| 12:47 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am wondering which direction I should go in regards reciprocal linking.
I am in the sandbox because I believe I came on too strong regarding links. I was working around the clock looking and exchanging reciprocal links bascially with anybody that asked, because at the time this was believed to be the best way to get to the top of the rankings.
These links were all earned the hard way but I have a problem.
I am now hearing with the Jagger update that google is starting to drop sites dramatically in the rankings that have particpated in this type of activity (reciprocal linking).
Is this true? If yes, should I dump all the links I have obtained and just go with one way links?
Has there been any confirmation as to what is really going on with this new update/algorithm change?
What should I do?
| 11:44 pm on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I know its un-ethical... but just dump all the sites your linking to.
If they ask where their link is just egnore them... they will delete you anyway.. if the dont.. bonus for you ;)
Reciprocal linking has had its days...
My best ever results I have found is purchasing qulity directory links...
but dont go for any plane directory, go check your comptition and see who links to them.. and try to beaver your way in :)
That is what I have done! and the results.. well im impressed. even though my website isnt in the top 10 in google (damn sandbox!) I am getting results, as the sites who are in googles results send me that traffic!
| 10:10 am on Oct 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Reciprocal linking can't hurt you unless you cross link 2 home pages together.
Which basically cancels each other out so it's allmost pointless from a page rank perspective if the PR's are the same.
If you study the big PR 10 sites you will notice that they do not link out unless they have to.
I do not believe google is penalizing for getting links from unrelated sites. They can't because if they did then they would have to penalize dmoz.org and other sites that have links from every type of site all across the web.
I say if you can, get as many links as possible from every site possible.
I think google does penalize sites that decline in link popularity. I think google rewards sites that gain more links.
Basically if you start trading links, you should never stop trading links because when you do, your rankings will drop.
If you drop all your link partners they will in turn drop your links and google will see the decline in your links and penalize you.
Plus with enough links pointing at you, you begin creating your own traffic from other sites which will be there longer than your ranking in google.
Who is google anyway? Do they make the rules of the internet? Reciprocal linking has been going on before google ever came around and it allways will be around.
Google tells you to build your site for your visitors and not for search engines. Imagine what you would do if there were not any search engines. How would you get traffic to your site?
The only way would be to ask another website to trade links with you right? The only way websites could get any visitors is if they all linked together. The more links you had from other websites, the more people would find your website right?
This is the idea that Google was built on and they are not going to change that unless something better comes along which probably isn't going to happen any time soon.
Reciprocal linking is natural and it allways will be.
| 7:22 pm on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
johnser sent you a private mail, please respond.
| 12:22 am on Oct 31, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I dont know if this could be classed as the 'sandbox' but to me it seems to illustrate what happens to my sites:
Google takes the age of the site into account when ranking.
The effect of this age discrimination increases as the number of queries for a targeted keyword increases.
Thus to rank for a keyword that gets 1000 referrals a day is next to impossible on a domain under a year old.
An example of this may be:
Widgets 1000 searches a day - - will find it hard to rank for 12 months
Foo 100 searches a day - will find it hard to rank for 6 months
Bar 10 searches a day- will find it hard to rank for 2 months
Can i ask this:
people that are in / have been in the sandbox
are you in the index?
do you get any google traffic?
are the keywords that you are number 1 for in MSN and Yahoo but dont exist in Google classed as competitive.
How long have you been in the sandbox versus how many people search for the targeted keyword?
I have seen evidence to support this theory. Anybody agree / disagree?
| 1:07 am on Oct 31, 2005 (gmt 0)|
According to Google There is no Sandbox
, there are no such things as penalties, there are
no such things as duplication problems, there is no such thing as an overinflated amount of pages for your site, there are no such things as hijacked pages, there are no such things as 301 problems....and on and on...you WILL
never hear the truth from Google, and anyone who thinks
they are "experts" are only speculating.
