| 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.
| 4:56 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Everyone complains about the Sandbox because they want instant rewards for their SEO skills. Well I'm in the sandbox too, but I'm not complaining.
I run an information website, pure content. I'm following the general advice on how to be successful in Google - in 12 Months! Not overnight. If your "selling" your clients overnight success, that is your problem - The rules are clear.
My newest website has about 250 pages of content right now - nearly 4 months old. Google shows nearly every page and visits daily to grab my index page, Yahoo has about 1/3 of the pages, MSN Zero.
Talk about stale? MSN's experimental bot was all over my site for weeks, sucking in hundreds of pages - the entire site multiple times. Slurp is a regular too (again, sucking in all my pages multiple times), but those 80 odd pages they show are months old.
So how is it that Google is showing stale results? Do you really think the average user cares about the Google sandbox policy?
Some folks should spend more energy improving their websites and less time complaining that they can't manipulate the results.
| 5:10 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 |
But it's not...not even close. Since there are no "barriers to entry" in the search market, anyone in the world is free to "build a better mouse trap", which is exactly what Google did.
Further, keep in mind that google not only got where they are by simply building a better system than anyone else, they also did so while spending absolutely nothing on marketing themselves to the mainstream (while their competiotrs were dumping millions on multimedia marketing blitzes).
Havng said all that, I agree the shine has fallen off google a bit....but it's just a matter of time until a new media "darling" comes along with a better interface and search results. Those of us who've been around long enough remember the excites, altavistas and other "must use" search engines...and their rise was jsut as quick as their fall.
Hell...a little over a year ago, Google dorve 90% of my (free) traffic...that number is now down to less than 50% (and falling by the month, it seems).
Personally, I'd love to see an open-source search, distributed search engine effort put all the commercial engine out of business. Google's "do no evil" mantra has long since been replaced with a "do no evil, unless it is profitable" one.
| 5:14 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Do you really think the average user cares about the Google sandbox policy? |
They will if they try to start a website business. I know of three different people who were considering opening an online store. They all scrapped the idea after I explained that the only way they are going to get traffic for the first 6 months is through PPC. These were real people selling real products with low margins ($10-$15 a unit) not your standard affiliate website.
Sites aren't good or bad because they are new or old, they are good or bad because they are good or bad, don't make a connection that doesn't exist.
| 5:19 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I find the sandbox not amusing.
Some of the posters here seem to think sandbox whiners are just corrupt commercial SEO swine.
Well, not true.
The sandbox is not an elegant solution to the problem of search engine spamming. It is a systems kludge, and like all kludges it has the advantage of appearing to work OK, but is not a well-engineered solution at all, and can do as much harm as good. Google should have the brain-power to go beyond such a clumsy approach.
My gripe is that the sandbox has since May trapped one of my sites which is information based, community oriented and only attempting to run on a cost-recovery basis. People can find it everywhere but in Google. Google is the anomaly here.
The sandbox delay doesn't lose me money - that's not the point of the site - but it stops people finding my content (eg when the site or issue gets media coverage) and stops the site being topical and useful in its sector, since unfortunately many Internet users assume Google knows everything.
My other gripe is that the Google webmaster guidelines - which the site respects - imply that all a site requires is that it follow the guidelines and have good content.
The guidelines don't guarantee indexing, sure, but they seem to say - you be straight-forward with us, and we'll be straight-forward with you. The sneaky existence of blunt objects like the sandbox under the counter betrays this expectation.
| 5:21 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
We were all new around here at one time. I think now is a tough time to get started, or to put up new sites.
| 5:28 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm starting to think that the best approach for new sites is build small at first and get a dmoz listing. After that's done, then put up all the commercial pages.
| 5:29 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Talk about stale? MSN's experimental bot was all over my site for weeks, sucking in hundreds of pages - the entire site multiple times. Slurp is a regular too (again, sucking in all my pages multiple times), but those 80 odd pages they show are months old. |
The experimental MSN bot is just that, experimental. The production results you see in MSN are based on Inktomi/Yahoo results.
|Pass the Dutchie|
| 5:38 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I'm starting to think that the best approach for new sites is build small at first and get a dmoz listing. |
slow move-I would say that was an equally slow move to overcome the sand box effect.
| 5:49 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>p.s. - I missed Plato on the Buzz Index: [buzz.yahoo.com...]
