homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.198.42.105
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 292 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 292 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 > >     
Beating the penalty effect
SlowMove




msg:107326
 11:11 pm on Sep 8, 2004 (gmt 0)

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?

 

Powdork




msg:107476
 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?

Pass the Dutchie




msg:107477
 9:14 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

i'm guessing expired domains now will have to go through the sandbox, too?

Assuming that Google is scanning whois data one would have to assume then this would also be possible.

When sites get bought or taken over Domain name and site ownership change all the time. If Google scan whois for the registrant details then all sites that change hand would be subject to the sandbox effect regardless of content and as Google at the end of the day (should) pay more attention to its results than the registrant details of the website I would say the owner change alone is not enough to flick the sandbox switch.

However if an old site’s content entirely change over night along with the change of registrant details and possible IP move then this may set of the alarm bells. The other give away is that all inbound links that originally pointed to the old site x would be somewhat unrelated to the new content and this may also trigger off the sandbox and loss of PR.

I would say that the best way to avoid the sand box is to get lucky and find a decent and related old domain that is related to your market sector. To limit the possibiltiy of triggering the sandbox buy out your competition!

At the end of the day for all the time this would probably take (unless you were very lucky) I would take into consideration the sandbox effect into your project time line.

In my opinion my advice is to just do what SEO’s do best and adapt to the new conditions.

cabbie




msg:107478
 9:22 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

>>>i'm guessing expired domains now will have to go through the sandbox, too?

Expired domains go through a much longer and surer sandbox.Trust me.The quarantined time of course is subject to Google's whim but at the moment all evidence points to their whim being upto 12 months.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:107479
 9:24 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I would say that the best way to avoid the sand box is to get lucky and find a decent and related old domain that is related to your market sector. To limit the possibiltiy of triggering the sandbox buy out your competition!

Yes, or use the money to subscribe to Adwords, which is effectively what this is all about.

george123




msg:107480
 9:31 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

i launch a new site one key word domain and i targeted the one key word about 5 months ago the page is now at the top 10 now with a good PR the point is that the SERPS for that key word are bringing up about 150.000 results only.

Pass the Dutchie




msg:107481
 9:40 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

Yes, or use the money to subscribe to Adwords, which is effectively what this is all about.

True but I also thing Google is trying to take on spam from the gecko.

teodoor




msg:107482
 10:14 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

- the best money-making searches are saturated on the web
- I would not be surpised if Google were not able to cope with the rocketing numbers of new spam web sites. Then, it would be natural that Google put off showing new sites in the top 10s.
- Google want to say: concentrate on what you have: it is natural that businesses have to wait for some time until they are in position to sell better that others ahead of time.
- If you make a good quality page it should be allowed to the SERPS. When submitting pages, the webmasters should declare that the page is not a spam and mention other pages run by the same company.
- Does Google employ a human agent already? - To some extent they should. Would that not lead to bribery? It would be possible to discern affiliate sites. Does Google take affiliate pages for something inferior or may an affiliate rank better than the inventory provider?

We have good, non-spam sites in sandbox since last year. We are constantly working on them and do not lose hope. I understand that Google may not care about our wasted money, but I would appreciate if Google stated overtly what they mean by sandbox and how it can be overcome.

In my opinion, Google are themselves responsible for the link farms by making links the most important factor. They should not punish for them, but create a better algorithm. I bet sandbox is a part of this story.

Pass the Dutchie




msg:107483
 10:31 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

......but I would appreciate if Google stated overtly what they mean by sandbox and how it can be overcome.

One school of thought: the reason for the sandbox is to prevent spam getting into the index. By releasing the information to the public on how to overcome it would defeat the whole object. However the principle of the sandbox should be made public in due course (after the testing phase).

MHes




msg:107484
 10:41 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

>However if an old site’s content entirely change over night along with the change of registrant details and possible IP move then this may set of the alarm bells

We innocently changed ip + content..... the site died.

Trax




msg:107485
 10:41 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I'm just giving it more time.
I know that my new websites can beat anything that is out there for its topic in both quality and quanity.

george123




msg:107486
 10:46 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

"I know that my new websites can beat anything"
!What an arrogance!

webmktg




msg:107487
 11:48 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

My probelm not getting listed in Google. My sites are listed in Google but have no rankings. What is the reason for this?

Pass the Dutchie




msg:107488
 11:57 am on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

If only new sites are subject to the sandbox effect and new pages on established site are not then in one of my sits I could get around it this way:

One site is a couple of years old with high PR. I now want to translate it. Normally I would register a new country specific domain name for that new translation and wait but now that the waiting period for new domains to perform is 8+ months I will now register the new domain and assign it with a temporary 'holding' site and leave it for 8+ months until it is out of the box. In the mean time I will host the newly translated site on the back of one of my existing sites www.myfullyindexedsite.com/transalation/ until its time to switch.

Does anyone know if sub domains of established sites are subject to the sandbox?

george123




msg:107489
 12:15 pm on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

"Does anyone know if sub domains of established sites are subject to the sandbox? "
NO,as long as you have done your homework before

Pass the Dutchie




msg:107490
 12:26 pm on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

george123: Are you willing to share with us what home work you are refering to, and can any one else back up george123' statement?

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:107491
 12:51 pm on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

If only new sites are subject to the sandbox effect and new pages on established site are not then in one of my sites I could get around it this way:

I created and optimised a completely new page on my established site on Friday and it is ranking reasonably well today in a very competitive area. This seems to confirm that the sandbox does not apply to new pages on established sites.

