Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: open
My high PR sites indexed back in Feb '04 with the 'old' ranking system should have out ranked the comp in the SERPS by now. However despite using a formula that currently works for all my sites pre '04 all new sites are currently underperforming.
I am seeing the same thing. I have sites that were launched as far back as March and April and they are still underperforming. I am certain that they should be doing better than they are. The sites I am taking about are online brochure sites that carry no advertising and use no black hat techniques.
This was covered earlier in this thread but there are two ways of looking at this.
1. Google is applying a quarantine period to minimise spam.
2. Google is serving up stale results.
With five or six month delays now possible before new sites feature my money is on 2. Surely there must be better ways of dealing with this? Why do we never get media coverage about the negative side of Google and about where it is underperforming.
Yahoo doesn't do this. Are their results that much worse for it?
This is a small site however. The site currently has only I believe 2 backlinks.
The sandbox may be applied universally, but it is only a *partial* penalty that goes away over time. As in for example for the first few months, only 10% of the value of PR from inbound links, and 10% of the anchor text value, is counted rather than 100%. This would mean that even if I linked to a new site from a PR9 page with the anchor text "keyword", and "keyword" is a big money search term, even that isn't enough to rank decently. However, if I put up a new site and link to that from a PR9 page with "fuzzy pink sock puppets", even that measly 10% is enough to rocket me to #1 for that SERP.
The sandbox may be applied universally, but it is only a *partial* penalty that goes away over time.
I agree it is a partial penalty, but I see no evidence of sites slowly getting better, except where major links and anchor text campaigns are in place, but for pretty competitive keywords, it seems that it is not possible to make the top 100, unless you have the luxury of getting some links from PR 8+ sites.
If you were fortunate enough to have created a large network of linked sites and big sites generated by a database before late last year, you are probably sitting on some high PageRank sites. In this case you may very well have the ability to use your huge network to rank well for new pages/sites.
This year it has degenerated to a case of whether you have existing PR on a network of sites, or not. My sympathy goes out to new webmasters and business owners. It seems you are in for quite a wait, probably a year or more before you can attain some worthwhile results.
Also, even for veteran webmasters, it is going to be very difficult to help new customers, and you may end up losing a few because the customer's website did not get much traffic. This is not because you didn't do a good job creating pages that are easy for Google to spider and index, but because your customer is being filtered.
But for webmasters and companies that have huge networks, you should do quite well because you can use your existing PageRank to control the results. More and more, larger companies (with more PageRank) are going to be the winners here.
Itís a sound and sombre tune and I am experiencing the same pattern. However on the upside I do think we should take into account that new sites have been operating under current constraints/filters for the last couple of months because there has been no major update and the last one was a fiasco. So I think the last quarter is just an exception from the rule.
Bottom line is Google are taking longer and longer to list new sites. Perhaps we should expect paid inclusion with instant PR!
It has now been almost 7 months and the sites still rank poorly for even "keyword city" which is not a hard term to rank for.
On the other hand, the sites rank great with Yahoo.
It is a bit frustrating and, as someone said earlier, I would be fine with it if it prevented spammy sites from being in the index but there are way too many still.
Markets Alerted to Rumours that Google Can No Longer Cope
Websites now taking up to a year to be ranked in Google's Search Engine
A story by a contributor to the authoritative Webmaster World Forum suggests that that Google can no longer cope with the volume of websites that are being included in its index. New websites are taking up to one year to show in the results leading to claims that Google's hardware is no longer capable of dealing with the sheer volume of websites being submitted.
A spokesman from Google said, "There is nothing wrong with our search engine we have just decided that it is better to wait for a year before showing people new websites that are being produced. That way we can safely say that we provide the most mature results on the 'net."
Microsoft, who have been quietly developing their own new search engine technology, look likely to fill the breach created by Google's inefficiency. Their spokesman, Will Portals, said, "We are monitoring this situation. As always we want to be able to deliver the best solutions to our clients." An announcement is expected from Microsoft in the next few weeks.
