homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.23.22.200
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
Visit PubCon.com
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 318 message thread spans 11 pages: < < 318 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > >     
Matt Cutts on the Google Sandbox
Secrets of the sandbox revealed at Pubcon?
rogerd




msg:721524
 10:45 pm on Nov 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

The existence of a new-site "sandbox" (which delays the site being ranked well for months) has been a topic of debate among SEOs.

In reply to a question from Brett Tabke, Matt said that there wasn't a sandbox, but the algorithm might affect some sites, under some circumstances, in a way that a webmaster would perceive as being sandboxed.

So, for some sites, in effect there IS a sandbox.

 

ogletree




msg:721584
 5:06 am on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

That sounds like Google. "There is no sandbox but there is a square thing that holds the stuff you find on beaches."

Sparkys_Dad




msg:721585
 5:19 am on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

For the naysayers:

From WebProNews 11/16/05, Q&A With Google's Matt Cutts:

"Does the sandbox exist?

"Here comes the audience participation part: Show of hands? Most say yes. The fact is that there are some things in our indexing infrastructure that could be perceived as a ‘sandbox' effect.'""

From Threadwatch:
"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."

From 925m:
"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.”"

Here is the best definition I've read:
From SEOmoz:
"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."

One of my newer sites ranked #13 on Yahoo and #3 and #4 on MSN for its main search term, yet was nowhere to be found on Google. Now I know that their algos differ, but they don't differ that much. Without apparent rhyme or reason, it recently emerged from a nearly five month tour of duty in the box to assume position #11 on Google. No spammy tactics, less than fifty hand-picked inbound links and tons of original content.

From Senior Member, IncrediBILL:
"If 10,000 web sites are all competing in the same space, who says your site should rank anymore than any of the others? "

I do.

Because I have been in the business long enough to know what type of rankings to expect. Google proved my point when the above-referenced site went from nowhere to #11 overnight for a moderately competitive term wth 2.7 million Google results. It now sits at #6.

Question for Matt Cutts:
"Does gravity exist?"

"Most say yes. The fact is that there are certain observable physical phenomena that could be perceived as a 'gravity effect.'"

McMohan




msg:721586
 5:43 am on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Nice post Sparkys_Dad. Thanks for pooling in the details.

If I were in Matt's shoes, I would have given almost the same answer. IMHO, there weren't many other options of answering that question from Matt's position. It is like answering the question staritng "It depends", meaning you can't or not ready to give the answer in black n white.

zeus,
for me a sandbox is when you dont rank for your domain and get less then 10 hits from google and you always see when a site gets out of the sandbox it recieves many more then 1000% more visits and a single little change in a update is not enogh to do that

A good post lost in the thread.

incrediBILL




msg:721587
 6:22 am on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Does gravity exist?"

There is no gravity - the earth sucks.

Still, if 100 or us in this very forum compete for the top 10 spots on a single keyword WE CAN'T ALL GET THE TOP 10 SPOTS! - end of story. Anything below 30 is a waste of time so I would think that the more popular the keyword, and the more competition, the more difficulty.

Some sites seem to break through to muck now and then and hit the top 10 easily but I've always found it much easier to get a bunch of secondary terms in the SERPs opposed to the popular keyword. Eventually, if you develop a natural network of links moving up in the primary keyword itself happens, but more likely than not that single word is the tough nut to crack IMO.

WebPixie




msg:721588
 7:33 am on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Still, if 100 or us in this very forum compete for the top 10 spots on a single keyword WE CAN'T ALL GET THE TOP 10 SPOTS! - end of story."

Of course, and too many times people blame the sandbox for anything that keeps them from their rightful position at number 1.

But that still doesn't explain how a site that is spot on related to a keyword phrase can sit for months completely out of the rankings. And then suddenly pop to at or near the top without changing anything and without any update or algo change from google. I had a new site go from not in the first 1,000 to 213 and then to 18 within 48 hours. That's not coming out of the sandbox? Then what is it?

Whatever you call it, it seems like that in the past sites where innocent of spam until proven guilty. Now sites are guilty until proven innocent so to peak.

incrediBILL




msg:721589
 8:10 am on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well, this much I know for a fact - it seems to take Google a LOOOONG time to count some ranks as one site I launched recently showed no inbound links whatsoever. Suddenly a couple of IBLs showed up, then it became a PR2, then a few more showed up a few months later, then the site became a PR5 and shazzam it started moving up the SERPs.

I guess what I'm trying to say is based on what Matt said, plus things that I've seen, I think there are a lot of things at work in the search engine mystery meat that's being lumped into the term "Sandbox" and I think some things are penalties for certain behaviors and others (based on my observation) is that Google is just dog slow at updating certain information.

