homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.247.203
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
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?

 

Freedom




msg:107566
 3:08 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

On some of my brand new websites, months ago, AdSense didn't understand the site right away. It could take days or weeks - in my experience.

Which is not to say this is a universal truth (as so many people here love to apply their tiny bit of experience as a universal &^%% truth).

No wonder steveb is sick of reading that crap. I'm sick of reading that crap.

yankee




msg:107567
 3:13 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

Pass the Dutchie,

Thanks for sharing your experience. Posts like yours are why I read this forum. It's a shame others twisted the context of your post and made rude comments like "crap" and "absurd".

nuevojefe




msg:107568
 3:36 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

1st post
Look at how adsense takes weeks to deliver relevant ads and how it takes it awhile to find all of your links - for example.

2nd post
Which is not to say this is a universal truth (as so many people here love to apply their tiny bit of experience as a universal &^%% truth).

No wonder steveb is sick of reading that crap. I'm sick of reading that crap.

In the absence of your second post's "Which is not to say this is a universal truth" your first post looks like the type of "Universal truth" statement that Steveb (and others) normally rail.

Including "in my experience" or "i'm not saying it's a universal truth" seems to be all that's necessary to avoid being bludgeoned.

It is however annoying to add that to every post, I mean, shouldn't it be taken for granted that each post is merely that users experience *unless* they say "i've found this to be the undisputed truth and i've confirmed this over and over and over"?

Powdork




msg:107569
 3:45 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

Freedom said
Sandbox is one of the best things Google ever did.

I think if there were no more new websites built from now until eternity - the world would not miss much.

Google is a better search engine for having the Sandbox then it is without it.

Which is not to say this is a universal truth (as so many people here love to apply their tiny bit of experience as a universal &^%% truth).

No wonder steveb is sick of reading that crap. I'm sick of reading that crap.

I can't really comment on any of the above, nor should I have to.

I said
Google will either understand your website immediately, or never.
I should have said "Google will either understand your website immediately, or you may have some issues, IMO".

Pass the Dutchie




msg:107570
 3:54 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

Thanks Yankee and yes 'bludgeoned' for ones findings does strike me as odd especially as nothing in SEO is a dead cert, its about narrowing the angle.

In the interest of research can we please keep this thread on topic.

isitreal




msg:107571
 3:59 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

===make a site www.tadpole-vaulters.com provide one link, number #1 in 10 days no problem===

Yes, but does it stay there?

Yes, it stays there.

Post 210 accurately reflects what I'm seeing too. As does the post about money keywords and google maintaining their cash flow from adsense sales, this has to be considered as a major factor in this, as was absolutely correctly noted, google needed to raise their income before the IPO to ensure high initial stock prices, especially because they sold the stock directly, that means the money went into their pockets. And they need to keep that income high. Ignoring this element can't possibly result in a meaningful analysis.

Freedom




msg:107572
 4:15 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

Powdork, my last post was not in reference to anything you said and yes I should not have posted anything in order to keep the thread on topic.

My bad!

caveman




msg:107573
 4:39 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

It is however annoying to add that to every post, I mean, shouldn't it be taken for granted that each post is merely that users experience *unless* they say "i've found this to be the undisputed truth and i've confirmed this over and over and over"?

nuevojefe, I don't think so. There are a lot of newer webmasters who - when they experience a problem, or can't figure something out - come to WW in search of answers, read these posts and overreact.

When jdMorgan tells you how to fix some code in your site, you can take it as gospel.

But phenomena like 'sandboxing' are entirely different. When posters write things like "The sandbox DOES exist," or "This seems to confirm that the sandbox does not apply to new pages on established sites," (no offense meant to either poster), those who know differently sometimes post to help others from needlessly reacting.

During one of the major updates of the past 12 months, lots of posters insisted that H1 tags were the cause of sites being penalized. So a bunch of other posters said that they were off to remove those elements from their sites. Ugh.

OPINION: There is no sandbox. There are only algorithms, filters and penalties.

Powdork




msg:107574
 5:08 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

When jdMorgan tells you how to fix some code in your site, you can take it as gospel.
Amen to that. Never found anyone more helpful on any forum. And to weave that back in to the context of this thread, it was he that helped me implement the 301's to my new domain as GoogleGuy had suggested we do for sites moving to a new domain. I am increasingly starting to believe that the sandbox could be summed up as 'Florida for new domains'.

Thanks Freedom.