My guess is in two thousand years, providing the hairless apes don't make the rubble bounce on this third rock from the sun in a nuclear war by then, Plato will still be well known, and Hurricaine Ivan and Britney Spears long forgotten. Consider Saul of Tarsus. It's been almost two thousand years since he wrote anything, and even today what he authored is selling like hotcakes at the bookstores.
| 6:10 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>My gripe is that the sandbox has since May trapped one of my sites which is information based, community oriented and only attempting to run on a cost-recovery basis. People can find it everywhere but in Google. Google is the anomaly here.
Does not this information based site have links from other sites on the topic? I run an information based site, and just checked the logs. Even though that site is #1 for every SERP that matters on msn.com, I'm getting more traffic from a link on another site on the topic that is near the bottom of the page than from msn.com. Search engines aren't the only source for hits.
| 6:43 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|The experimental MSN bot is just that, experimental. The production results you see in MSN are based on Inktomi/Yahoo results. |
Understood, my point is the new MSN search is nowhere to be found and my website shows Zero results on MSN and 250 in Google. After my first post, I check Yahoo's cache from my website - results are from June and July. I can only imagine how old the MSN results are from Inktomi.
|I know of three different people who were considering opening an online store. They all scrapped the idea after I explained that the only way they are going to get traffic for the first 6 months is through PPC. |
1. How many business expect an immediate return on investment? They are being short sighted. You need a better sales pitch.
2. If you told an online store that they only way they could get traffic is PPC, then you mislead them. You need to check out Froogle. I ran five online stores that got into Froogle in 2 weeks. Traffic was great with a very high purchase rate.
3. Not sure what they are selling, but a click on Adwords starts at $0.05. I've run campaigns on Adwords that had ROIs of 700%.
| 7:56 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Should Google ignore all searches that do not meet the highest academic standards?
Should Google make a shareholder announcement that they are ignoring short-term results for Q4 2004 and 2005 in order to focus on Q4 4004 and 4005?
Are you going to argue that there is a parallel universe where Excite and Altavista and Inktomi did not lose visitors due to stale results?
Anyway, I agree that webmasters have little recourse except to take advantage of one of the loopholes, or focus on other search engines and marketing methods.
The shareholders are the ones with the vested interest.
| 8:39 pm on Sep 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Have a look at the Google guidelines and technology info and you will find statements like the following.
|A Google search is an easy, honest and objective way to find high-quality websites with information relevant to your search. |
PageRank performs an objective measurement of the importance of web pages by solving an equation of more than 500 million variables and 2 billion terms. Instead of counting direct links, PageRank interprets a link from Page A to Page B as a vote for Page B by Page A. PageRank then assesses a page's importance by the number of votes it receives.
Don't deceive your users ...
The sandbox is not mentioned anywhere in their help or info pages. Being that it is probably now the single most important factor in getting ranked would it not be appropriate for them to point this out? If the sandbox is such a positive thing (as some of you are suggesting) surely they should be happy to tell the world about it?
If Google intend to persevere with this they must come clean and warn people who are submitting sites that it will be 6? 9? or 12? months before they will feature in the results. If they do so I will be perfectly happy to accept it.
| 12:08 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>Are you going to argue that there is a parallel universe where Excite and Altavista and Inktomi did not lose visitors due to stale results?
People are ditching Google in large numbers today?
>The shareholders are the ones with the vested interest.
Exactly. The shareholders are why any business website has to pay for Adwords for the first 6 months or so if they want to appear in Google at all. At the Googleplex, "greed is good" is the current mantra.
| 12:10 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>Does not this information based site have
>links from other sites on the topic? ...
>Search engines aren't the only source for hits.
Yes, it has plenty of other links in now, based on blog comments, media web sites, simple links etc. But all Google reports are the links in, nothing from the site itself, despite the fact that the site has been visited by the Googlebot, etc etc. And I know search engines aren't the only source of hits - especially Google, it seems. Interesting content, word of mouth and sympathetic media coverage work best long term to generate hits. But lots of people rely on Google to be their gateway to the web, which is where the sandbox etc becomes a problem for me.
And I agree with BeeDeeDubbleU that it would be nice if Google mentioned its 'sandbox' policy in its guidelines. Why not be open about it, unless they are averse to it highlighting how Google's index may be (a) months behind the times and (b) perhaps significantly in-complete because of it.
| 12:24 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I think the Google engineers are smarter then you at figuring how to reduce the spam on the internet. |
Spam, what are you talking about? Google can reduce spam on the internet? How is that? You never answered how you feel the sandbox has helped the SERPS become better.
|You only care about yourself and the money you make |
|I hope the Sandbox puts a lot of my competitors and junk websites out of business |
Err...you sure you aren't talking about yourself? Or do you want to put your competition out of business for someone elses benefit?