Case in point, Matt claimed 66.102.9.104 showed Jagger 3 on Nov 4th and it was rolling out and 13 days later I still don't see those results on more than a couple of data centers I've been monitoring.

Sometimes I think things just flat take a long time at Google due to the size of the beast and being a new web site it tends to be at the bottom of their priority list.

Sparkys_Dad




msg:721590
 8:25 am on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Web Pixie is spot on:
...sites are guilty until proven innocent...

The policy is difficult to defend as it may result in a searcher's inability to access relevant information. That's why the mere mention of the term is enough to make a G engineer sound like a defense attorney.

As some sites manage to evade the box, we need to learn more about which specific factors trigger it.

...sites go through a filter which determines whether or not they find their way into it.

And before anyone chimes in with "unnatural link accumulation patterns," I can tell you that cannot be the only factor as I never allow my new sites to start out with more than a handful of inbound links--and they all hit the box nonetheless.

As my sites are all commercial in nature, I wonder if there's anyone out there who has built a non-commercial site (no ads, affiliate links or e-commerce) that has been boxed?

2by4




msg:721591
 8:29 am on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

sparkys_dad, good post:

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.

This is how I think of it, it's pretty obvious when it happens. Anyone who hasn't seen this happen and then concludes that it doesn't happen isn't doing very useful observation.

And yes, your site will rank for some secondary terms in the process, which is what makes many claim to have avoided it.

And no, link history, makes no sense as the only factor, none at all, never has, you can see it, rank for a new link to a new page, instantly. Site age plus link age, maybe.

Also not related to how many serps returned, but might be related to how competitive phrase is. Hard to say for sure, doesn't really matter though, when it happens it's very obvious. All those people who always post the same thing, oh, you can't expect to rank when there are x thousand pages, totally missing the point, when it comes out of the sandbox, you are ranking exactly where you thought you should be, give or take some places. Again, if you've seen it, you know it, if you haven't, you've either just misssed recognizing it or you avoided it, some people avoid it, I'd agree with 4, 6 and 7 as being the most likely ways to succeed, but not guaranteed.

And anyone who doesn't think this filter exists has clearly never seen a site have this thing lifted, it's not subtle, as some here note, it's basically overnight, a switch that is flipped.

Saying the affect of an algo isn't a 'thing' is one of the more interesting uses of the english language, obviously, there is nothing in the internals of google's algo, so saying that there is nothing, especially a sandbox, is one of the most meaningless statements I can imagine. There's also nothing in Windows or the Linux Kernel, no kernel at all I can see, just a bunch of code that does different stuff at different times.

Why anyone bothers listening to Matt Cutts anymore is beyond me. Do you also listen to Ballmer when he tells you things about Windows?

Sparkys_Dad




msg:721592
 8:39 am on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

...I think some things are penalties for certain behaviors...

If so, why would the penalty be lifted without altering the behavior?

Ska_Demon:
10-15 Google referrals per day? Where do I sign up for that? Sounds like you're in up to your eyes.

2by4




msg:721593
 8:51 am on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

It's not a penalty as such, it's a flag attached to the domain name or the urls, that's my belief. While you may, as hinted at in this thread, be able to avoid getting that flag attached to your pages/domain, once it's attached, as far as I know, nothing you do can lift it, it's totally irrelevant, one day it's there, the next day your traffic jumps 10 or 15 times.

If you read what Matt says carefully, that's pretty consistent. Plus the more interesting stuff you posted.

The presence of the flag keeps the pages for ranking for search terms of a certain competitive level, while they do rank for other terms of less competitive areas. That's how google can deny that there is a sandbox per se while creating a situation which means that for any money or even remotely money keyword, your site will probably not rank. Until that flag is lifted, then it ranks immediately for the keywords you thought it would rank for.

It's just semantics, Matt and those google guys know enough about that stuff to toy with the webmasters who hang onto their every word like gospel. I prefer scepticism.

I do suspect that some people who believe that their sites are sandboxed are just not ranking, so that makes it slightly confusing when reading these threads. And others may have tripped a penalty flag, which doesn't lift for a long time.

"10-15 Google referrals"

Yeah, that's really killer, amazing, I did a lot better than that with a sandboxed site, but I guess if 10-15 a day makes you happy, that's all it takes. I made a site that came out right away for about that, very exciting.

ska_demon




msg:721594
 9:02 am on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Ska_Demon:
10-15 Google referrals per day? Where do I sign up for that? Sounds like you're in up to your eyes.

