|Why does the 'Google Lag' exist?|
Trying to understand its purpose.
| 1:43 am on Sep 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I had some in-depth discussion this weekend with some friends about the sandbox. Every theory on how to beat it kept coming back to one central problem - no one is sure why it exists.
I feel very strongly that until we have a good grasp on why it exists, it will be very hard to beat.
I don't buy the explanation that it's intended to be a method of stopping spam. Why? One, there's too much collateral damage it is doing. Two, if you accept the 80/20 principle (20% of spammers are doing 80% of the spamming), and you realize that there are multiple ways already of beating the sandbox that all of those spammers are aware of, it doesn't make sense anymore.
So, why does the sandbox exist?
The most obvious effect of the sandbox is that it prevents new domains (not pages) from ranking for any relatively competitive term. So, start thinking like a search engine - what would be the benefit of this?
| 3:16 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
renee, given that nobody else here has any tangible evidence, I'll go with the pure logic.
<<<<looks like when google transferred the page to the supplemental it transferred the page record lock-stock-and barrel.
And since your logic actually explains the things I'm seeing, like in this case, where I rebranded a site, it entered the sandbox, lost all its pagerank. But then one day I was rechecking the page rank, when a single lone file suddenly showed up with its old pagerank. That vanished later. This file was buried in the site, and was the only file with page rank on the site. So your logic perfectly explains this phenomena. [given that creating an algo is pretty much a purely logical process, obviously one of the best tools to decipher/reverse engineer it is logic, that's sort of a no brainer, or should be... but my college logic teacher told me he'd seen a drastic decline in his student's abilities to perform logic with the onslaught of the tv generations....]
[edited by: isitreal at 3:21 pm (utc) on Oct. 5, 2004]
| 3:19 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I donít know why the 'Google Lag' exists, but it seems to me that itís just a side effect. Also, it seems to me that this phenomenon is related to the 'no title / no snippet' problem. From the results of test pages I guess that the reason either has to do with a change in the PR propagation (e.g. due to a change in the number of iterations performed for PR calculation) or with the dublicate content determination.
| 3:28 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>I hope my encouragement hasn't made you think that the theory is fact Renee.:)
Sorry to burst your bubble cabbie, but i don't let encouragements color my thinking! ;)
>>As Mfishy and others have said PR and backlinks are no indication of a site being in or out of the sandbox.
we would be a lot better of if you used logic instead of believing what mfishy says. ;) from a previous post, i said that a site is not in the sandbox if it either has pr or is listed as a backlink. this is proof positive that the site/pages were part of the matrix of backlinks used by google to calculate pr. AND the reverse is not true: not having pr or not listed in backlinks DOES NOT mean it is in the sandbox!
since there is no positive indication from google (just like a supplemental tag), we can only deduce from the above rule whether a site is not in the sandbox. so people, saying you are in the sandbox does not make it so!
>>Does this mean its back to the drawing board?
let me know what you think (technical only, no bs) and i'll do my best to answer them.
| 4:02 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|i said that a site is not in the sandbox if it either has pr or is listed as a backlink. |
This is untrue, I have 3 sites with PR that are in the lag box.
| 4:02 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|a site is not in the sandbox if it either has pr or is listed as a backlink |
Sorry, but my site has PR, is listed as a backlink and is in the sandbox. Absolutely no doubt. None.
If you want to sticky me I'll send you the url.
| 4:02 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>> i have no tangible evidence whatsoever, just pure logic!
Logical assumptions are generally based on tangible evidence. Many sites have toolbar PR and are listed in backlinks and are still in the sandbox, which would invalidate a core component of your hypothesis.
I have one sandboxed site that is a PR 5 on the toolbar and the majority of the Google traffic comes from people finding it using the "link: " command on site it links to, so it obviously is in a lot of other site's backlinks.
| 4:13 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|But then again, this might just be another of my stupid ideas :-) |
Well that went well :-) New topic maybe? After looking at it. I am not sure even I would have filled it out.
| 4:14 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
<<we can only deduce from the above rule whether a site is not in the sandbox.>>
Why would anyone deduce that? If you are using TBPR, it is all meaningless anyway...
| 4:14 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>>but i don't let encouragements color my thinking!<<
Nor does it seem that facts do.:)
| 4:23 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>If you want to sticky me I'll send you the url.
please send me your url so i can take a look.
again, just because you say your site is in the sandbox does not make it so. you can say your site exhibits the symptoms of being in the sandbox, but the reasons MAY be totally different! the logic works something like this:
you are place in a box and transported to space where there is zero gravity. the box is then rotated so that you now experience 1G. Can you conclude that you are on earth? No. All you can say is that you are experience 1G (symptom). logic 101. this example is borrowed from einstein.
| 4:24 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|we would be a lot better of if you used logic instead of believing what mfishy says. |
I'd pretty much go with what mfishy says, but that's only because I put a lot of stock in people who know what they're talking about.
|"How to avoid it" should lead to the "Why does it exist". |
This line of thinking tends to make me feel stupid, so I hope it's wrong. I'm clearly not smart enough to figure it out. Fortunately I'm able to rationalize by telling myself that it's a waste of my time to try, because there are thousands in this community better qualified to get at answers like that than I.
