homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.198.42.213
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 472 message thread spans 16 pages: < < 472 ( 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 16 > >     
Sandboxed Sites - Back Together?
Do they come out together or one by one?
McMohan




msg:118288
 10:09 am on Nov 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Most of the new sites that I work with are still in the sandbox. Was just curios to know, if all the sanboxed sites come out of the sandbox during one fine major updation or one by one, over the rolling updates?

That is to say, should one be checking to see if the sites are out of the sandbox regularly or only when they know there is a major Google update? :)

Thanks

Mc

 

Powdork




msg:118318
 3:21 am on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

For anyone that thinks Google indexes new sites as well as the competition, try these searches on Google and then Y!

le soleil catering
vote mike weber
tradewinds bar kings beach
lake tahoe forums

If I had time to look up all the new sites in my area rather than just the ones I know about off hand, the list of searches that return the site in Y! and not Google would be as long as the list of new sites.

IMO this is proof that G is either intentionally keeping new sites from ranking or they are unable to add new sites to their main index. I think it is the latter which is why you won't hear from Googleguy. To admit this would be to admit that they duped their shareholders.

Vec_One




msg:118319
 3:57 am on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

I think it looks bad either way.

#1. To purposely stop ranking new sites would tantamount to admitting that they have given up on their algo.

#2. If itís beyond their control, Google is seriously broken and becoming more obsolete every minute.

Whatever the reason, it doesnít seem to be affecting Yahoo! and M$N. Itís just a matter of time until the public figures that out.

BTW, I agree that it's probably reason #2.

Teshka




msg:118320
 4:25 am on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Teshka before spending 7*$299 you may want to consider that the most likely reason for your blog's success is that it resides in a folder of a non sandboxed site, not the Y! listing.

The typepad address is no older than the blog (and I have another blog at the same spot that I built up links to and that seems to be sandboxed... gets traffic from links and Yahoo but only rarely from Google). If you mean the non-sandboxed site is typepad and the success is from being listed on their domain, then anyone who put a site on their ISP would quickly do well which I'm sure is not the case. I might be misreading you though.

dvduval




msg:118321
 4:46 am on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Google still does a great job of indexing pages like:

"This page has moved. You will soon be forwarded to our new site."

This has been ranking #3 for about 2 years. It is old and has backlinks.

There is the Google sandbox for you. Bring on MSN.

Powdork




msg:118322
 4:47 am on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

If you mean the non-sandboxed site is typepad and the success is from being listed on their domain, then anyone who put a site on their ISP would quickly do well which I'm sure is not the case. I might be misreading you though.
Nope, thats what I meant. I think the Y! listing is helping you alot with your blog because it resides on a non-sandboxed doamin. I doubt it will be enough to pull a domain out of the sandbox.
phantombookman




msg:118323
 9:01 am on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

I don't see this as an index or technical problem.
Were it down to capacity then they would surely restrict the sites in the index or the number of pages.

As it is were a sandboxed site to rise in the rankings it would just push another site down into its place.

I think Google see this as anti spam, it is so easy and cheap to build sites nowadays I think they believe that this will disuade the highly optimised short term spammer.

It certainly works at reducing new sites as I have lost 3 site commissions recently as soon as people hear "it could take 6 months + before you appear anywhere"

McMohan




msg:118324
 12:14 pm on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

What makes me believe in such thing called as sandbox is, the sites (with proper whitehat optimization) rank either 200+ or in top 20 or thereabouts when out of the sandbox, for moderately competed for terms. Never in the region of 50-100?

One of the new finance related sites that I am working on, I know there only 20 to 30 companies in that particular niche, but the site won't rank within 500! Google decides to show pages that have 2 words of the phrase mentioned separately non-contextually. If only the sites were not sandboxed, the SERPs would have been a lot better.

Mc

seoArt




msg:118325
 3:26 pm on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

I started a new site, new domain name, last week. It's already in the SERP's.

Maybe you guys are tripping the "over" optimization filter. You know, it is possible to trip that with "white hat" optmization.

I've done it before in the past. I shy away from the combination of kw in title, H1, Anchor text, and high kw density.

I find all those things to be good, but all of them together gets me filtered out.

Or sandboxed?!? Since February is a long time guys. I would be looking at other reasons that your site's not getting indexed properly.

mark1615




msg:118326
 3:49 pm on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

I don't know seoART - I think the experience of a number of people (me included) is that you can use the exact same techniques on an older site and a brand new site and the old site moves up in the SERPs and the new site is ignored. This would suggest that it is not the technique.

And here is one of my persistent questions: What exactly is "over-optimization?"

This is a term that is thrown around all the time, but does not seem to have a specific definition.

Vec_One




msg:118327
 3:50 pm on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

seoArt, is your new site in the SERPs for competitive search terms? Is it in the top 10 results?

Elixir




msg:118328
 4:39 pm on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Our "sandboxed" sites have started to appear in the serps. All are over 6 months old. Some came out slowly, some dramtically from not one keyword in the top 10 to 90% over night.

It is my opinion that there was indeed a sandbox but it was associated with Google's resources diverted to the update of their index and I do not think it was deliberate. The next few months will tell as we put up new sites and see if the delay is the same.

Every day I have users ask what is happening to Google as they know I am in the industry. They are all moving to other Search Engines. The poor quality of the results are now hurting them. Google are not stupid and must know it so lets see if things get back to normal. "Normal" being up to date results and not old stale stuffy sites.

Having said all this we have been making a killing with old sites that we have SEO'd with even very competitive keywords racing to the top 10 two weeks after they have been optimized. Our clients love us so the sandbox has helped us in that respect. To be on the safe side we tell new sites they can expect to wait for 6-12 months to see results in Google just in case Google has gone mad and this sandboxing thing is a permannt fixture.

seoArt




msg:118329
 9:12 pm on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Let me clarify. No, my site is not showing up for what I consider to be competitive kw phrases.

But I've never had a site do well for the really competitive stuff right from the start even years before the whole "sandbox" idea came about.

Keep in mind, it's only slightly over a week old. I doubt most of its backlinks have even been indexed yet. (btw - Yahoo hasn't indexed it yet)

mark1615: I think I stated "exactly" what over-optimization was in my last post.
over optimization= kw(title) + kw(h1) + kw(high copy density) + kw(all backlinks)

cbpayne




msg:118330
 9:19 pm on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

over optimization= kw(title) + kw(h1) + kw(high copy density) + kw(all backlinks)

So how come I have sites that do that and rank numero uno for kw

Broadway




msg:118331
 9:22 pm on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

If "over optimization= kw(title) + kw(h1) + kw(high copy density) + kw(all backlinks)" then why does this receipe work so well (and instantly) for my 4 year old site and getting it's pages in the top 10 for its keywords and phrases.

[Granted I can only SEO the first three factors, as far as the 1000's of backlinks this site has I have little control over text used in each backlink.]

graywolf




msg:118332
 11:07 pm on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

You don't think they might want to keep things stable and stock prices high while Google founders to offload 14 million shares [webmasterworld.com]. Anybody remember all the negative press they got after "Florida" last year? Imagine how that would affect stock prices.

DerekH




msg:118333
 11:12 pm on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

mark1615: I think I stated "exactly" what over-optimization was in my last post.
over optimization= kw(title) + kw(h1) + kw(high copy density) + kw(all backlinks)

You carry on stating that - it's you're prerogative,

But I'm with the others.

I've good title, good h1, good content and good backlinks. We're proof your theory isn't as simple as your explanation!

DerekH

Ledfish




msg:118334
 11:23 pm on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

There is no question that Google is sandboxing sites in my opinion. You have too many webmasters talking about not be able to rank and even though we all have many things not in common, like hosts, domain names, design, seo techniques, etc......We all have one thing in common which is that these sites were recently launched (with the last 6-9 months).

But wait, why would Google want to be fair.

Google's stock price is double or more than what it IPO'd at, so the group of people that are financial affected by Googles actions aren't bothered by it.

Nobody in the high profile public media is talking about it, for instance the Wall Street Journal and therefore it is not creating negative public relations.

Because of the lack of national or world wide media attention, the public isn't being made aware of how stale this really makes Googles results, so searcher traffic is not being affected significantly.

They can defend it as a fight against spam, while at the same time not having to admit that it really is an effort to boost adword revenue, which by the way won't upset stockholders.