Sorry, but that is the TRUTH!
| 6:40 am on Oct 31, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Google takes the age of the site into account when ranking. |
|you WILL never hear the truth from Google, and anyone who thinks they are "experts" are only speculating. |
I don't think anyone was claiming to be an expert. Trimmer80 was only proposing a theory and that is what this forum is all about.
Trimmer80 I can see your logic but the smart money seems to be on the fact that the sandbox filter is related to the age of the inbound links as opposed the age of the site.
| 7:50 am on Oct 31, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I suppose it should be the age of the links, at least as a site gets older. But maybe the age of the site also plays a role, like on a sliding skale.
Anyway, I made the same observations with my site as Trimmer80.
>>are you in the index?<<
>>do you get any google traffic?<<
yes, but not from main keywords / phrases<<
>>are the keywords that you are number 1 for in MSN and Yahoo but dont exist in Google classed as competitive.<<
I think so, lots of sites have them in their URL / Title.
| 8:58 am on Oct 31, 2005 (gmt 0)|
As i said previously, I went from PR5 to PR0. People sent me emails to request links before.
Surely I am going to get wiped ou because now all my pages are PR0, no one will want a link from me?
Is it worth while getting rid of all my links in the links pages?
| 9:18 am on Oct 31, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Meekop this is off topic. I would suggest that you ask your question in this forum, [webmasterworld.com...]
| 10:02 pm on Oct 31, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|the sandbox filter is related to the age of the inbound links as opposed the age of the site. |
I totally agree that inbound links are 'sandboxed'.
I think there is a lot of confusion around the term sandbox as lots of people here refer to it as different things.
I have seen people refer to the following as the 'sandbox':
a 'site' not ranking for any competitive terms, even though they are no.1 for allintext,allintitle and allinuel
inbound links not counting for a long period of time
sites coming into the index and them completely disappearing
sites never getting into the index
My theory is that these things are explained by :
inbound links definately are discounted for a period of time. This may be dependant of the strength of the link.
It makes sense to me that google would discount 'young links' and not include them in its ranking until they are established. This is a significant blow to people buying and selling PR links as it takes a much larger investment to see any return (eg. buying a text link for 4 months to see any affect raises the cost of buying PR significantly)
ranking for competitive terms are more dependant on age as the number of searches for that term increase
This is Google fighting back at throw away domains. Throw away domains generally go for the big terms. If age is a bigger factor for the bigger terms then it removes the concept of buying domains, spamming, getting banned and moving onto the next domain.
sites are given a boost in ranking when brand new to the index, when this boost is removed the site no long ranks as well.
I think this is explains the numerous posts where people say 'I had a new site, it was ranking great, then disappeared'. I have seen this happen to sites. I cannot think of a reason why though.
| 6:07 am on Nov 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
At the risk of sounding like a geezer you should know that I have been building sites since '97.
It used to be that as soon as you put up a site, Google threw you right into the ranking mix without prejudice. You ranked where you should have ranked. And for some sites and terms you could grab a top ten right out of the box.
This is not the case today. I build a fair amount of sites and can tell you that in my experience the sandbox lasts 4-6 months.
Then suddenly one day--and for no particular reason that I can see except for the passage of time--you pop out and assume the rank you would have had without the sandbox effect.
Talk to anyone who builds a lot of sites. They will tell you that the sandbox is real.
Last year I rebuilt an old site that had always done well in MSN and Yahoo, but could not seem to grab a single top ten in Google. I sold the rebuild based on my experience with achieving top tens in Google. It turns out that the rebuild caused it to be sandboxed. The Google rankings went from bad to worse. Luckily he was still getting his top tens in Yahoo and MSN. The site owner was livid and asked me what we could do. I told him to do nothing. Sure enough, about five very long months later he's suddenly getting top 5 Google rankings for his main terms. His business goes through the roof. The crazy part is that we made no changes after I did the rebuild. Nor did we add any inbound links.
Also of note: prior to my rebuild, he had accumulated more than two hundred completely off-topic links from a friend who owned a huge number of domains. I warned him that those links could eventually turn into liabilities, but as Google was counting them all as backlinks I did not insist that he remove them. I thought it best just to warn him. Sure enough Jagger shows up and he's nowhere to be found again.