Heh heh. All I am saying is that my site is spidered, indexed and getting referrals after just 7 days of being live. Sure, 400 unique visitors a month is naff all but like I said the niche is VERY competetive and this is basically an off the shelf site with a bit of personal SEO. The site makes a PROFIT! To me it doesn't matter how much, just that it is in profit. Now I know the site makes money I can push it a bit.

I see no evidence of a 'jelly doughnut tarpit' penalty which leads me to wonder which markets are being hit by the penalty? I also wonder why people ask the question "why does google not visit my site?" and "why is my site not indexed after x months?"

I have found that every site I have built is spidered and indexed within a week or 2. How? I get 1 link from a high ranking site in my niche and then sit back. Soon as the site gets spidered I start getting more links. I have never been sandboxed IMO..

Ska

2by4




msg:721595
 9:08 am on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

The sandbox has nothing to do with spidering or indexing, zero. Sites get spidered with a single link, sandboxed or not, doesn't matter. Your statement suggests you think there is some link, which suggests you're not very familiar with what the sandbox even is, so how can you say it doesn't exist? Odd, if you ask me.

However, your method, as you might notice, is basically the 4-6-7 approach.

It's hard to say anything without seeing how long it took you to rank for something actually hard to rank for.

For example, if you started ranking for the difficult terms, say, 6 to 8 months after you launched the site, that's the sandbox. That's what it looks like.

It's never been coherently argued that this sandbox thing is absolute, but going from possibly being able to avoid it to assuming it doesn't exist because of that avoidance isn't really meaningful, it just demonstrates that it can be avoided, that's never really been argued.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:721596
 9:15 am on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

How many people come to your web site searching for 'web design country'? Overture shows 36 total searches

Sorry. I thought you would have understood that "country" had been widgetised. There are actually about 13 million results for my search.

Patrick Taylor




msg:721597
 9:59 am on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

You are all talking about 'sites' being sandboxed. Is there any evidence of a sandbox for 'pages' on an established site?

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:721598
 10:32 am on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Still, if 100 or us in this very forum compete for the top 10 spots on a single keyword WE CAN'T ALL GET THE TOP 10 SPOTS! - end of story."

Of course, and too many times people blame the sandbox for anything that keeps them from their rightful position at number 1.

Here we go again. It would be nice if you could just accept that some of us have the savvy to know that we are in the sandbox and accept this when we tell you? I have yet to hear anyone in this forum claiming that they are in the sandbox because they are not ranking at the top of the results. Please take it as a given that most of us know the difference between bad SEO and the sandbox. These red herrings about knowing our "rightful positions" add nothing to the discussion.

Because I have been in the business long enough to know what type of rankings to expect.

^ Put me in the same category as Sparkys_Dad ^

As my sites are all commercial in nature, I wonder if there's anyone out there who has built a non-commercial site (no ads, affiliate links or e-commerce) that has been boxed?

The two sites that I mention in message 28 of this thread (that are out) are strictly non-commercial. Both are really just hobby sites with one being about a poet and the other a minority sport. The thing is that although they are non-commercial they were optimised like commercial sites (I can't help it!). They were both in for about eight or nine months. The other site that is still boxed is highly commercial.

Interestingly, I have just noticed that the poet site seems to have been put some way back into the box during the last week or two. When it emerged it gradually climbed up the rankings over a period of a couple of months until it featured very highly for many searches. While it is strictly non-commercial it's position is a matter of personal pride to me because I wrote just about all of the content. I can't understand what happened here. The links that it has were almost all unsolicited and added over time but Google appears to think that it was released too soon because traffic from G has dropped away again and it is only being found on less popular phrases most of which are unrelated to the site subject.

stever




msg:721599
 11:18 am on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Interestingly, I have just noticed that the poet site seems to have been put some way back into the box during the last week or two.

Words fail me. We now have a returning sandbox...

Just as you are frustrated at members' lack of respect for your arguments, so are others at your attempts to personalise every discussion on this.

So please, would you like to attempt to define what you now consider to be the "sandbox", so that we can try to conduct a halfway sensible discussion on the topic?

Because at the moment, the theory seems to be "anything that happens (or doesn't happen) to my sites which results in them not being in the position that they should be".

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:721600
 12:43 pm on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

We now have a returning sandbox...

Stever let me just say that I usually value what you contribute to this forum but not on this occasion.

Words fail me

I appreciate that you are a clever chap but that does not give you the right to treat me like an idiot. I was using the term "back into the box" metaphorically for a situation that I am unable to explain. I appreciate that some other factor has now affected this site but I don't know what it is. Do you?

