|Business Name Change & The Sandbox Filter|
A business name change can get you Sandboxed
| 11:30 pm on Jun 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If a street-side business changed its name, and the City put up a brick wall around the storefront as a result of new branding? How far do you think the City would get with the business owner or public if this was a standard?
This is basically the same issue around the Google Sandbox filter, which is applied to new sites to prevent them from showing on search result pages.
I had a personal experience with this very issue (with Google, not the City ;) ) ..and While I understand why it happened, I felt the need to seek more reasoning.
There has to be another way for Google to manage the spam they struggled keep out of their search result pages. It almost feels pointless to post this topic, but for me it logically doesn’t make any sense. I don’t really suffer from Sandbox filter, but what really gets me is all the new information, products, resources I may be missing out!
The alternatives for companies to get around the $andbox filter are the Adwords... and I won’t even click those, because I usually end up with Adspam. So Google ends up going from one Spam issue to another… and in my opinion Adwords has become more spammy since the implementation of the Sandbox filter.
| 6:14 am on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This was buried, so thought I would give it another shot for discussion.
| 8:30 am on Jun 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|new information, products, resources I may be missing out |
I would not think anyone is missing much on the basis of it taking some time for some new sites to appear in the serps.
Just because a site is old and/or well ranked does not mean it does not provide new information, products or resources, very many do all the time.
What proportion of new sites offer something REALLY new that a searcher would not be able to find anywhere in the serps unless thay visited that particular site?
I beleive the answer is very, very few. So from the searchers point of view whether or when new sites rank is of no consequence, and Google is focused on the searcher.
The spam issue is really a separate one - I wonder if the proportion of 'sandboxed' sites which are spam is even higher than it is in the ordinary serps? Without knowing it is hard to comment on how effective Google is becoming in tackling this issue.
| 8:38 am on Jun 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Slone, don't be despondent but this has been kicked to death in here for more than a year now. I suppose people are just fed up with it. Google have denied it's existence and, even in the light of much evidence to the contrary, so have quite a few people in here.
You are correct of course. Filtering all (except a chosen few) new sites is not the answer to the problem. Google does not have the answer but this is their best shot. Who knows? Perhaps it has gone with Bourbon. I know that a couple of my sites have been released during the last three weeks.
Incidentally Google seem to be missing the answers to quite a few things nowadays. even when they are blindingly obvious ;)
For example, see [webmasterworld.com...]