homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.206.80
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor
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

    
Exciting! Evaluating a possible STEAL!
alphacooler




msg:737897
 2:41 am on Jul 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hey all. I stumbled across a domain that is in my industry and has PR 5 with a DMOZ listing. The site was purchased 4 years ago but here is the catch: it hasn't had content up on it for 2 years. Yet, even after the last PR update it maintains a PR5(I know PR can be misleading), and has retained solid links.

The second catch is that all the links are to a subdirectory on the site. Although this may seem to be a problem, my goal for the site is NOT to target the main page for anything, but to target and SEO subdirectories. So I was thinking I would put content back up on the subdirectory that has all the links to it, then channel from there. The webmaster has also agreed to keep the WHOIS info intact and if I do a site: search some of the pages were cached on January of 2005.

Now to the question

>If I put up NEW content what are the chances Google Sandboxes the site. (I know it's not a science, but best guesses)

Thankyou to everyone.

K

 

otc_cmnn




msg:737898
 11:34 pm on Jul 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

you should avoid the sandbox. you can always 301 from the old subs, you are be no means tied to them.

alphacooler




msg:737899
 2:56 am on Jul 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

anyone else care to weigh in?

tke71709




msg:737900
 2:14 pm on Jul 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

I can't see Google sandboxing you for adding content to a site.

rfgdxm1




msg:737901
 12:35 am on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

>Hey all. I stumbled across a domain that is in my industry and has PR 5 with a DMOZ listing. The site was purchased 4 years ago but here is the catch: it hasn't had content up on it for 2 years. Yet, even after the last PR update it maintains a PR5(I know PR can be misleading), and has retained solid links.
The second catch is that all the links are to a subdirectory on the site.

>Although this may seem to be a problem, my goal for the site is NOT to target the main page for anything, but to target and SEO subdirectories. So I was thinking I would put content back up on the subdirectory that has all the links to it, then channel from there. The webmaster has also agreed to keep the WHOIS info intact and if I do a site: search some of the pages were cached on January of 2005.

If the site hasn't had content up on it for 2 years, HOW could there be cached pages from January, 2005?

theBear




msg:737902
 12:46 am on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Possible orphaned "Google 302 link generated pages".

Would be one possibility that springs to mind.

Yes they do exist, and even the TND known as the url console needs an assist to get rid of them.

Other than that if the home page was removed but there were IBL to other pages and they were still there then Google would still have a Cache and would continue to re cache them.

alphacooler




msg:737903
 4:55 am on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

rfgdxm1,

Let me clarify. The index page has had no content nor the directory which has all IBL's, for 2 years. However, while the site WAS up 2 years ago there was an archives section with a thousand pages. The site owner NEVER pulled the archives off the server, and hence they are still getting crawled (or at least until a few months ago).

So what are my options here? You think simply putting fresh content on the directory that has all the IBL's will yield me a non-sandboxed site? Or will I be starting from scratch?

McMohan




msg:737904
 5:48 am on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Is the site presently ranking for anything at all? If you aren't adding content that is different from the theme of the site, then there is no reason why should the site be sandboxed.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:737905
 8:16 am on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

I can't see Google sandboxing you for adding content to a site.

I understood that a large addition to the content on a site could lead to the sandbox? I am not sure about this but I seem to recall some other reporting this.

McMohan




msg:737906
 9:03 am on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

BeeDeeDubbleU,

Yes, there are reports of addition of new content (Read new pages) in large no. in one short burst may lead a site into the sandbox. I couldn't verify personally though. But, NEW content itself can't be a reason for a site to go to the sandbox, particularly if the site has been around for few years.

sit2510




msg:737907
 9:49 am on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>> Yes, there are reports of addition of new content (Read new pages) in large no. in one short burst may lead a site into the sandbox.

