|The sandbox is a PR flaw, nothing else - when PR is updated, loads of problems will get sorted - I think. |
Explain this - how can you even speculate that PR is the cause?
>>One way to beat the sandbox would be to have high PR.
looks like google does not calculate pr for sites/pages in the 'box' index. if so, this does not make sense.
>>The other sure shot way is placement in every relevant category of DMOz.
this has already been proved wrong by the previous posts.
>>the calculation of the query time importance score
pages in the 'box' index don't appear in normal queries so query time is not meaningful.
again, it's fun to postulate complicated theories but it's really a simple case of google indigestion - that a separate index is used to hide the fact that g has reached a capacity limit - and its is not due to some pea-brain reason like running out of disc space!
just ask yourself how your new sites are behaving compared to your supplemental pages.
the good news - it's been over a year of g multiple indices, so (i hope) they are close to a solution. every once in a while, i see supplementas mixed in with the normal serps. this must be an indication that they are testing.
|The sandbox is a PR flaw, nothing else - when PR is updated, loads of problems will get sorted - I think. |
Some of the the "new" sites where I am seeing this problem are seven months old. There have been two or three PR updates during this period but the problem is still apparent
pr has noting to do with the sandbox. sites/pages in the sandbox are not included at all in the pr calculations. this "sandbox" index has the following characteristics:
- "sites/pages" are in the google index. yes, a separate index, just like supplemental pages.
- sandboxed pages show up in the google serps for non-competitive keywords (meaning low number of results) but won't show up for competitive terms. that's because g goes to the other indices (supplemental, sandbox) only if the number of results is low.
- sites/pages do not have any pr (or pr=0) since they are not included at all in the pr calculations. backlinks also will not show(?)
- only way a site gets out of the sandbox and into the main index is if room is created when old sites are dropped. we see a lot of "my site is gone from google" posts in this forum.
A big question is how google chooses which site leave the sandbox and enter the main index:
- the posts here indicate it is not age related
- definitely not pr since no pr is calculated
- quality of sites? spam metrics?
we can't seem to find a pattern and probably supports the theory that the selection process is a random process. this is probably the fairest way in the absence of a rational algorith.
>>> Explain this - how can you even speculate that PR is the cause? <<<
Ok, my explanation ...
- New sites and new pages are still indexed and ranked within 1 week - That's a fact. Sometimes they're ranked very, very well if they are *not* money terms.
- If you want your site to rank well for the money terms you need a strong page rank - a strong 5 or above normally does it. Once you've achieved a high PR, all the old tricks work like they always did.
- Because page rank has not been updated for so long, it's created the illusion of a "sandbox". I think webmasters on these forums always without fail give G much much more credit than they are due - it's not some amazing sandbox algo tweak we're witnessing, just an intentionally delayed page rank update.
>> New sites and new pages are still indexed and ranked within 1 week - That's a fact. Sometimes they're ranked very, very well if they are *not* money terms.
So do supplemental pages! That has nothing to do with PR.
>> If you want your site to rank well for the money terms you need a strong page rank - a strong 5 or above normally does it. Once you've achieved a high PR, all the old tricks work like they always did
Of course! Once you have PR, it means that you are out of the sandbox and included in the main index. Lack of PR is just a symptom that you are in the "sandbox" index!
>Once you have PR, it means that you are out of the sandbox and included in the main index.<
No it doesn't.
|So I don't think DMOZ is necessarily the magic pill you suggest |
Its actually the G directory your site should appear in. The last time the sites that came out of the box, were the ones that were picked up by the G directory update aroud April. Sites came out in May.
And dont forget the category. A regional listing is not going to be very effective.
>>No it doesn't.
there is absolutely no way you can prove your statement. why? because there is no way for you to prove that your site is in the sandbox!
>prove that your site is in the sandbox! <
Site with loads of decent inbounds, TBPR of 6, scores allinanchor in the top 5. Nowhere to be seen for any query worth a damn. Proof enough for me.
