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

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 98 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 98 ( 1 2 3 [4]     
Does the "sandbox" Only Affect Phrases Containing Popular Words?
If the phrase has no words over 70-80 million results, does sandbox apply?
ciml




msg:770272
 6:35 pm on Mar 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

While discussing [webmasterworld.com] a most interesting analysis of Google's number of results [aixtal.blogspot.com] figures I speculated that the Google might use a smaller index for popular words, in a manner similar to that explained in a pre-Google Backrub paper.

Liane took this idea further, and suggested that this might explain the sandbox.

So without getting into specifics, what is the view on sandbox applying to phrases that have no words with less than 80 million results?

Keep in mind that many phrases with few results contain at least one word with more than 80 million.

<added>
"that have no words with less than 80 million" should be "that have no words with more than 80 million". Thanks Liane for spotting the error.

[edited by: ciml at 3:33 pm (utc) on Mar. 12, 2005]

 

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:770362
 9:55 am on Mar 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

With respect this is only your personal experience and thank you for sharing it. But, as I have said earlier, I create small niche, sites for consultants and small businesses that neither employ aggressive linking campaigns nor target popular keywords. I think all of those I have created since March last year have been sandboxed and none, as yet, released. One of these has just passed the 12 month marker and it is still firmly in the mire.

It may be that aggressive linking campaigns and targeting popular keywords can trigger some sort of penalty but this is not the sandbox that I am seeing. It may also be that older sites are now being penalised for aggressive linking campaigns but once again I don't think that this is the sandbox. The sandbox may not have been scientifically defined but I believe that it was accepted as something that happened to new sites. What happens to existing sites is different.

It's too easy to blame everything on the sandbox but this just confuses the issue. If there is a new penalty for aggressive linking this should be treated as a different issue. Perhaps someone more capable than me could come up with a surefire sandbox test that can be applied to sites old and new?

How many others have saw their pre-sandbox sites suffer as a result of linking campaigns?

caveman




msg:770363
 5:36 pm on Mar 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

The sandbox may not have been scientifically defined but I believe that it was accepted as something that happened to new sites. What happens to existing sites is different.

No that is not true. There have been countless posts from some very astute webmasters that older sites can be hit by some of the same elements of the algo that people associate with 'sandboxing.' All one needs to do is read them carefully, and distinguish between those the relate to sandboxing and those that don't.

Perhaps someone more capable than me could come up with a surefire sandbox test that can be applied to sites old and new?

No such thing. When it comes to alrorithmic matters involving co-dependent variables, this is nearly impossible, because it is nearly impossible to find two sites identical in all respects, so that one can be made the test and one the control. There are general widespread beliefs about what constitutes sandboxing, but those have been rehashed to death already.

How many others have saw their pre-sandbox sites suffer as a result of linking campaigns?

The 'sandbox' has a starting point. It involves sites that were launched after a certain date, and sites that implemented certain kinds of largescale changes after a certain date.

Sites that fall into the category of being subject to algorithmic dampening factors associated with sandboxing must then find their way out of the darkness. Some sites/webmasters have been achieving this from the very early days of this phenomenon. Many other webmasters went so far as to insist that it could not be done (doh!) simply because they could not 'see' it for themselves.

Eventually, even those with blinders on read enough posts to start believing that some were indeed finding their way around the problem, either by accident or by aggressively testing alternatives (I'm not referring to the buy old domains trick).

Now, a growing number are getting the idea, I suspect, following Allegra, because with Allegra there came a number of tweaks to this algo that allowed some sites to resurface. Those whose sites did resurface have a whole lot of new and valuable information...

pleeker




msg:770364
 6:42 pm on Mar 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

What caveman said.

How do you know this was the sandbox? It may have just been some other penalty caused by the changes you made. Minor changes can have major impact.

I'd invite you to re-read my messages in posts 58 and 62 and ask what in my description could possibly bring on a penalty.

And to emphasize, the site I'm referring to has no "aggressive link campaign" -- never has, probably never will.

MHes




msg:770365
 12:05 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

>So, in your opinion, would this category also include a site that was launched in 1999, but after March '04 was relocated to a new IP (same hosting company, though) with a slightly new design and with a new navigation structure? (i.e. - pages that used to be 3 levels deep were made 2 levels deep)

We had a site 2 years ago that disappeared possibly because we changed at the same time:

1) IP
2) Content (though same theme and file names)
3) Added many more pages

It may be a dangerous thing to change too much all at once, as if the site was becoming a completely new one?

As with everything, do in moderation.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:770366
 1:23 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'd invite you to re-read my messages in posts 58 and 62 and ask what in my description could possibly bring on a penalty.

Ok I re-read it, how about little things like

* relocated to a new IP
* new design
* new navigation

But seriously if I knew exactly what brought on all the penalties I would be too busy making millions to waste time on forums.

You must be aware that there are many changes that you make that can affect your rankingbut don't ask me why. Ask Google :)

RS_200_gto




msg:770367
 2:05 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Are any sites that are advertising in Google Adwords and use aggressive linking campaigns and targeting popular keywords lost in google?

nakulgoyal




msg:770368
 6:03 am on Mar 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am working on a client, creating a case study around this. He has a B2C website up and running since last 5 years. So far, I don't think 'Sandbox' is much of a problem. Nonetheless, results have been good amongst all search engines, and that takes the worries away.

I feel the approach should be, doing things. There has been an ancient saying in the Indian History "Karm Kiye Ja, Fal Ki Chinta Mat Kar", that means, in crux, Do your Job, Concentrate on doing it well, not caring about results, and the results will come.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:770369
 12:18 pm on Mar 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

"not caring about results"

Aye, right!

:)

This 98 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 98 ( 1 2 3 [4]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
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