It's also kind of unfortunate because when people with resources are challenged by this situation they simply turn up the notch on link building, content building etc so that by the time the get out of the sandbox they are so overly powered for the key phrases they're going for that other people might never even have a chance at competing.
No. Google will survive. It is some webmasters of new commercial sites which can't afford Adwords that may may point a gun at their head contemplating suicide because of impending poverty. However, the smart webmaster who figures out the correct strategy to beat the sandbox will just smile as the profits accumulate in his bank account. :)
Thats just not the case. high quality sites with clean inbound links from authority sites are not scoring. Its a fact.
You might be able to rank for a very unique phrase but for anything remotely competitive, new sites are told to go sit in a corner.
[edited by: pmac at 7:29 pm (utc) on Sep. 10, 2004]
Be the authority - don't borrow the authority.
Beating the sandbox IS NOT the end game!
and tell us everything would be ok. I understand the silence before the IPO but it feels like you're in a dark tunnel and there is no sign of of light at the end
If you need a company rep to show you the light at the end of the tunnel you're probably going to end up with a lot of bruised or broken shins or toes. You're better off finding some old wood, making a torch, and figuring out how the tunnel got around you in the first place. Since when do you trust company reps to tell you anything? Ford told us their SUV had no problems too, tobacco companies said that they had never studied nicotine addiction since it isn't addicting.... A company rep is a company rep, if they want to post real stuff I'd love to read it, but they can't do that when they are openly identified with the company.
The best way to beat the sandbox is to use a domain that has been indexed for over 8 months.Buy one,steal one or borrow one from a friend if you don't have one lying around.
I'm not so sure this is workable either. Just to buy a domain and put a few links to it, for example, will not work. A great example of this is the link to BestBBS at the bottom of this page. It ranks only for the exact url "bestbbs", and the pagerank is abysmal, yet it has been around for a long time.
One thing I will do as little as possible is support the sandbox effect by purchasing more Adwords. I actually am starting to find a greater ROI on offline advertising. This is probably the best way to beat the sandbox effect.
I also agree that MSN and Yahoo have a great opportunity here to produce better results than Google. I actually think Yahoo has already closed the gap, and the results are just as good. I've always been a fan of Google, but right now I think my small customers who are starting new sites are going to suffer, and therefore I must hope that there will be a continued increase in searches through MSN and Yahoo. I'm already starting to see it.
1) Google simply can't handle all these new websites. Let's face it, Google isn't on the cusp of technology anymore. Other engines have caught up and surpassed Google. They are riding on a name these days.
There have been various articles out there stating that their system is broken. Large sites not being completely indexed is a sign of this. If this is the case, they better fix it soon. I guarantee you real companies like Microsoft won't make these kind of mistakes and will be ready to bury them. Also, if this information gets out, watch that stock fall to earth.
2) Google is really stupid.
The problem with not ranking sites for a year is that your results are old and stale. If I'm looking for a restaurant in Miami and run a search, I may come across a restaurant closed down 6 months ago and not be able to find that new trendy one that opened 3 months ago.
I will not be able to find up to date news and articles. It took me 5 pages deep to find out results on the 2004 World Series of Poker a month ago because all the pages were old and stale. To be honest, this is why I don't use Google as my search engine of choice these days.
My opinion is that it is a glitch in their system. Google's technology just isn't that good anymore. They've spent their resources in adwords and adsense and let their SERPs go to garbage. I can't wait till the day MSN start burying them.
If you know the site and url you want up and running in a few months create a coming soon page with some content loaded with key words and get 2 or 3 strong on-target links pointing to it so it gets spidered and the clock starts ticking.
When your site gets de-sand boxed you flip the switch to the real site which will not only be in the index but have a headstart on the key words. It's all about timing and working with the system, not against it.