>>Proof enough for me.
Sorry PMAC, but that's no proof you're in the sandbox. It just means you're not able to compete with all the other sites that are better SEOed! there are tons of sites like yours competing for the few 10 slots on the first page of your specific serps.
the "sandbox" index is a tangible thing. it is not a state of mind!
Does anyone think this "lag" may be related to the problem a short while back where URLs were being listed in the index but without any description?
That seems like something which could happen if they were "maxed out" somehow.
|Its actually the G directory your site should appear in. The last time the sites that came out of the box, were the ones that were picked up by the G directory update aroud April. Sites came out in May. |
The Google Directory has updated since May and the sites I referred to earlier are all in the G directory, showing PR, etc.
>ou're not able to compete with all the other sites that are better SEOed!<
Yeah, that must be it.
... and the sandbox have nothing to do with each other.
|Lack of PR is just a symptom that you are in the "sandbox" index! |
And let me guess - you're using TBPR as your metric?
renee, uninstall IE and use Opera for a month... then analyze the sandbox. The results might surprise you.
Correlation does not prove causation.
>>... and the sandbox have nothing to do with each other.
I agree. I only meant that a new "sandbox" index is similar in concept (and implementation) to the supplemental index. both are used as a temporary solution to g out-of-capacity problems.
>>And let me guess - you're using TBPR as your metric?
no. I'm simply assuming, rightfully i think, that PR is still core to Google's SE algorithm. and it doesn't make sense for google to perform a separate pr calculation for the sandbox index nor the supplemental index.
|I only meant that a new "sandbox" index is similar in concept (and implementation) to the supplemental index. |
There is no such thing as a "new sandbox index". Sandboxed sites appear in the main Google index. Same as un-sandboxed sites.
The sandbox/google lag/whatever is a ranking, not an indexing issue. It is absolutely critical to understand that.
|it doesn't make sense for google to perform a separate pr calculation for the sandbox index |
It doesn't make sense because the sandbox index doesn't exist. Sandboxed sites appear in the main index.
The sandbox is not a symptom nor result of some weird PR calculation.
> I'm...assuming, rightfully i think...
Yeah, I do that all the time too.
Note to self: STOP DOING THAT. :-)
renee, you are always asking people to prove what they post - like further back in this thread:
|i'd like to know waht evidence you have. |
|there is absolutely no way you can prove your statement. why? because there is no way for you to prove that your site is in the sandbox! |
And like even back here months ago:
|is it possible for you to indicate which ones have been established beyond doubt and which ones are opinions only at this time? |
|this is pure speculation. there is no evidence whatsoever that these are true. |
msg # 17
|do you have any proof of this? |
Since you are always demanding firm evidence, what proof you have that your statements are true that you made earlier in this thread? How have you proven them?
Instead of simply discrediting what others post, suppose you help all of us, and tell us what you do that constitutes evidence and proof so that we can all learn.
>>the sandbox index doesn't exist.
you don't know this for a fact, do you? this is your opinion.
>>Sandboxed sites appear in the main index.
supplemental pages also appear in the serps (not index!). don't confuse the index and the serps. the index is interchangeable with the db. the serps is the result of queries against the index (or db).
Back on topic.
>Why does the 'Google Lag' exist?<
Best guess I have is that the index went into a quiet period before the IPO and that a fresh index is cooking behind the scenes that is soon to be ready for primetime.
Nope, pure speculation.
|you don't know this for a fact, do you? |
I know that it's a terribly ridiculous explanation for a simple problem.
I mean, hell, why don't we just say that Google has 47 different indexes, one for every country that they serve. The reason the SERPs are different for each localized region is because they're all pulling from different indexes!
To assume that they have multiple indexes instead of one index is a flawed assumption without any other evidence to go on. (Supplemental aside, which has a known purpose and is clearly marked, acknowledged, and is not related to the sandbox).
i believe this is waht a forum is. if somebody makes a statement which does not appear logical or factual, we have to question. i hope you're not saying that nobody should challenge anything posted in this forums?
it is only through interchange and factual evidence that we can come uncover the truth and reality of things.
do you want me to start questioning how you personally behave in this forums?
With all due respect, I think you're way out.
My site can appear at #1 for non-competitive kws, but for the target competitive kws it's 300-400. It's all down to the competitiveness of the search terms as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe this sandbox index thing.
You probably think the earth is round as well.
It's getting hot in here!
Seems everyone is on edge these days...Can't we all play in the "sandbox"
What is it that anyone - all of us - outside of the Plex can have as firm proof, beyond testing and observation?
People post and share what they are observing, and others evaluate and decide whether to accept their conclusions. If something is blatantly wrong, it's expected that a post giving alternate suggestions would be forthcoming.
What kind of scientific proof is expected or possible?
>>My site can appear at #1 for non-competitive kws, but for the target competitive kws it's 300-400. It's all down to the competitiveness of the search terms as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe this sandbox index thing.
Sorry. but it does not follow. I have a page that ranks in the first page for non-competive term but buried down in the serps for competitive terms. the page is "supplemental". Does it follow that the supplemental index does not exist?
Guys. this is just a theory, maybe speculation. shoot it down and let's see if it's totally out of this world.
marcia, let's stick to shooting down ideas, not people. ok?
we're obviously not looking for scientific proof, so don't try to make it look ridiculous. in a forum like this, we're looking for anecdotal evidence.
when somebody says "google dropped my site". then we have to accept this a fact. we'll assume that nobody here purposely lies.
but when somebody says "the sandbox index doesn't exist". this is a statement claiming a fact and needs to be explored further since it is not obvious that this is true. so asking for evidence, proof, explanation is totally reasonable.
How about not shooting down at all, which is exactly the point.
Back on topic, there is no indication of any separate index like the supplemental, which behaves differently. There is a big difference between an index and a phenomena or an effect. This seems to behave like a filter, and more like when algorithmic criteria are applied.
Anyone remember back to a couple of summers ago, the +20 penalty that hit lots of sites? It certainly wasn't by hand, there were far too many. Sites were not removed from the index and didn't slip back to way past the hundred mark; they simply dropped down to about 20 spots lower than they had been. When the +20 was lifted, their rankings were restored.
When the massive actual "penalty" happened a couple of winters ago that affected the Zeus sites, in subsequent months the penalties were gradually rolled back; not all at once. This is not a penalty - it couldn't be, being new isn't naughty - but there's some kind of a progressive tone to how it's happening, simply because of the inconstancy of how sites are included as they're found. There's a progressive timeline that's a variable, not anything fixed in time overall.
The fact that some sites are getting around the "sandbox effect" somehow indicates that either they're finding a hole or that in some way they're meeting algorighmic requirements and avoiding the "filtering" that's keeping new sites out.
[edited by: Marcia at 7:56 pm (utc) on Oct. 1, 2004]
|Does it follow that the supplemental index does not exist? |
No, because it is marked "SUPPLEMENTAL", and GoogleGuy tells us that those are pages which are old and not crawled frequently. We know it exists; the damned engine tells us so.
Your "sandbox" index doesn't exist. Please, please, please show me that I'm wrong and you're right. I'll kiss you.
But it's generally not a good thing to invent something from thin air, then to ask everyone to disprove that you've invented it from thin air. There's no other defense other than "You've made it up, pass the pipe"
Marcia refers to 'scientific proof' - but if scientific proof was the requirement for any posting regarding Google's algo; all posts, present and past would have to be pulled.
Let's get realistic.
BTW, there are at least a couple of basic principles surrounding Google's results which could be regarded as 'scientific':
1) Make some money for Google.
2) Make more money for Google.
3) Make a bit more money for Google.
Adwords is the basis, Adsense provides the final proof.
Beyond that: who's to say? But I guess we're trying to subvert it - what's unnatural about that Marcia?