Mr_Roberto




msg:107575
 5:14 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

OPINION: There is no sandbox. There are only algorithms, filters and penalties.

Those algorithms seem to have the appearance (to many webmasters) of now encorporating time delays, especially in competitive areas. A time delay would certainly make sense from an anti-spam perspective.

Its probably fair to call this aspect of their algorithm a sandbox, except that the term implies simplicity in the algorithms. More likely they are trying to apply some fairly complicated algorithms, which have certain emergent behaviours that we see as things like sandboxes.

caveman




msg:107576
 5:23 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

>Florida for new domains

I agree that much of what's going on here seems like Florida on steroids.

caveman




msg:107577
 6:13 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

>Those algorithms seem to have the appearance (to many webmasters) of now encorporating time delays

Agreed that this may be the appearance.

However, a question: If time delays were truly in place would they be completely random/variable, or would they be more consistent?

Some webmasters report emerging from the sandbox after a few months, some longer, some not even after eight months. Some new sites never see the sandbox.

Some new pages of old sites are affected, other new pages at older sites are not.

Does this sound like a time lag? Or, is it something that takes varying amounts of time to overcome...

There is no spoon. :-)

osfp




msg:107578
 6:29 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

that thread goes on and on....maybe is time for some folks to realise one think that even many of us havent realise,who's making the web? answer:WE,what is a search engine? the tool to find us:now we need each other ,without us a search engine is worthless,lets say :no webmaster makes anymore no website,how those multi zillion folks will survive in the future? my point here is a bit like orwels 1984,but those folks they have to understand one think :if a big community like ours deside -hey dudes enough with your cr..p penalties sandboxes ech....we make the web and everybody has to understand that we are the builders they are just a tool...so they must be a way of a compromise,because what made empires to fall was the greed of money ....but the builders survived.i say those dudes from G or Y or M$ they have to give some respect to us,any comments are welcome.

yankee




msg:107579
 7:10 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

"Some new sites never see the sandbox."

Can someone sticky me the URL. I would love to see it, then post an opinion that is for this site, not every site LOL.

netnerd




msg:107580
 7:16 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hi osfp,

So whats your plan? Should we all get together and take our sites down and wait until google helps us out with tips on how to get ranked?

Lets give it a try - you go first ;)

photonstudios




msg:107581
 7:17 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

1. Was the domain brand spanking new, never used before?
2. Did you get a dmoz or Y! listing out of the gate?
3. How many results are returned for the keywords?
4. Can you sticky me the URL and term?

1. Brand new, never used
2. No Dmoz or Yahoo listing
3. 3,690,000 results - no quotes, 1,470,000 - exact match with quotes around it.
4. Sorry can't sticky url.

caveman




msg:107582
 7:38 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

>Can someone sticky me the URL.

URL's. And, um, you're joking, right? :)

osfp




msg:107583
 7:39 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

netnerd
i am not try to start a webmaster strike here i just want to poin that we need a respect.

Powdork




msg:107584
 8:40 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

What's wrong with urls? During Florida the mods were nice enough to allow me to post the url of my affected site which was included in 'a letter to my clients'. I would like to think it helped in some way to further the understanding of what was going on at the time. Naturally, I can understand if anyone doesn't wish to sticky their url. But it makes it impossible to help and difficult to learn.

netnerd




msg:107585
 8:54 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

osfp

Yeah - we make the web, but im sure google see people who try to manipulate the results in our favour as less than the ideal webmaster.

caveman




msg:107586
 8:57 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hey Powdork. Not sure if you're referring to my last post, but if so, we prefer to keep the url's of our sites, and most important trade secrets, private...for a host of reasons that I'm sure you can imagine. :-)

isitreal




msg:107587
 9:37 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

i am not try to start a webmaster strike here i just want to poin that we need a respect.

Google is a company, it's a for profit venture, like all the other search engines out there that people use.

What we need is a real alternatives to the for profit search engine, whether it's open source or whatever, there needs to be a way to get information about the web to people that doesn't rely on something like google needing to maximize its profits to jack up their IPO share prices or whatever, something of the quality of yahoo for example would be fine.

Sort of like the idea of public libraries in the United states. Have the for profit sector, but also have a non-profit, ideally open source model too that can focus on delivering just clean results, without commercial interests intervening in that engineering process.