[edited by: mfishy at 12:31 am (utc) on Sep. 13, 2004]
[edited by: rogerd at 2:05 am (utc) on Sep. 13, 2004]
| 12:28 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>And I agree with BeeDeeDubbleU that it would be nice if Google mentioned its 'sandbox' policy in its guidelines. Why not be open about it, unless they are averse to it highlighting how Google's index may be (a) months behind the times and (b) perhaps significantly in-complete because of it.
When it comes to business, I've found "sell the sizzle, not the steak" is a profitable strategy. "We're months behind the times, and significantly incomplete" is a marketing strategy so bad I'd sack on the spot the guy in advertising if he suggested it. Google needs to sell the sizzle of the sandbox. "Less spam than the other search engines" would be a good way to do so.
| 12:59 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Then why not pick one clean site, return it for every search and proclaim "We are the only spam-free search engine"
|"Less spam than the other search engines" would be a good way to do so. |
Due to my incessant greed I would agree to this if they picked my site.;)
| 1:01 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think we are just going around in circles now.
There are two camps:
1) The sandbox effect is good and prevents spamming
2) The sandbox effect is turning Google into an old set of Encyclopedias.
I think the best we can hope for right now is that Google will continue with plans for a Google 2.0 that features a new engine that examines the content on the page:
1) Location on the page: if the content is higher on the page, it has more value.
2) Text nearby links: there have been some studies that show that links mingled with text tend to hold a greater value.
If you look at the work they have been doing in Google Labs you can also see that they are able to make judgements about words you would expect to find that realte to other words. For example, if you have a page about the brand Toyota, there would also be a greater possiblity of seeing words like tires, car, and engine.
This I believe to be the root of the new technology:
1) Word association
Meanwhile, I guess all we can do is argue about the value of the Sandbox Effect and speculate about what is to come.
| 1:19 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
i don't want to have to hold you guys by the hand but it looks like I am going to have to.:)
If you want to bypass the sandbox buy a domain that has already been indexed for at least 8 months.
Don't buy a new domain.There are plenty of domainsI am sure in your niche where a site is just hanging by a thread and the owner would love to sell out for an offer of $100.
I no longer buy new domains,I buy old ones.Find a forum pertaining to the niche you wish to promote and offer to buy peoples domains preferably one with a dmoz or Yahoo listing.
Then when you have one,you know all the hard work of creating content and obtaining links for your site will not be in vain and you can build with confidence knowing that you have bypassed the sandbox filter.;)
| 1:21 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yes, one way or another, due to a new algo or a new competitor, Sandbox is surely a temporary phenomenon. dvduval, thanks for some great ideas.
| 1:23 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Crikey Cabbie, you are not making it any easier to buy old sites! :-)
| 1:26 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
hehe.Sorry Sean,I already have enough.:)
| 6:23 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Buy new and buy old. Make the new old while making the old gold.
| 7:20 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I've got my eye on a domain I am expecting to become available in the next several weeks. i'm guessing expired domains now will have to go through the sandbox, too?
At least THAT would make some sense.
| 7:50 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> I've got my eye on a domain I am expecting to become
> available in the next several weeks. i'm guessing
> expired domains now will have to go through the
> sandbox, too?
> At least THAT would make some sense.
That's exactly what I did with the site of mine that is now stuck in the sandbox. Bought an existing domain that never had a site on it AFAIK, after it had lapsed, then built a new site on it.
|Pass the Dutchie|
| 7:51 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
nice one cabbie for bringing the topic back to the origional discusion. Best solution I have heard so far.
| 8:06 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Buying existing domains is not beating the sandbox. Has anyone actually beat the sandbox by getting out of it with a new website, within three months and for reasonably commercial KWs?
(OK we are now back on topic. I'll introduce a new topic about Google's failure to tell the public about the sandbox.)
| 8:13 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Darn it, cabbie! Don't tell EVERYONE! ;)
Newly Purchased Domains = Old and Busted
Old Domains, not deleted with links = New Hotness
| 8:19 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
OK, so we know how to get around the sandbox in the future. Google knows too. I guess they'll just sandbox any domain with new whois info from now on. I hate to say it, but since last July it has been Us against Them.:(
But the question remains. How do those of us still sitting in cat litter get out. Or more precisely, how long do we keep building content and incoming links while we wait to get out?