Funny business we're in.
Someone asked why Google would do such a thing--I think that's fairly obvious--it discourages people from building here-today-gone-tomorrow black hat sites.
But it also keeps valuable information out of the hands of Googlers. It's the someone-talked-in-class-so-you-all-have-to-stay-after-school method of punishment.
| 8:07 am on Nov 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I told him to do nothing. |
I agree. It's best to sit it out, but only if you are confident that you have got the SEO right in the first place.
| 9:18 pm on Nov 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It is getting hard to a explain these things to lay people. When you say there is nothing you can do and they just have to wait, it doesn't go over well. SEO as a service is getting harder for this reason.
| 9:22 pm on Nov 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
From your sandbox experience.
Did you get any google traffic whilst in the sandbox?When you came out did you start ranking for numerous terms at onces? If so do these terms recieve similar amount of traffic?
| 9:32 pm on Nov 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I built a site simply for parallel linking.
pointed some links at it, and got indexed about 8-10 weeks ago.Up to now the site has not been sandboxed, ranks #1 (in the uk) for 3,000,000 result phrase.
Point is I don't know why it isn't sandboxed my only other site sat it out for 9 months. Seems ironic that the site I didn't need missed the box altogether.
If anyone wants the url for scientific research drop me a line:) I do not have the knowledge to form an opinion.
| 9:43 pm on Nov 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am interested in the site and the keyword. please sticky them to me.
Do you know how many people search for the phrase?
| 10:12 pm on Nov 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I would like a look too if you don't mind :)
| 1:51 am on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There is no sandbox. Does your site have any incoming links?
| 2:56 am on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
hey, greenfrog say there is no sandbox so it must be so...
ok, since there is no sandbox. lets discuss the thing that removes rankings on new domains / links.
| 3:14 am on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
i have had numerous new sites that go up, get links, get indexed, and get traffic without any sandbox effects. I will agree that there are factors that will hamper a new sites ability to compete in competetive areas with established sites. Some of these factors are obvious but....quality of links, quantity of quality links, internal navigation etc, etc,etc.
There seems to be a natural progression that must take place in building traffic and I think that google does take this into account.
| 3:52 am on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have had a few sites in the box and all cases have been similar in that you get a trickle of traffic from Google while in the box as you're lucky to be in the top 300 for your terms. Then when you get out your rank increases for all your terms as you are ranked where you should be. I think I have enough experience to guesstimate what the rank of one of my sites should be. Google traffic goes up 3 to 6 fold and overall traffic at least doubles.
Got one guy in the box right now. Ranks #2 for the three word non-competitive name of his company. He's 300+ for his main terms which are not all that competitive (2.5 million results). He's been in almost six months, so I figure he'll be out soon.
I would like to know how many sites GreenFrog has built in the last two years.
Seems to me that people who don't believe in the box don't build sites on a regular basis.
| 3:57 am on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If that were true your sites would move up gradually as you added links. This is not the case with the sandbox where you can go from #380 to #8 overnight.
| 8:21 am on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I will agree that there are factors that will hamper a new sites ability to compete in competetive areas with established sites. |
Correct ... and we'll just call it the sandbox because it's easier than your description. Is that OK with you?
| 1:09 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Has anybody given any thought as to what this new algorithm update (Jagger) with google will affect the linking rules and further sandbox time served?
I ask this question because as you might have heard Matt Cutts regarding linking and additional measures google will be taking to weed out spammers etc....
I have a site about 6 months old that is still in the sandbox. Before Jagger update it started to show signs that it was coming out.
I have worked hard over these 6 months obtaining quality inbound and reciprocal links.
Suddenly with this update everything stopped. What ever sales I had completely stopped. No referrals from google except adwords.
I think there is a big time connection between reciprocal links and this Jagger update.
As A Result Equals Additional Sandbox time. I feel like I am starting over.