Until the media starts bashing Google over the less than accurate results and until the stockholders start bashing Google for being a little reckless with THEIR Company and investment, the sandbox will continue....

Meanwhile MSN will be working hard to seize the opportunity before it passes them by and eventually Google will find itself in a dual with a catender (Microsoft) and it will be round after round of one-up-manship until finally Microsoft does what it always does, wears you down till your so distracted that they takeover sheerly because they have enough resources(money and people) that they don't get worn down themselves.

IT will be just like netscape, just on a grander scale.

JuniorOptimizer




msg:118335
 11:29 pm on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Microsoft is going to have to deliver a heck of lot more traffic than they do now to affect Google at all.

dvduval




msg:118336
 11:41 pm on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Microsoft is going to have to deliver a heck of lot more traffic than they do now to affect Google at all.

Mark my words ... Microsoft is coming strong in 2005 and will be doing some MAJOR marketing to get people using their new search. I have historically been an anti-fan of microsoft, but Google and their sandbox effect makes choosing the lesser of two evils MUCH more difficult.

dickbaker




msg:118337
 11:48 pm on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

MSN visits my site ten times as often as Google. However, Google has now indexed just about all the pages on my site, whereas MSN has only indexed a quarter to a third of them.

If I could get my new site ranked as well as my 2 1/2 year-old site for the same keywords, my new site's traffic would be 15 times what it is now.

It's too bad that investors aren't aware that Google's results are stale. Perhaps someone with a talent for writing financial articles might submit something to the Wall Street Journal or another financial media outlet. The investment world just might like a story like this.

seoArt




msg:118338
 12:52 am on Nov 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

Let's stay on topic guys.

I thought "sandboxed" sites are not supposed to show up for even non-competitive keywords.

Also, regarding what I said about over-optimization. I'm talking about cases where those keyword phrases are EXACTLY or almost exactly the same.

Broadway, you said why it works so well - you have 1000's of backlinks that you didn't control the text for. That's why your site ranks so well. Good Job btw.

My question is whether or not these sites supposedly "sandboxed" for nine months (! ouch) are really sandboxed at all?

I doubt it. I think there's something else going on.
(GoogleGuy would probably say something lame like, "check your robots.txt file")

cbpayne




msg:118339
 1:05 am on Nov 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

I'm talking about cases where those keyword phrases are EXACTLY or almost exactly the same.

In my case they ARE all exactly the same --- still rank number one (not the sandboxed site)....

In the sandboxed site, the backlinks are mixed in their anchor text.

lizardx




msg:118340
 1:09 am on Nov 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

"I thought "sandboxed" sites are not supposed to show up for even non-competitive keywords."

No, they show up fine for non-competitive keywords. That's never really been a question, forums like this one have had many threads on that.

"I think there's something else going on."

That's a safe guess I'd say.

Vec_One




msg:118341
 2:23 am on Nov 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

I thought "sandboxed" sites are not supposed to show up for even non-competitive keywords.

In my experience, sandboxed sites do poorly in the SERPs, without being 100% wiped out. Currently, my site is #3 when I search for my company name. There are 1,500,000 results. AFAIK, it's safe to say that sandboxed sites are pretty much useless for Google SERPs.

Powdork




msg:118342
 3:17 am on Nov 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

Nobody in the high profile public media is talking about it, for instance the Wall Street Journal and therefore it is not creating negative public relations.
On 11/9, I sent an email similar to this (below) to the author of the WSJ article referenced in this thread [webmasterworld.com]. Who knows how many emails they get though.

Hello,
I have often wondered why noone at any major news agency has caught wind of current problems at Google. Perhaps many have, but are unwilling to take on the hugely popular corporation. It seems as though they are currently unable to apply their ranking algorithm to as many pages as they index. The end result is that they are not presenting new domains within the top several hundred results for searcher's queries. There are numerous reports of this within the webmaster community but so far none from without. It seems quite possible that if some of the reports are true, Google was remiss in not mentioning the problem to potential shareholders prior to going public. Originally, folks thought it was intentional as a method to combat the ability to put up a 10,000 page site up overnight and have 10,000 backlinks the next day all with easy to obtain software. But that was when the effect was thought to only last 60-90 days. Now that sites are entering their 6th to 8th month of the effect, webmasters are increasingly understanding that Google is broken, and has been for quite awhile. Below are some links to some of the threads ongoing and otherwise discussing this phenomenon. You can also search on any engine for 'Google Lag' or 'Sandbox'.


