Forum Moderators: open
However, I have directory sites with adsense (O.K. I know... :) which are still 'sandboxed' after 6 months. I don't believe they are seen as commercial. Older sites using the same formula go like a train.
But, what they do is rarely illogical.You know, sergey kinda looks like Spock.;)
About three which were sandboxed.
1) one of them gained a PR of 7 and othe two a pr of 6 in one months time.
2)All three were gulped by sandbox after some 60 days.Pr remained intact but the cache were lost.
3)All three lost there PR's in the last update some 80 days after their launch and went down to 0.
4)Some 10 days back the site have their cache;s back but the cache is old. this is what google says.
"retrieved on 4 Apr 2004"
So no new cache snapshots. Google is showing the backward link information respective to the last cachig date.
I now know sometimes it pays to be oversmart.Hope for the best guys. Anyhow my 17 other sites are coming up really well.
:>)
The advantage you might lose is brandability. If someone sees a good article and mentions it to someone else, it's a lot easier for the referrer to say, "i saw it on "jibberjabber.com" rather than "dang, i think i saw it on this site that had something to do with car widgets, but this article didn't have nuthin' to do with that. I think it was at www.carwidget.com/otherstuff/funstuff/morefunstuff/jibberjabber123ewx3324%20%blibbeddyblob.html
Sandbox?
May all your search terms be No.1
On what term? "Fuzzy Blue Sock Puppets"?
Others - I don't want to sound patronising.... what the hell..... I reckon some people think if they get 2 or 3 high rankings they are doing well and not in sandbox. I've got small sites pulling 600 people per day, I reckon they are sandboxed compared to similar sites launched a year ago that would get 10 times that. It could be hilltop, but getting the odd ranking, even for a competitive phrase, is peanuts to what a site should achieve overall. You have to look at the overall traffic....This is sandbox.
Nope, brand new site and theme
Mr Fishy
Not really an obscure search term....two words....
"country widgets"
and of course, without the value of those inbound links factored in early a new site won't be able to place and hold in the SERPs..
So Google does what I have always known...they slowly factor in new sites that come loaded with inbound links...or acquire inbound links rapidly..
Google must have some sort of calculation based on historical data per industry sector on the likelihood of how fast link relationships develop...and I would think if they are factoring in the organic nature of how inbound links occur that the pace for new links early in a site's history is actually quite slow...AT FIRST... and then once a new site begins to establish a "reputation" as an authority then inbound links acquisition (organically) would accelerate...
It would've been an easy conversation for several Google engineers to have over coffee...
Webnewton, that's very interesting!
But that's 4 months back, perhaps most of them have been out of the sandbox. However, if you got those 5 sites with high ranking during the first one or two months after you launched and they are consistent, then this could lead to another theory of "penetrable sandbox".
From your post, it looks like you have big loads of super-high PR links to your sites. There is a possibility that sandbox is not impenetrable, but you need several high powered bulltets to get through like in your case.
Generally, most people get ordinary links from PR4-5 downward, and probably those bullets are not powerful enough and just got stuck there when they hit the sand. That is why several people are experiencing long delay, because they have to wait for the bullets to sift out through the sandbox.
Not really , even with a PR 8 link it took months for my site to rank ... However it become a PR 7 in a month!
My conspiracy theory right now is this...
1) The links have to be on topic to help. Topic can be determined by using the adsense preview tool perhaps? Couple that with Google sets you can probably figure out if a page is on topic.
2) Human vetting process? Does Google consider Dmoz a trusted source of quality sites? Again, a DMOZ listing sets the topic of your site.
Nope. This I can say with absolute certainty.
In a way that is good news. However, is there is distinction between quality and quantity?
mfishy, a rare case where I'm not sure I agree with a post of yours. What if one views the above comment as part of a minimun set of criteria? I.e., it's 'at least' that, but in fact, more.
A few on topic links alone won't do it...that I'd buy into...
All 5 websites have totally unique content.
The two newer sites are not achieving anything special in Google. One is a PR6 with most other pages 5/4. The other is a PR5 with many inside pages 4/3. Each site already has 100's of backlinks.
The only thing the new websites do not have in common with the older ones are a DMOZ listing... which I am currently praying for!
Out of interest, I placed one of the retarded sites on an old domain with an active DMOZ entry... which went straight to number 1 on most phrases - so you can hardly blame the site can you?
Is no listing in DMOZ the sandbox?
Is no listing in DMOZ the sandbox?
That wouldn't make sense at all, since there's no requirement even to submit to ODP.
No, but it suggests a direction for success. ;-)
it suggests a direction for success.