BillyS




msg:107492
 1:00 pm on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I'm just giving it more time.
I know that my new websites can beat anything that is out there for its topic in both quality and quanity.

I’m thinking that you have a large staff proofreading that large “quanity” of pages you’re pumping out…

Powdork




msg:107493
 2:53 pm on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

"I know that my new websites can beat anything"
!What an arrogance!
That isn't necessarily arrogant. Ideally, you would choose a topic because you know you create a site of better quality and depth than the competition, having thoroughly researched the competition first.
For many queries I know mine is the best. For others I just know that it is more what the searcher is looking for than 490 of the other 500 pages listed before it.
yahoo knows too. As does MSN. As does Ask Jeeves. And deep down in my heart, I know Google knows too.

Small Website Guy




msg:107494
 2:55 pm on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

In my opinion:

The real purpose of the Sandbox is to piss off SEO people, which is seems to have done quite nicely.

If you have to wait 3 to 6 months before the effects of any new links, or changes to links (including both anchor text effects and PR effects) show up, it will discourage all the SEO people.

It seems to be working.

Google doesn't really give a crap if your new site doesn't show up. They would say "stop being a cheapskate and buy some adwords."

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:107495
 3:18 pm on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

Who says that it is only three to six months? I have a site that has just passed the six month mark and it is still in the wilderness. The truth is that none of us know how long this will now take.

dvduval




msg:107496
 3:33 pm on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

Agreed. I have a couple that are at the 8 month point (first listed in Google in February), and clearly the authority on their niche topic, and both are informational sites (forums). Fortunately MSN and Yahoo are picking them up just fine.

hooloovoo22




msg:107497
 3:38 pm on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

just a thought: can you imagine how much spam would be added if all sites currently sandboxed were allowed in the main index?

where there's a will there's a way...listen to cabbie, there are many dying sites that can be picked up for next to nothing.

Start using subdomains.

Add new "sections" onto existing sites.

Be creative. This too shall pass. Do the dance and just try to stay one step ahead. Complaining and whining doesn't seem to be working, so do it the hard way.

Pass the Dutchie




msg:107498
 3:38 pm on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

dvduval and BDW same here 8 months and counting.

Why has the Discussion been edited from 'Beating the Sandbox effect' to 'Beating the penalty effect'?

This is about the Sand Box effect. Penalty effect can happen to both new and old sites.

rfgdxm1




msg:107499
 4:33 pm on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

>i'm guessing expired domains now will have to go through the sandbox, too?

Most definitely. The open question is whether bought/transferred domains go through the sandbox? Such is not necessarily suspicious. If I buy "Joe's Pizza" in my hometown from Joe, and keep selling pizzas there, unless I change the recipe dramatically likely the customers won't care. If I buy example.com, and keep up most of the same content there, why should the visitors to that site care much?

Powdork




msg:107500
 4:38 pm on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

Google doesn't really give a crap if your new site doesn't show up. They would say "stop being a cheapskate and buy some adwords."
I will pay for advertising, but I'll be damned if I'm giving the money to Google. There is overture, adsonar, paid directories, newspapers, etc.

Why has the Discussion been edited from 'Beating the Sandbox effect' to 'Beating the penalty effect'?
WW doesn't seem to like the term. I'm guessing this [sandbox.msn.com] is the reason, but am not sure. I agree something more descriptive should be used like 'new site penalty' or perhaps the "sucked into Google's black hole" effect.

zomega42




msg:107501
 4:51 pm on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

The term google sandbox is also confusing because of this: https://adwords.google.com/select/KeywordSandbox

I like "google black hole," it fits the idea perfectly: an enormous mass of junk that cannot be seen from the outside. Even light rays can't escape...

Pass the Dutchie




msg:107502
 4:54 pm on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

to avoid confusion....its stumped me. "Posting guidelines - do not use the word Sandbox in posts"

This is an excepted and acknowleged term by SEO's not just on WW and it certainly not 'The Penalty Effect' come on mods you can do better than that.

Small Website Guy




msg:107503
 5:02 pm on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

"Penalty effect" is incorrect, becaue it implies that your site has done something BAD or WRONG.

This is not the case. It's not a "penalty", Google is merely DISCOUNTING the value of new links until they have matured.

And that's what I imagine is happening. Google considers whether or not to put a site high in the rnakigns, or low, based in large part on the aggregate power of its inbound links.

Suppose a link that's less than 6 months old counts as only 5% of an old link? That would explain what's happening.

graywolf




msg:107504
 5:18 pm on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

it will discourage all the SEO people

Only the ones that give up easy. The other ones will work so hard that once they do get out, they will be that much harder to knock off.

wanna_learn




msg:107505
 5:27 pm on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

weather you call it sandbox or a black hole or whatever! the fact that "older sites are ranking well on SERP, then they were earlier".

make a search of any general KW of your area and see how many out of 1st 10 Results are Newly (4-5 months old) websites?

For my Dream KW... about 1st 50 results are OLD sites...old more then an year or so.

ezrydr




msg:107506
 6:32 pm on Sep 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

If you have to wait 3 to 6 months before the effects of any new links, or changes to links (including both anchor text effects and PR effects) show up, it will discourage all the SEO people.

I thought the sandbox was for new sites not for new links, or changed anchor text, on sites not sandboxed? Anyone else seeing new links/changed anchor text on older sites being sandboxed?

This 292 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 292 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 > >
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