But, here's the flipside: In the drug discovery business, it is often the case that researchers learn *what* works long before they learn *why* it works. Of course *why* is important - *why* helps fine tune, and often leads to other discoveries. But *why* is not a precondition for success.
This business strikes me as being a lot like the drug discovery business. And as mfishy points out, managing a lot of sites helps when it comes to figuring out *what* works, even if we're not always sure exactly *why.*
|...it is pretty obvious that age is a significant factor in this algo.. |
We believe that age has been important for longer than people say, but it sure seems a lot more important now.
DaveAtIFG, fabulous post!
| 4:25 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>Nor does it seem that facts do.:)
i'm disappointed in you cabbie. you can do better than this. tell me what facts you are refering to and let's have an intellectual discussion.
| 4:34 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
BTW, and FWIW, my theory is that someone tripped in the computer room last Feb, and most of the machines went tumbling like dominoes. Unfortunately this happened just before someone else pushed the button to propagate that dc's info to all of the other dc's, and they've not been able to sort it out since.
Part mechanical, part corrupted algo, which is why no one is able to figure it out.
Renee, what do you think? :-)
| 4:37 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>Renee, what do you think? :-)
i'd say you're an i---t sweetie.
| 4:44 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Part mechanical &
part corrupted algo &
part supplemental index &
part dated algo &
part hardcore business decision, boost income &
part antispam measure &
<<<which is why no one is able to figure it out.
I think I like your jokes cabbie, they make decent sense.
Somehow in these threads the word 'and' seems to get lost. Like it's only 'or' that can possible be true. Saying something is an antispam measure does not contradict anything, it's just one more 'and', it's an income booster and it's an antispam measure etc. And is a cool word. If something with more solid causes can then be tweaked to also become a sort of antispam measure that also helps boost income, hey, great!
what makes no sense however is the scenario of google saying 'hey, I know, let's totally drop what made us the number one search engine in the world, fast indexing, upto date results, the latest stuff available faster than anyone else and exchange that for a weird funky model that will expose us to potentially serious long term degradation of market share. It will be great, say with the upcoming election, with our 'lag' we won't have a single political website available that didn't start before 6-8 months before the election, that's a really great business plan, what do you think sergey?'
| 4:59 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|it's an income booster and it's an antispam measure etc. |
I already made the point that no one in their right mind would suggest that to improve spam they should prevent ALL new sites from featuring in the results. To do so would be plain ridiculous.
I would suggest that the same thing applies to it being an income booster. Sure, many people may have been forced to subscribe to Adwords because their new sites have not appeared but this is not the way to do business. If the press got an inkling that this is what Google was up to they would tear them to ribbons, and rightly so.
This is so wrong that it has to be a defect. I believe that it exists because, for whatever reason, Google is broke and they cannot fix it right now.
I just hope that it gets the publicity it deserves. Surely there is someone here with enough influence to get this into the media? Let's hang it out to dry.
| 5:04 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
<<<< This is so wrong that it has to be a defect. I believe that it exists because, for whatever reason, Google is broke and they cannot fix it right now.
this is so obvious it's hard to believe anyone can't see it, all google is doing is trying to work through it, make the best of it, looks and feels like a series of patches implemented for different reasons.
I believe my example of a topical, political website, started 5-7 months ago, would literally not appear in the google serps until well after the election should be more than enough to demonstrate the total idiocy of this stupid lag, assuming the lag is a choice and not a necessity, which is a pretty bad assumption as assumptions go. Anyone who thinks this is somehow a good idea, or was made for solid programming reasons rather than being a severe symptom of a real defect... want a bridge?
[edited by: isitreal at 5:06 pm (utc) on Oct. 5, 2004]
| 5:06 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"I would suggest that the same thing applies to it being an income booster."
I think that's a crazy thing to say, google would never do that, especially before xmas.
I mean it would be like, like errrrrr well, like last year!
| 5:07 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>i'd say you're an i---t sweetie.
Thanks hon! Except the secret code for 'intelligent' is 'i----------t'. You left out a few "---'s".
| 5:08 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
<<< crazy thing to say, google would never do tha
man, of course, you're totally right, what was I thinking. Pre IPO income rises dramatically, shares go for many times what they are worth... of course this was just a coincidence, all those shirts they brought in were just rearranging the cafeteria and parking assignments, man, how could I be so darned stupid?
caveman, why and what are both very powerful methods to use, most genetic engineering is focusing on the why currently in case you aren't keeping up with this stuff, 'traditional' western pharmacological type medicine more on the what, as you noted, both methods are good, but if you know why the what is very very easy to get to. If you don't, all you have is endless trial and error, this is why science always goes for the why through the whats. Traditional chinese medicine works much more off the why, that's why it's still here today, by the way.