In which case some sites are in a very deep bunker indeed.
I have sites that have been sandboxed for 6 months. They are not even commercial sites (ex. discussion forum about dancing), and even have good PageRank now, but they don't rank. I just don't understand.
In addition, I am having to do some careful explaining to new customers. There are still thousands of small established businesses out there that need websites, and I have bad news for them. Google will not rank them for months and months. So I explain, I need you to start paying every month to build and promote your site, but you probably won't sell much for at least 6 months...unless of course you want to give even more money to the very company that refuses to rank you (Adwords).
Here is my conspiracy theory: Google is trying to maximize revenue before their IPO by creating demand for adwords. If I'm wrong, the sandbox does not create more demand for Adwords, then someone please let me know.
(I love you Google :), but please tell us what's going on)
There is also the flip side of the coin. Many people are creating tons of "content" pages so they can get more revenue from Adsense. Pages are being churned out by the millions every day. When and if Google removes the sandbox, there is probably going to be a backlash on the Adwords advertisers, because there will be a huge increase in the amount of ranking pages that contain Adsense. This may not please the advertisers.
Google is going to more than double their revenue from Adwords this year, and I think they have reached a point where the status quo has become unmanageable, so we now have the sandbox effect. If Google is not able to find a solution relatively quickly, they are opening the door for MSN and Yahoo to start competing with them in search relavence.
So I think Google doesn't like the sandbox effect either, but they are somewhat forced into it until they can figure how to cope with the huge surge in link neighborhoods, "content" sites and anchor text manipulations.
Godspeed Google!
Google is trying to maximize revenue before their IPO by creating demand for adwords.Nah, they're just approaching their mathematical limit for the number of pages indexed.
I should point out that;
1. I have no proof of this.
2. I don't believe it myself.
But it is an interesting theory that could explain their wacky behavior of late. Especially for a company whose mission statement is
Organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.
Censor and Monetize some of the world's information and make it partially accessible if we deem it useful.
I'd be more than happy to offer a site or two to a meta-editor to help test this theory. ;)
I have pages that were 301'd long ago showing as fully indexed. Pages that have been gone for nearly a year, fully indexed. 404's showing up. Tracking urls indexed, incorrect urls with spaces and erroneous characters indexed, while new valuable content doesn't make it in... while formidable competitors have been dropped and replaced with sites that clearly violate G's own rules, etc., etc., etc....
It makes sense that MSN and Y! referrals are at an al-time high, while most of my G traffic is for old non-existent listings. My site is ranking #1 on G for at least 8 popular terms that don't make any sense at all.
Everytime I try to search for something for my own personal interest all I get is foreign listings, google adsense and affiliate spam.
I guess I'll be more like most of my visitors... coming in through other search engines.. mind you, I have stayed at the top of my key terms, but the rest of the listings are so bad that people are going elsewhere to search.... I see it in my logs and apparently any thread I try to start to ask if anyone else is seeing the same thing, gets blocked...
I've said it before and I'll say it again, WebmasterWorld is FULLY CENSORED and I'm glad I am NOT BUYING G STOCK. I have heard from many people that legitimate threads are getting shut down before any discussion can begin about topics that are trying to make sense of this fiasco.
Maybe the forum charter should be updated to include that new threads cannot point out any Google errors or shortcomings :D
Anyway, I don't buy any "new site panalties" or "sandbox" or "hilltop" theories. Maybe there are too many chef's at the plex stirring the pot, maybe there is some consipracy, all I know is: if poeple don't find what they are looking for on Google, they will simply go somewhere else. It only takes about 2 seconds to find a new place to search (my logs are proving this), that's how google got here in the first place....
They're finding what they're looking for, unfortunately its SPAM (Sites Positioned Above Me)...
I'm not blinded by Google and I'll be the first to admit that my SEO skills are basic, but I'm a beliver in the fact that most things that happen at Google are algorithmic. The algorithm may have bugs, may have problems and may make false assumptions.. this is no skynet we're talking about. People who spot the trends will end up being a little bit richer than you and me will... :)
Nope. This I can say with absolute certainty.
I second that.
It took 3 months + for some of my sites. For others I am waiting 6 month + (the site is now PR 6).
Nah, they're just approaching their mathematical limit for the number of pages indexed.
Thats why;
1. New sites don't get in.
2. Large sites have fewer pages indexed.I should point out that;
1. I have no proof of this.
2. I don't believe it myself.
I find that this theory is increasingly more believable, for the very simple reason that despite extremely hostile rejection of this idea on this forum when it was first put out, google has not increased the number of pages indexed beyond the number that was posited as the upper limit.
