Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Any small guys getting frustrated and giving up?
My PR has been increasing by 1 each month...
That's not possible for you to know. Toolbar PR is updated once every three months.
Is the 3 month toolbar PR lag for sure or speculation?
PR Update April 21, 2005
[webmasterworld.com...]
PR Update January 1, 2005
[webmasterworld.com...]
Thread from Feb 2005 that notes the three month lag has been going on since October 2004
"toolbar" pr updates have been occuring every 3 months or so. The last 3 updates are as follows: January 1st, October 7th, June 22nd
If this trend continues the next pr update should occur around the beginning of April.
The PR that's shown on the toolbar seems to be a snapshot from a few weeks prior to when it's updated. There is an up to date measure at the Googleplex.
This is why someone started a thread [webmasterworld.com] in this forum recently, asking what metrics would you use in a post-toolbar PR world. There may come a day when you have to do your linking decisions without considering the PR of the website. It might just happen...
The day of the small guy has gone as this takes significant resources for a return far in the future for new sites.
I have to agree with you on this one. I would have never succeeded on my own, that’s why I have a team.
You could be a one man show and always outsource?
Cash is king? + brains
In Yahoo, MSN, no, but for google from conception (new domain) to good listings is 9 months +.
That's not possible for you to know. Toolbar PR is updated once every three months.
thank you for making that clear, i read before that it was monthly. That makes me happy to see how much is climbed in two cycles..can't wait till it hits 4 cycles -=o)
Not necessarily.
These type of comments really irk me. If you are going to say something say it instead of saying some equilevant to, I know something you don't know
for google from conception (new domain) to good listings is 9 months...
My opinion about that comment is it depends on what you mean by "good listings." The term "good listings" is not as straightforward as it used be. I tend to agree that it can take as long as six to nine months to rank well for a pet keyword phrase.
However, it can take as little as a week to rank for dozens or more longtail phrases, including weird ones like keyword1keyword1 (instead of keyword1 keyword1). So instead of receiving thousands of hits for keyword1 keyword2, you can rank well for thousands of phrases once a day. But it takes a bit of content written specifically with that in mind.
So it might be a good idea to develop some pages to address that kind of targeting (I strongly believe there is NO sandbox there), while allowing your website to percolate for whatever pet keyword phrases you are after. That's the little hole I cut in the fence people call the sandbox.
I wouldn't discount MSN and Yahoo traffic too much, either. Certainly Google puts the lobster on the table, but Y and M can still put the steak on the plate. ;)
More on the above topic here:
How Many Ways Can You Say...I Want My MTV!
Backdoor Through This Thing Called a Sandbox
[webmasterworld.com...]
Speaking of which, it was certainly my intent was not to irk; please forgive if that was the result.
I'm sure you can appreciate, as others have posted about countless times since mid '04, that those of us who were lucky enough to see or discover routes past the algo elements commonly referred to as sandboxing won't detail our information, or our most specific assumptions. Please key in on the word 'assumtions.' No one can know how the algo and associated fillters work except G. I have assumptions, informed by intuition, extensive analysis, and a lot of record keeping.
Within the constraints I am subject to (business partners and my key shareholders), I still try to find ways to correct misinformation or suggest directions when I feel I'm able, for the good of this community, which has contributed so much to my own knowledge of site development.
Hence my comments like "not necessarily".
Want info with details? No can do. What info without details? That I'm able to provide, from experience.
• Very few sites got new sites past sandboxing, to my knowledge, between April and Sept. 04. The sites that got lucky got lucky by virutue of having certain link patterns involved, and/or certain qualitative measures in place, and never went over board except in one profile noted below. Two sets of IBL link profiles were achieving good results at that time: 1) Blog spamming and other similar forms of link spamming. (A few in here know what I mean by other forms; sorry I cannot be more specific). 2) What I refer to as value links. Mojo links, as MB might say. Again sorry, but that is the most specific I can get, other than to say, read recent posts by PatrickDeese in the sandboxing threads, and read the recent trademark patent app, and read A LOT about LSI. Jake has made tons of great posts along these lines too, IMO. ;-)
• After Sept 04 it became slightly easier to clear the current algo with new sites, and notably, more senior members started admitting that they were seeing sites 'pop out' for the first time. Again links were a critical part of it.
But, by no means were links the only key IMO, since April '04. Links were a necessary element of clearing the algo since April '04. But other site/page-related factors had to be present, and othe site/page related factors had to be "not present."
I need to also say that all comments above are made in the context of this being the link dev form. But links are not a panacea. Clear?
======
'Ya know what irks me? When posters in here who sometimes have some valueable info, try to point people in helpful directions, and get grief or even nastiness for not providing blueprints. I fear it is one of the core reasons that many of the most seniors in here who know far more than me, and whose posts I miss greatly, don't post much any more.
I have no idea how long the average site needs to go gold from the sandbox ... i just know my traffic is increasing every month because of my link policy.
All sites are ranking well (top 20, at least) within Y and MSN.
Golles
Any small guys getting frustrated and giving up?
To a certain extent yes. I have a number of sites that I normally would expect to perform well, but just labor along at 40-50 visitors/day. Some of these aren't money sites either. I could live with the sandbox but at least tell us how long it is.
It's a bit frustrating to not have any feedback. You get to the point to say, "What the heck...might as well try some blackhat techniques."
It takes about 6 months for me to see significant traffic coming in. MSN and Yahoo are picking up where Google dropped the ball (meaning: since Google takes so much longer to list new sites).
So, for now I continue building a few more sites before I go back with additional promotion on the existing ones. I hope that strategy will work.
Chris