[edited by: isitreal at 5:35 pm (utc) on Oct. 5, 2004]
| 5:21 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>i'm disappointed in you cabbie. you can do better than this.<<
Sorry,I will try to be funnier next time.:(
>>>tell me what facts you are refering to <<<
Just the fact that if the site has pr and shows up in the backlinks, the site is not on the sandbox.
There's enough experienced webmasters here experiencing the contrary.
>>> and let's have an intellectual discussion.<<
This is one of the few boards i have any cred left and i don't want to lose it.
| 5:23 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>I'd pretty much go with what mfishy says
do you also believe the supplemental index does not exist?
| 5:24 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Before xmas? More like after xmas, this has been going since February this year!
| 5:33 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
<<supplemental index does not exist?>>
I never said this. But, given your capabilities, I would not expect you to have understood this. I stated that the supplemental index has ZERO to do with this thread. Actually, if you take out your ramblings, it is not mentioned at all.
|The sandbox/google lag/whatever is a ranking, not an indexing issue. It is absolutely critical to understand that. |
Re-read that please.
| 5:40 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>Actually, your entire theory is based on a premise of a supplemental index that you have 0 proof exists.
cabbie, this is what you said earlier.
| 5:41 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
sorry cabbie, i meant fishy
| 5:41 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
<<<Actually, your entire theory is based on a premise of a supplemental index that you have 0 proof exists.
While you didn't actually say that it doesn't exist, this statement would indicate to most readers that this is exactly what you meant, so if you mean something different, then maybe you should be more clear, I also read you to be saying this.
So I'd say your words, even if they aren't what you meant, are saying what they were read to be saying. Why is everyone getting so snappy, the full moon isn't close? No matter what is happening you can't do s#$t about it at the moment, all you can do is try to pool your knowledge and get it figured out. Just because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't make you brilliant and them an idiot.
<added>LOL, we both posted the same quote at the same time....
mfishy, this style doesn't help at all, it doesn't make you look good, whatever the merit of your points, this type of tone does not make your point more convincing, quite the contrary.
| 5:48 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Errr...darn it, looks like I won't be convincing anyone!
I later stated that the supplemental/imaginary index filled with sandboxed sites does not exist, get it? If you knew how sites are beating the sandbox, you might understand why this theory has no merit at all.
<<No matter what is happening you can't do s#$t about it at the moment>>
Of course I can. I rank sites as fast as ever, it's just the roundabout way that one must take that is annoying and perplexing.
| 5:51 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Ok, Mfishy, then I simply cannot understand what you are talking about.
<<<supplemental index does not exist?>>
I never said this. But, given your capabilities,
<<<<I later stated that the supplemental/imaginary index filled with sandboxed sites does not exist, get it?>>>>>
So are you saying you said it doesn't exist or that you never said it doesn't exist, make up your mind, try to be at least slightly coherent here, it sounds like you have some kind of interesting thing to say, but you aren't saying it, for whatever reason you have.
<<<<<it's just the roundabout way that one must take
is this referring to what cabbie or cavement mentioned, buying up domains with pagerank? sounds like it, I know that works, that's not a secret I think. Or is it something more interesting that actually conclusively proves that there is in fact no new site sandbox per se, in other words, a new domain name can get by it, I'm not asking for details here, that's your business, just if that's what you are saying.
[edited by: isitreal at 5:56 pm (utc) on Oct. 5, 2004]
| 5:54 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The supplemental index does exist, however, this has nothing to do with the google lag we are discussing.
|There is no such thing as a "new sandbox index". Sandboxed sites appear in the main Google index. Same as un-sandboxed sites. |
<<a new domain name can get by it>>
| 6:04 pm on Oct 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
mfishy please don't delete yourself...I like your posts.
|do you also believe the supplemental index does not exist? |
To be honest, I don't pay a lot of attention. Staring at our screens for hours while trying to discern the meaning of things hasn't helped us much in the past. When we stare at the screens, we pay more attention to the "what's" than the "why's." I always have theories about the "why's" because the theories help generate hypotheses about what works and what doesn't, but ultimately what's important is *what* works.
As dear old cavedad used to say: "I'm not exactly sure why it rains, but I know enough to hunt when it's sunny, and get into the cave when the skies go dark." Cavedad was a good provider. ;-)
P.S. Don't get me wrong...I agree with Jake's premise that learning the why's here might really help. But I can't contribute much there. All I can do is offer the encouragement that this thing is beatable, and perhaps offer some things to think about. Which probably means I should get out of this thread!