So please, would you like to attempt to define what you now consider to be the "sandbox", so that we can try to conduct a halfway sensible discussion on the topic? Because at the moment, the theory seems to be "anything that happens (or doesn't happen) to my sites which results in them not being in the position that they should be".

I cannot properly define the sandbox. Anyone outside of Mountain View who can do so accurately will hold the key to the box but like most of us here I am quite confident that I can identify its effects being applied to my sites.

That is why those of us who have at least some idea what we are talking about get riled when people suggest that we are just whining. I offered the examples of the non-commercial sites after Sparkys_Dad requested this. We are trying to add to this discussion and as I have already said apart from personal pride I have no real interest in where these sites rank. They are non-commercial and I have nothing to gain from their ranking position.

Incidentally do you remember saying this a couple of weeks ago?

none of us are without faults and eligible to rant about the perceived incompetence of others.

FromBelgium




msg:721601
 1:01 pm on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I registered new site 6 days ago, put halve a page of content and put a link from a PR3 page. Today I can find my site in the SERPS of Google.

Iguana




msg:721602
 1:06 pm on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Interesting that no one has yet connected the 'limited updates' / 'filters' that have been applied since Aug 16 last year roughly every two months. These have knocked out long established sites, reducing just about every page from #1 to #100 in the SERPS. A few months later some sites return back to #1. Very similar effect to the 'sandbox' and supporting the idea that it is an algo feature that just happens to affect new sites more than established sites.

stever




msg:721603
 1:29 pm on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

BeeDeeDubbleU, as you are very well aware, I did not ask you to give up the "secrets of the sandbox".

All I wanted was a simple answer to what you consider to be the sandbox.

Because each time we discuss it, it appears to be a moveable target.

First it is something which affects all sites.

Then as soon as people produce examples of sites outside this apparent sandbox, then those are "sites in non-competitive areas".

Now it appears to be accepted to be a fairly pervasive effect but that certain factors may alter it (which is very close to what many people were saying at the beginning of these discussions).

And finally, you make a comment which appears to imply that you believe that a site can escape from your sandbox only to return to it later, which claim I have not seen anywhere else. If that is not what you mean, then I withdraw any objection to it.

It would also be appreciated during discussion on this subject not to have to read comments such as:
"those of us who have at least some idea what we are talking about".

Sparkys_Dad




msg:721604
 2:47 pm on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Stever, requested definition:
"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."

Thanks for the non-commercial report, BDW.

I think Iguana is on to something:
Interesting that no one has yet connected the 'limited updates' / 'filters' that have been applied since Aug 16 last year roughly every two months. These have knocked out long established sites, reducing just about every page from #1 to #100 in the SERPS. A few months later some sites return back to #1.

FromBelgium, are your results from Google.com, or Google.(someothercountry)?

stever




msg:721605
 3:14 pm on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thanks for the reply, Sparkys_Dad.

"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."

OK, fair enough. What differentiates these changes then from other previous updates - where the same has been the case?

(The reason I ask is because my own belief is that there are aspects to these changes which were apparent long before the phrase "sandbox" came into being. And this, and the implication that it is a particular thing that is done to a site which one has no control over, is why I don't agree with the concept of thinking of a "sandbox" and why I think it does matter how you refer and react to it.)

FromBelgium




msg:721606
 3:16 pm on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

It is on Google.com and hl=en, the keyword is Dutch but not popular (position 36 of 654). Find similar position on Google.be.

hfwd




msg:721607
 3:54 pm on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'll agree that we can't all rank in the top 10, but why not in the top 50 or even top 100? Or at least above search results that are clearly, clearly irrelevant to the search term?

europeforvisitors




msg:721608
 4:28 pm on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'll agree that we can't all rank in the top 10, but why not in the top 50 or even top 100?

It's kind of hard for everyone to rank in the top 50 or even the top 100 unless there are no more than 100 pages with the keyword(s). :-)

Or at least above search results that are clearly, clearly irrelevant to the search term?

That's certainly a reasonable expectation.

Patrick Taylor




msg:721609
 5:43 pm on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Me: You are all talking about 'sites' being sandboxed. Is there any evidence of a sandbox for 'pages' on an established site?

So... can the sandbox sometimes affect individual new pages, or can it only apply to a whole new site?

incrediBILL




msg:721610
 5:55 pm on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

It would be nice if you could just accept that some of us have the savvy to know that we are in the sandbox and accept this when we tell you?

If I hadn't been involved with launching a bunch of sites that never seem to be victimized by this much ballyhooed rectilinear container of small loose grains of disintegrated rock I'd be more inclined to agree with it's existance.