To get out of the sandbox should I remove my links?
What have you guys been seeing out there?
| 2:46 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have little experience with the sandbox, as my sites are all over five/six years old.
This may be an over simple question, but I am wondering if sites missing or not reacheable for their search queries since Jagger may just be in the sandbox?
Is this likley, or is there some special way to see if your site is in the sandbox?
| 7:51 am on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well, Jagger has just released my site from the sandbox after 18 months being buried!
Used to be ranked about #500 for my main term (whilst being on page 1 in MSN and Yahoo) - now I've suddenly jumped to midway down page 2.
Thank god it's over at last :-)
I didn't do anything except slowly increase links into my site (some one way and some recips) - and be patient.
So don't give up hope - if your site is clean, with quality content, you WILL get out one day.
| 8:34 am on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I try to limit my use of the term Sandbox to the penalty applied to new sites--although I applied it to the description of an old site that I completely rebuilt that went into the crapper.
One way to tell is to compare MSN and Yahoo's results to Google's. The site I mentioned in post 52 above is ranked #13 on Yahoo and #3 and #4 on MSN for its main search term, yet is nowhere to be found on Google. Now I know that their algos differ, but they don't differ that much.
"The observed phenomenon of a site whose rankings in the Google SERPs are vastly, negatively disparate from its rank in other search engines (including Yahoo!, MSN & Teoma) and in Google's own allin: results for the same queries."
After much research it seems that the only way to avoid the box--and this is not from my experience--is to build a site with virtually no on page optimization and very few inbound links. I will give it a try. But I wonder if adding the optimization after 60 days or so will throw it back into the box anyway. Catch 22.
Very tough to get Google to acknowledge or talk about the sandbox. Maybe because it's kind of difficult to defend withholding what might be highly relevant information. Is GG in the house? Some say it is related to unnatural link accumulation patterns. But my new sites never start out with more than 4 or 5 links and they get boxed just the same.
"Additionally, at SES London in "Meet the crawlers", a small business raised the problem to Google of new sites being held back from ranking. There was a huge murmur in the room. The Google engineer responded that Google will act as it sees fit to control the SERPs, and effectively acknowledged that they are involved in some process to this effect."
"Some intrepid bloggers came away from the 2005 SES conference in San Jose with confirmation that yes, Google does place some new sites into a sort of temporary holding classification. Rand Fishkin of SEOmoz.org reports on a couple of conversations he had with some SEO gurus, including Google’s Matt Cutts that the sandbox does indeed exist, and it presents a difficult challenge for zealous search engine optimizers:
Greg [Boser of WebGuerilla] & Dave [Naylor] in particular had some choice words about the subject and I commented too. We all shared the opinion that ranking new sites at Google was a pain since the inception of "sandbox" and Matt noted (this is a near word-for-word quote) - "OK, so it's really working. Even on you (guys)."
Fishkin later spoke with some folks at Meet the Google Engineers, who also confirmed the existence of a sandbox, but who also noted that sites go through a filter which determines whether or not they find their way into it. Threadwatch.org member DougS also recalls listening to a Google engineer at SES, saying that the engineer did “openly acknowledge that they place new sites, regardless of their merit, or lack thereof, in a sort of probationary category.”"
Seomz has a sandbox detection tool. Never tried it, but it might be worth a spin.
Hope that helps.
| 9:36 am on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thank you very much for your thoughts on the sandbox, makes things a lot clearer.
| 10:28 am on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good post Sparkysdad. Denying it exists now is like saying the World is flat ;)
| 11:10 am on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I will try to tell, what is happening to my site these times.
Site in sandbox:
A month or so ago I recieved a lot of visits from google image, but still nothing from google search, I thought it could maybe be a begining of the end of the sandbox, nothing happend for a month or so, but now in this update I saw I was no.1 for the name of the site out of 30.mill results and I began to recieve more visits from google search, but ONLY the homepage is ranking, still this could be the begining, the site has a PR6.
| This 96 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 96 ( 1  3 4 ) > > |