Personally I believe that this is true. Adding new pages too quickly can lead the whole site plummeted. Recently I added about 5,000 pages to a 7,000 pages site and most of the pages vanish from the SERP. No effect on PR. Nevermind I can wait.

rfgdxm1




msg:737908
 11:52 am on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

>Let me clarify. The index page has had no content nor the directory which has all IBL's, for 2 years. However, while the site WAS up 2 years ago there was an archives section with a thousand pages. The site owner NEVER pulled the archives off the server, and hence they are still getting crawled (or at least until a few months ago).

>So what are my options here? You think simply putting fresh content on the directory that has all the IBL's will yield me a non-sandboxed site? Or will I be starting from scratch?

There is no rule that a site must have an index page with content. What you have here is an old, existing site with just some archives up.

The only real value here is possibly avoiding the sandbox. Note if you materially change the content, the site may (perhaps likely) lose what inbound links it has over time. And PR5 is no great shakes.

If you change content, and can get substantial, new inbound links very quick you may avoid the sandbox. Thus the main value is that, and if the domain name is very desirable for what you sell. The issue for you to consider is how expensive is this domain name? This may be worth it if the domain name is going for a really good price.

ownerrim




msg:737909
 12:02 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Yes, there are reports of addition of new content (Read new pages) in large no. in one short burst may lead a site into the sandbox."

Any idea what the threshold might be for this? Adding ten thousand pages at once? A thousand? A hundred?

I could see someone adding as much as a hundred at once, particularly if a new section of a site was going up. Ten thousand at once would seem...possibly spammy.

alphacooler




msg:737910
 4:49 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

rfgdxm1

>If you change content, and can get substantial, new inbound links very quick you may avoid the sandbox. Thus the main value is that, and if the domain name is very desirable for what you sell. The issue for you to consider is how expensive is this domain name? This may be worth it if the domain name is going for a really good price.

The whole point of purchase here is to put up new directories on the domain and get IBL's for them. Each directory is going to target specific keywords within this niche. I want these directories not to be sandboxed. That is my bottom line. I will not be targeting anything for the front page of the site.

And the site content will be VERY close to what was there previously. And if the IBL's have stayed for 2 blank years then new, similar content can only help(not to mention many of the links are from directories).

Why would you say that I need "quick" and "substantial" new IBL's?

peschli




msg:737911
 5:20 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

I can verify that adding a large number of pages to an existing domain can put into the sandbox.

Our company had two domains, one to our main company and the other to our sister company. Both had been registered and active for over 10 years. The difference between the two companies is that our sister company was basically selling an old version of our software which was sold as a "Lite" version.

Last year we decided that we wanted to use our sister company name as our main company because the name was geared towards our industry and where it evolved to. So we switch our domains, using a 301 re-direct, kept some of the existing structure of the "Sister Site" But even still there was about 80% more new content on the site. About a month and a half after having swapped domains, we went right into the sandbox.

My learning experiences from this are:

Does existing domain with a good page rank keep me out of the sandbox? NO

Do inbound links into a site bring on sandbox? NO, both our site basically had the same sites linked to them.

Does adding or taking away certain amounts of pages on a site bring on the sandbox? I believe this is Very True

balam




msg:737912
 6:04 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

> Any idea what the threshold might be for this? Adding ten thousand pages at once?

I've become highly suspicious that the threshold may be as low as a couple of dozen pages.

Quick anecdote, since I'm OT (hold those CoS jokes): A sad, struggling NGO homepage-only site exists for a year-and-a-half, visited by semi-/major bots roughly once a week, including Google. The site has a decent number of IBLs, including some from high PR (whoop-dee-doo!) "authority" sites. 3 months ago, content (2 dozen pages) was added. Semi-/major bots jump on the new content like flies on manna - excepting Google, who drops by twice on its regular schedule, then seems to forget about the site (one visit in the last 2.5 months). Site is (still) found in all semi-/major SEs, but has been dropped from Google. Sandboxed?

ogletree




msg:737913
 9:55 am on Jul 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

You can add content no problem. I have done this before. Just make sure the content matches the links. If you have site about surfing and you put up 5K pages about credit cards somebody will make a spam report and the site will stricken from the index forever.

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.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved