I certainly think so. My site is on the first page of Google for hundreds of KW combos but I have never been able to crack the top 100 for THE 2 word combo that I want.
Sometimes I wonder if we don't sandbox ouselves by putting too much effort on a particular KW phrase...
Hmm.. I've been thinking of that too!
But for the kw that seems to be sandboxed in my place, I haven't been optimizing for this so much as I have for some of the others.. I wanted to wait untill I was certain I got the other words in first..
And that was quite simple if I may say so, but now my main kw seems to be stuck somewhere far far down in google's index :(
It's strange.. running a site on widgets, and on that site you have a link from linkmetro or whatever that is all about screwdrivers.. then do a google search for screwdrivers, and your widget-site comes up 2nd because of this link.
Then you do a search for your main and highly optimized kw, and your site shows up in google page 77 :\
No. Sandboxing means that your site doesn't appear at all, for any search term. So if your site is appearing in searching (even it is low down), then you aren't sandboxed.
It's very hard to rank highly for just one word, better to target a keyword phrase.
Is your page optimized for that keyword or are your links. IMO it's what is in the anchor text of your incoming links that determines what google sees on your site. Combined with other factors such as age of your site, amounts and quality of incoming links, and competition for that keyword.
Have you checked overture to see what the search stats are for that keyword versus your others. I'd bet that the stats for it are much higher than your others and the competition is much higher for it.
Hmm.. ok, I've tried to put the kw I aim for in my incoming links, but it's hard because it's very rare that people want to link to places using just one word.
But your right when you say that this word has high competition compared to the other kw's; about 2,7 million hits on google. That's high when you're from my contry ;)
I'm just finished writing and uploading another article for my site, so I'll just have to continue doing this over and over, and see what happens i guess.
But this is also kind of hard considered my page is a webshop selling physical products, so I kinda' want to focus on the products and not the articles..
Any opinions on how to drive traffic to a webshop?
Thank you all for your answers..
Just like spam is generally used for "mails that I don't like", the SandBox term begins to be generally used for "anything wrong with my site".
"Sandboxing means that your site doesn't appear at all"
No it doesn't. If a site is sandboxed it can rank even #1 for some obscure things. Sandboxing just means a site has a significant age-based scoring demerit against it. It will still rank though.
See what I mean!
Where's the formal definition of google sandbox?
I'd like to know it.
Formal definition is that there is no sandbox. There is a combination of algorithm factiors that can delay or suppress the appearance of a page on some competitive searches -- sometimes indefinitely.
I have experienced what I would consider "easy" keyword phrases be nearly impossible to rank decently for.
In these cases I have just plain given up. Then suddenly that keyword phrase pops up to the top.
The site in itself as a whole doesn't change in rankings, just the ranking on that particular keyword phrase.
No major change on page, and no more or less backlinks.
Sometimes one of keywords or a variation of the keyword is popular/competitive in other sectors. I usually use the ~keyword to investigate this.
Once I actually had to use the word shown in "do you mean?" to make the real phrase show up, even though it wasn't related.
[edited by: minnapple at 3:27 am (utc) on Jan. 31, 2006]
|It's very hard to rank highly for just one word, better to target a keyword phrase. |
Hard, but not impossible.
Hehe, those who know me already will know that I love this thread.
What tedster said.
It isn't even age related any more IMO. Not sure how much it ever was, except that age is now a dominant factor since almost a couple of years now. But there are a whole slew of factors and many are co-dependant.
In out up down.
What G is looking for is to feature is to feature site displaying signals of quality, with relative absence of negatives.
What they don't like are sites that fall out of acceptable parameters ... concepts like standard deviation come to mind. Perhaps, category specific? ;-)
|Perhaps, category specific |
And that's the part that really intrigues me these days about the entire algo. Why can pages in some sectors get a PR5 with just a score of inbound links or fewer, but in other sectors it takes a boatload? How would that work, mathematically? I mean, it's just PR we're tallking about here -- supposedly no content related factors.
Maybe the neighborhoods in certain sectors of the web are so extremely trashed that not passing PR is the rule rather than the exception. Thats the best I can come up with so far.
I done [ many ] exercises taking sites that I don't know the PR of and recorded the backlinking sites, the amount inbound links these sites have overall, the amount of backlinks to specific pages, the number of outbounds the backlinking page has etc . . . and then I calculate the PR of the receiving site and a internal page recieving backlinks based upon this data.
In most cases I come within one PR point, however in some cases I am so far off I shake my head.
In some of the headshaking cases I found some of the linking to or receiving sites were closesly related to each other, like they were just another page within the same site. Not counting as a endorsement just another sibling. And others I find other things.
Try this on a handfull of sites in a sector, and you will learn a bit.
Ya tedster, me to. I can't totally buy into the cat thing as in: "they've identified cat's they want to target." Yet w/o that thinking it's hard to make sense of what we see, no? Yes?
Personally, I think it's in how the backlinks are weighted, the mapping, LR and TR. But that's just me.
My understanding of the trick is in the like of Tedster. I think that for a # of searches > X then you need N authority sites to link to your site to be able to fight for top rankings....
....for my as well...just throwing my 2cents.
I rank around #5 on a single keyword with a huge amount of compitetion. It's kind of a thrill to be doing this well but it only brings in about 0% of my visitors. Instead they come to my site using thouseands of key word phrases when they search.
Concentrate on more content that will bring in people searching even more specific key word phrases.
It is done at the adwords keyword "worth" level. For example. La Crescenta real estate might bring up a site on the first page, but Los Angeles real estate wont bring up the site in the first 200 results. La Crescenta - no sandbox, Los Angeles - sandbox.
|Why can pages in some sectors get a PR5 with just a score of inbound links or fewer, but in other sectors it takes a boatload? |
I believe part of the answer is the way that the high PR concentrators do their internal linking.
If PR is exponencial, in theory, the PR9/PR10 sites alone concentrate more PR than all the other sites combined. So, when both dir.yahoo.com and dmoz.org put a direct link in the front page to, say, Religion, sites about Religion high in the structure also gain a large chunk of PR, and distribute it down the line of Religious sites (hence, Religion is a topic with high PR sites).
OTOH, sites in the Adult category (which exists in dmoz, but I believe is linked to very discreetly) very rarely go over PR5.
Sorry for going briefly off topic.