4:01 pm on Sep 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
MHes: btw nice post.
|....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. |
No search engine would say that their results are stale. Google results are in fact 24 hours fresh for new content on existing sites. It’s the new sites that, under the current conditions, will have to wait 6-8 months and I hope that as they fine tune this new filters this figure will be reduced I hope as of next update.
In an ideal world spam would just be the stuff found in tins and new sites would have their 'rightful' position in the SERPS 24 hours after indexing.
| 4:11 pm on Sep 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|If so, Google could safely extend the time-to-rank to, say, 5 years with no major consequences, eh? |
Exactly. For those that think all is well with a quarantine on any new domains, how long would be ok? Obvioulsy you feel half a year won't negatively affect SERPS?
| 4:11 pm on Sep 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|> 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 :)
Sure, I'll show you an example. Try searching for hotels in virtually any top vacation spot. You'll see a number of examples (not all) of purchased reciprocal links, massive link exchange programs, and just pure bologna.
| 4:38 pm on Sep 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Nope, all hotel sites ranking well have relevant links.
Sticky me an example and I will show you the back links.
| 5:40 pm on Sep 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Re the DMOZ listing having a bearing on Rank:
I would agree. I have posted 5 sites since March of this year, some of them new and some were redesigned. Out of these the only ones that have started to gain PR quickly were redesigned sites that were already in DMOZ and the Google Directory and both had new domain names and new hosting services too--they both went to PR 4 within 4-5 months. The others didn't start gaining PR until 6 months after getting online.
Another site I redesigned kept the original domain name but had massive improvement in SEO (original site had all important data in images, JS navigation, each page had the same name and nothing but the name was appearing in the SERPs) but it's still only PR 3 after 3 months and original site was not in ODP and this site had been on-line for many years.
One site I designed about 2 years ago is doing very well (Pr 6). It got into DMOZ before they started taking a year to list sites (july 02) and this site only has 6 pages with very little content and they haven't changed since it was designed. I think it's because other big sites are linking to this site and we have not returned the links. This site was also in position one in the Google directory for it's category for awhile which brought more traffic and thus links.
Other sites I designed last year (about 18 months ago) are still not in DMOZ and not climbing in PR (only at 4). they are all original sites with unique content, all validated and designed according to Google guidelines and most have up to 100 backlinks--no illegal code either. Some are doing quite will in Yahoo/Msn and others are doing well in Google for their main keywords--but other than being in DMOZ or not, I see no other pattern where it affects rank.
As someone else said--it seems to take 6 months to crawl out of Google's sandbox and I would add to that unless it's a redesigned site and previously in DMOZ to begin with.
Re the ‘sandbox effect’ only affecting new websites and not new pages on an existing website.
I would agree. I post new pages to my site about once or twice a month and within 2 days I can find them in Google. If I pay attention to keyword density they rise in rank quickly.
| 5:51 pm on Sep 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>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?
Where do you get that it is more than 1 in a thousand? And how many sites created in the last few months are really significant?
|Pass the Dutchie|
| 5:55 pm on Sep 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|For those that think all is well with a quarantine on any new domains, how long would be ok? |
Site quarantine is a joke and if the algo was near perfect it would not be necessary.
(A) New sites fully index in 1 month = spam overload (Google rendered useless)
(B) Index sites fully in 8-12 months = Severe reduction on newly submitted spam sites.
Despite my new sites currently underperforming (in just Google), and lots of deadlines extended I would still accept option B for the sake of the SERPS quality. I can't stand the amount of heavy, over obvious spam in the first 3 pages of most of Google results. If the spam were removed then it would make room for what people really want and this has to be the number 1 priority.
Everyone including Google know that if the algos used by Yahoo/MSN are more efficient and the SERPs returned accurate results, both old and new, then somewhere down the line we would all be discussing Yahoo/MSN.
There is allot riding on Google to sort this out and with the biggest day in its history now behind them (just) and all that new investment capital I am quietly optimistic.
As SE history has shown, the very things that make a SE great are the very thing that bring them down.
| 5:58 pm on Sep 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>If so, Google could safely extend the time-to-rank to, say, 5 years with no major consequences, eh?
No. However, hardly anyone would notice if the time-to-rank were 6 months. This world wouldn't be significantly worse if any site I created today took 6 months to rank well in Google.
>Exactly. For those that think all is well with a quarantine on any new domains, how long would be ok? Obvioulsy you feel half a year won't negatively affect SERPS?
| 6:57 pm on Sep 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
scenario: 5 months ago john doe created a well-designed site that was fully prepared to handle breaking info on the 2004 summer olympics site. by the time it got past the new site filter, the olympics were over.
i am sure there are millions of other scenarios that would apply as well. your particular areas of interest may stay static over long periods of time, but you need to look further.
| 7:06 pm on Sep 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>i am sure there are millions of other scenarios that would apply as well. your particular areas of interest may stay static over long periods of time, but you need to look further.
But by and large, and for the most part, am I not right? The hypothetical site you mention is just acceptable collateral damage.
| 7:25 pm on Sep 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I still feel that the sandbox is more about Google's inability to stop spam than it is a good way to make a search engine. Let's face it, a good search engine could care less how new your site is if it is on topic.
If they put a sandbox on new sites, Google becomes more of an encyclopedia and not a place for new information.
Although everyone has these grand theories on why Google implements the sandbox and gives them credit, I feel it is more a defensive strategy because they can't stop spam. They are too busy with other crap to fix the core of their problem, their algo.
| 7:30 pm on Sep 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Where do you get that it is more than 1 in a thousand? And how many sites created in the last few months are really significant? |
Well, DazzlinDonna just gave you a great example. There are many others where sites are created that are highly topical. Are we to assume that topical sites are now just to be disregarded because it has been decreed by Google?
|Although everyone has these grand theories on why Google implements the sandbox and gives them credit, I feel it is more a defensive strategy because they can't stop spam. They are too busy with other crap to fix the core of their problem, their algo. |
Absolutely! In many commercial areas they continue to display crappy, spammy results and affiliate sites but they won't let new sites with good content in. Got to be something wrong here :(
|Pass the Dutchie|
| 7:52 pm on Sep 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|If they put a sandbox on new sites, Google becomes more of an encyclopedia and not a place for new information. |
So in other words you are saying that established sites carry old content? Lets not forget that new sites make up only a fraction of the entire net's new content base.
|Although everyone has these grand theories on why Google implements the sandbox and gives them credit, I feel it is more a defensive strategy |
because they can't stop spam.
No one in this thread is giving Google credit for the sandbox effect especially considering G lags behind the competition with regards to updating its backlinks, new sites and spammy SERPS.
|They are too busy with other crap to fix the core of their problem, their algo. |
hmmm not sure about that, they are well aware of the problem.
| 8:51 pm on Sep 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|But by and large, and for the most part, am I not right? |
No! Never! ;-)
Okay, please explain further, why 6 months is different than 1 year or 2 years or more, if we are only talking about 1/10 of 1% of sites? For such a small amount of sites how could any length of time make a difference?
p.s. - I missed Plato on the Buzz Index: [buzz.yahoo.com...]
| 9:04 pm on Sep 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google is giving themselves credit. Don't have the link here but I remember an article where they bragged about having the most mature results on the web due to it taking a long time for new sites to rank.
I'm not saying old content is better or worse than new content. Fact is that the most releavant site should rank regardless of age. Search engines shouldn't be first come / first serve. You're telling me that a bunch of spammers who put up pages on Playstation 3 two years ago should rank better than when Sony adds the PS3 page to their site?
I don't feel they care about the problem. Let's be honest, their results haven't gotten better in the past year, in fact, they've gotten much worse.
| 6:07 am on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There are two important points here.
1. Google is placing an artificial barrier intended to restrain new online businesses. Whether or not it is illegal is for brighter minds than mine to determine.
2. To beat the sandbox you merely need to create a dictionary site and put adsense code on it.;)
| 9:08 am on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hmmmm ... Restraint of trade? (Illegally interfering with free marketplace participation. Regulated by the Federal Trade Commission.)
I feel another press release coming on ;)
| 9:27 am on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I'm not saying old content is better or worse than new content. Fact is that the most releavant site should rank regardless of age. |
IMHO age IS a main ingredient of relevancy. In every aspect of business you have to wait a while, why not On-Line. Want your site to be found, buy some advertising. Later you will get free visitors (word of mouth, whatever).
| 9:32 am on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
IMHO (and in business) NEW! is also an ingredient of relevancy.
| 9:42 am on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Have you ever seen a product that markets itself as "Old and Stale".
Have you ever seen a product that markets itself as "New and Improved."
Even Robitussin comes in
|NEW Robitussin® CoughGels™ |
| 10:03 am on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have to laugh at the SEOs here who are whining because they can't manipulate Google anymore like they used to.
Count me out of the pity-party and pass the tissues to someone else.
|Sandbox is bringing business back into the real world. |
|I'm not sure it would be a Good Thing if I could easily rank well for that SERP just because I know SEO. |
Amen to those comments.