[webmasterworld.com...] Thread at WebmasterWorld discussing the effects of Google's problems from a surfer's point of view. The search query I reference towards the end is "Tradewinds Bar kings beach" (no quotes). It's not a well optimized site by any means, but does get the problem across.
[webmasterworld.com...] Thread at WebmasterWorld discussing the technical aspects of the Google Lag (sandbox).

chopin2256




msg:118343
 4:12 am on Nov 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

There is definitely a sandbox, otherwise, why would I rank so well in MSN beta? And why is CNN in the top 10 results of my main keyword!

Furthermore, Google only recognizes 22 backlinks from my website, the old Msn recognizes 104, and MSN beta recognizes 500.

Google is quick to update, but its useless if it doesn't rank you. MSN beta may not update the pages in the index as frequently, but MSN ranks you!

I had my website for about 6 months, I am nowhere to be seen in Google for competitive phrases. I am just one more person to present proof that Google's results are stale. My main competitive keyphrase has really stale results in the top 10. CNN ranks for my main keyword, which is "recording studio" by the way. How relevant is that? CNN ranks because they have tons of old backlinks, and apparently someone died at a recording studio, so now CNN ranks for the phrase which is contained maybe once in the whole article. God knows how long it will be in the top 10 results. Its not fair that it outranks a well optimized site (mine), with a decent amount of backlinks, not to mention, a website that is right on topic.

At first I may have thought to myself that the sandbox is just a sorry excuse for webmasters who can't rank. Now I know where you all are coming from. With 6 months of experimentation, and solid proof (with the CNN business ranking for my main keyphrase) and the fact that I can't rank on the first few pages for some semi-competitive results, such as mispellings, I conclude to all, there is a sandbox.

stevegpan2




msg:118344
 4:37 am on Nov 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

i agree the sandbox theory
i have 2 site, both old, but one with lower pr 3-4 and one with 5-6

i get many links for pr 3-4 sites and no luck on serps

with pr5-6 site, i added content much later and show up on google better than pr3-4 site.

mark1615




msg:118345
 5:22 am on Nov 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

Let me give yet another example with regard to 2 sites of ours:

1) 7 months old - main kw returns abount 2MM sites. This site is well optimized, lots of content, right on topic, about 1,200 good backlinks. We are not in the top 1,000 in G.

2) Old site - new page on a new VERY competitive topic. This kw returns about 8MM sites. Page is not yet 3 weeks old. It has 3 backlinks. It is currently #477 and moving up. Now obviously 477 is useless, but I think the point is still clear. This new section appeared immediately with almost no effort and is on the move.

Coincidence?

chopin2256




msg:118346
 5:32 am on Nov 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

Your old site has only 3 backlinks? Ranked 477 out of 8 million for just 3 backlinks. I guess all I can do is be patient and wait about 6 months more, and hopefully I will start ranking. Too bad MSN may come out July of next year. I wish it would come out in January.

anallawalla




msg:118347
 6:00 am on Nov 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

JudgeJeffries, I agree with your post except the date you site as being February.

Same here. Brand new domains launched up to July are ranking well for me but two other new domains launched on the same day in August have only just (wasn't watching dates) started ranking but one is a lot worse than the other. So, in a sense they didn't "emerge" at the same ranking (similar site designs, yet different products) -- they are competing with all the other sites.

gomer




msg:118348
 6:10 am on Nov 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

Thanks anallawalla for confirming that.

As I said previously, I remember a thread here at WW (about May or June) where there was somewhat of a large consensus that sites had come out of the sandbox. I know one of my sites came out of the sandbox then. (I have many sites launched after that that are still in the sandbox.)

I have tried to find that thread but have not been able to. I am not sure of the date of the sites coming out of the sandbox but I belive it was in May or June of 2004 and before June 7, 2004.

Can anyone remember that period or find that thread?

This 472 message thread spans 16 pages: < < 472 ( 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 16 > >
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