Whole mozdex is trying they don't have enough money to create the necessary server farms, that's the real bottleneck, ideally a consortium of some type would form, like is happening with linux, where all major stuff happens under an umbrella organization, and groups can fund this organization out of self interest.

merlin30




msg:107588
 9:56 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

"and groups can fund this organization out of self interest"

I'm funding this - I damn well want my website at the top.

Give me one of those nasty for-profit organisation any day.

Powdork




msg:107589
 10:09 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

and groups can fund this organization out of self interest.
You mean... like...Adwords?;)
isitreal




msg:107590
 11:01 pm on Sep 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

No, not like adwords.

Something like Open Source Development Labs (OSDL), funded by major linux users like ibm, sun etc, they are creating a product that frees them from both restrictive unix and windows systems, that's in their current best interest.

Many major world governments have strong interests, or should, in having a search engine that is not privately held to give their countries free and open access to the data on the internet. The same goes for many large corporations, as well as most real world users. This is the same exact group that is able to override their restrictive individual interests while actually being able to serve their larger self interests with Linux.

things like the 'sandbox', which are almost certainly commercially influenced, are damaging the web.

However, on the bright side, my sites have never gotten any yahoo traffic at all for some reason or other, but in the last week or two, I'm finally starting to get yahoo searches, so I'm not the only one noticing these problems, this to me shows that even though some people here are able to make google work for them, standard users are starting to get turned off.

Lack of fresh results, it's absurd to call this a plus, google built its reputation on having the most upto date spidering and site indexing on the internet, it's total nonsense to now turn around and claim a 6 month sandbox somehow is a good thing, that's totally ridiculous, google is having problems, I don't really care what causes them, saying this is a good thing is like saying a car that doesn't start x percent of the time is good because it keep smog down.

zomega42




msg:107591
 2:20 am on Sep 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

The open source SE sounds like a great idea, but sadly it also sounds a lot like DMOZ -- a non-profit group composed of profit-seeking individuals. And they're always trying to favor their own sites. It works for linux but it won't work for a SE -- linux programmers really don't have a commercial interest, SE programmers would.

It also sounds too easy to spam. If a SE is open source, anyone can spam it unless it's totally based on external links, and any algorithm so heavily waited to one factor would be useless.

merlin30




msg:107592
 7:54 am on Sep 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Exactly Zomega

Freedom




msg:107593
 8:39 am on Sep 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Off topic to the thread but related to the current theme, - if teoma had a much larger index, it would be the best search engine hands down in my opinion.

osfp




msg:107594
 9:05 am on Sep 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

-a non-profit group composed of profit-seeking individuals- that can be done as well from governments by using as editors the millions of unemployed young people and students it can be as DMOZ but the editors will be chosen not from online applications but from the unemployment offices after a certain questionnaire and test, the idea probably looks like a prophecy but somehow I believe it will come in the very near future as a good solution for banning offensive and other kind of sites that offending the public and everyone knows what are those sites.You can say it will not be democratic but if you are an editor at DMOZ or ZEAL there are guide lines about what and what not to include at the directory.

isitreal




msg:107595
 12:46 pm on Sep 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

It also sounds too easy to spam.

That's the same argument people make against open source stuff and security pretty much, real world results show the value of that argument. That's security through good programming vs security through obscurity, it's about the same thing as spammers trying to reverse engineer an algo, which I know they are able to do judging by at least a few of the posters here, vs the algo being open and available for inspection and testing and improving, and not being subject to commercial pressures like increasing adsense income. Linux seemed like a wacky idea from the land of the uber geeks not very long ago, until ibm/novell/sun and china/finland/germany/peru etc etc got involved, now it's not so funny any more. Same for Mozilla.

There's actually a significant national interest involved in not having a US based group of search engines control all major access to the web, much as there is a major national interest involved in not running your country's national computing on proprietary os's with built in backdoors, put there on demand of the us gov.

Having a bigger emphasis on human editing would definitely be a big plus, for example if there is a trigger for new large sites, or small sites that suddenly become large, rather than apply some automated routine just have somebody take a quick look at the site, it's easy to judge if it's spam or not in a few seconds usually.

Anyway, it's just a matter of time I think, after os's this is probably the next most important thing to have a viable non-private option available for. To see how viable it is, look at how much sergey and brinn needed to start up, it wasn't that much, 10,000 linux boxes or so, a few smart programmers, a good chunk of bandwidth, nothing that would break even a decent sized company's bank, let alone china or germany.

osfp




msg:107596
 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?

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