I don't argue someone is getting caught in some kind of filter that may devalue your site and according to Matt if you're just slapping up pages full of affiliate content without any additional value you could find yourself filtered to the bottom of the dung heap.

Since everything I've put on the net had value perhaps that's why I've never had a site relegated to the black hole of despair everyone posts about, don't know, I'll just keep doing what I'm doing and hope to avoid this filter in the future as well.

keno




msg:721611
 6:19 pm on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

IncrediBill,

I am just about to launch two mini sites, about 10 pages of content each. Both are quasi-testbeds for my own education.

I think that by following Google Webmaster guidelines to the letter that I have the best probability of avoiding the Sandbox effect. I've been wrong before too :-)

The show-stopper would be a submission to the Yahoo directory of $299 and a Dmoz listing. BTW - Also mentioned by Brett in the 26 steps.

Had your sites, which avoided the Sandbox effect, been listed in any of these (human edited) directories at time of launch?

Just Curious-

incrediBILL




msg:721612
 6:25 pm on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Had your sites, which avoided the Sandbox effect, been listed in any of these (human edited) directories at time of launch?

I stopped using Yahoo's directory in about 1998 when a guy I knew in Yahoo quit and I couldn't get same day listings anymore and stopped using DMOZ about the same time when it became more corrupt than Capitol Hill.

Sure wouldn't hurt to use them though.

Iguana




msg:721613
 12:04 am on Nov 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've read enough of incrediBill's posts to trust that if he says he launched sites and avoided the Sandbox then it really happened. So there's something about the way he launches sites that avoids it.

I put up a site in Feb 04 that was a UK specific version of one of my sites - about 1500 pages linked from my main site front page. It was in the days when you could use -asdf in the query to spot if a site was 'sandboxed'. Mine was. A year before this method of launch (1 link from the front page of a PR5 site) would have worked - in fact my main site was launched this way in 2002.

I have a site that is just reviews of CDs/demos I've been sent and been running since 2002 . No affiliate links or anything. At the end of last year I added a load of pages (200-300 maybe on asite with 200 existing pages) of info (not reviews) with Adsense on. It was great for the first month but then that site dropped out the Google SERPS and only returned a month ago.

I have looked into linking patterns (most of your links coming from one 'network of sites') and certainly the value of links from your own sites (or identified as such) are almost worthless now. Pages that were linked to from a couple of Geocities sites I have written (in the ODP) were ranked highly whereas pages from my other sites hardly ranked at all for some very obscure test phrases.

I remember reading somewhere that Google compared the patterns of updates to a site with their own data and made a decision about whether it matched spammy patterns (from Googleguy or Matt Cutts). I'm convinced that whatever they do affects most new sites and some old sites rankings. I suspect that if you have a lot of links added at once or a lot of pages then you can trip this filter.

I don't think this filter/penalty is good - my interest is in very obscure bands and, in music, the world works faster than Google consider possible. 10-12 weeks ago, if you wanted to find the Artic Monkeys official website in the top 5 results you had to go to Yahoo. At least Google got it right by the time they hit #1 in the charts with their second single. But at the same time I know that this filter is keeping out a lot of crap from the results. There are loads of 'directories' devoted to Adsense just tacked onto existing domains with decent PR - and in the old days these pages would have ranked really well.

Well, over to incrediBill to tell us how he launches sites...

incrediBILL




msg:721614
 12:43 am on Nov 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well, over to incrediBill to tell us how he launches sites...

New web sites are like crops in a garden, you plant them, fertilize the heck out of them with keyword rich content, add water (or beer) and come back in a couple of months and see how your crops are doing.

Not sure I have any special magic but I just don't go for overkill in the early stages.

I think the old adage "everything in moderation" comes into play when side stepping Google's Spambox. Try to keep it looking reasonable, something that a first time visitor (or Google employee) wouldn't land on and go "HOLY CRAP!" and close the window. Not too many pages at first, just a few inbound and outbound links, just a few ads, no keyword stuffing, I just try to make it look like 'Joe Blows average web site' and submit it.

The only thing that I think that's important to keep an eye on after Google first indexes your site is what's in the snippets as that gives you a real good clue what Google thinks your web site is about so I search "allinurl: mydomain.com" and look at what all my indexed pages have to say and correct them if the snippets aren't what I expected.

Last site I launched a couple of months ago is a nice organic PR 5 already and doing well, no top 10 keywords yet but they're in the top 100 and moving up.

Once it moves up in the SERPs, then I start working on the keyword overkill and world SERP domination :)

This 318 message thread spans 11 pages: < < 318 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > >
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