I hope the Sandbox puts a lot of my competitors and junk websites out of business. Sandbox is one of the best things Google ever did. We all knew "it" was coming. The manipulation of Google's SERPs was getting way out of hand. Over a year ago, many people on this forum knew it was just too easy and it couldn't last. There was a lot of discussion on it. Now that Google's solution is here - some of you act so surprised.
| 10:45 am on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Solution? You have got be kidding!
This has done nothing to solve the problem of the junk websites to which you refer. The commercial results are still crammed with them. This is more like a teacher caning everyone in the class because no one will admit to having farted!
I would have no problem with Google doing this if they were up front about it. They still claim to be the best search engine but they fail to inform their users that they are unlikely to find any information from new websites. And you think that this insignificant or even worse - commendable?
They are actually using techniques that are are as dubious as some of the crappy sites that feature at the top of their commercial results.
Incidentally I say this from a position of strength. I have two main websites of my own and both of these do exceptionally well. It's my clients that I am concerned about. I now have to tell them to forget about ranking in Google for at least six months unless they are willing to pay. THAT is the bottom line and the REAL reason for the sandbox. You are naive if you think that it is anything else. Google is now a 100% commercial organisation. Expect no more favours from them.
| 12:27 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The bottom line is your bottom line which you are worried about because you can no longer be as effective at manipulating Google as you told your clients.
Nobody cares if you make money. Nobody cares if your new sites rank well or not. You are the only one that cares. You can argue "quality this" and "I don't deserve that..." all you want - but your financial motivation is clear and not exactly altruistic to the web community.
There's still a lot of crud in the Google SERPs these days, nobody is arguing that, but the Sandbox effect sure goes a long way.
I think if there were no more new websites built from now until eternity - the world would not miss much.
| 12:48 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Restraint of Trade?
Oh geez, c'mon. Google actively restraining trade is a lot different than Google deciding not to provide you with free traffic. This is the difference between "censorship" and "sponsorship".
The courts would *never* force a company to provide you something for free, especially when said company notified you that you have no right to it in their view in the first place.
|Pass the Dutchie|
| 1:08 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Unless anyone can prove otherwise there is currently no known way to beat the sandbox effect. There may be ways to initally get a site indexed a little faster but the filter will still hold back new sites from top, competitive positions.
| 1:19 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Sandbox puts a lot of my competitors and junk websites out of business. |
How so, it does not address any existing sites at all? There is more junk in the index now than ever before.
Let's put it this way. If the SERPS never change again, I won't be begging for food. :)This is not the point though. The fact that google is not allowing new sites to be seen through their engine is significant. If you only see this as somehow reducing spam, with no other implications at all, you need to open your mind a bit.
| 1:26 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Open my mind?
Google is a better search engine for having the Sandbox then it is without it.
All this talk about how it is bad for the serps is just BS. You don't fool anyone.
You only care about yourself and the money you make and I say nobody else cares. Nobody cares if your 15th affiliate site makes money or not during it's first 6 months.
Don't try to disguise greed with your deep, sincere and heartfelt concern about the Google serps.
I think the Google engineers are smarter then you at figuring how to reduce the spam on the internet.
| 2:22 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I think if there were no more new websites built from now until eternity - the world would not miss much. |
Award for the least forward-looking quotes on technology:
(3.) "640k should be enough for anyone."
(2.) "The world market for computer is five."
(1.) see above
Question: could that same argument be made in 2001? 1999? 1997? At what point did the sum of human knowledge (past, present -and- future) come online?
Okay, I'd better stop asking questions before someone slips me a hemlock cocktail. :-)
Anyway, for anyone still seeking solutions, the initial question was answered much earlier when the thread was stilll on-topic.. :-)
| 2:30 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'll drink to that.
| 4:43 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If the company were a monopoly, there is no telling what the courts might force them to do. If the company were providing a barrier to entry into a given field based on whether or not the start up could afford to pay them or someone else advertising costs to get in.
|The courts would *never* force a company to provide you something for free |
Google HAS placed a barrier to new websites. I personally don't think its illegal restraint of trade. I didn't think they'd break up Ma Bell, either.
Greed? Is it greedy for me to want to feed my kids? I've spent the better part of the last fifteen months developing the content for this site. It ranked quite well while a subdirectory on a previous domain. When moving to a new domain I followed the advice of Google's representative on how to do it. Now I must wait an unspecified period for Google to deem the new site to be eligible for them to list? The only one being greedy here is Google, and eventually it will bite them on the arse.