Forum Moderators: open
I feel very strongly that until we have a good grasp on why it exists, it will be very hard to beat.
I don't buy the explanation that it's intended to be a method of stopping spam. Why? One, there's too much collateral damage it is doing. Two, if you accept the 80/20 principle (20% of spammers are doing 80% of the spamming), and you realize that there are multiple ways already of beating the sandbox that all of those spammers are aware of, it doesn't make sense anymore.
So, why does the sandbox exist?
The most obvious effect of the sandbox is that it prevents new domains (not pages) from ranking for any relatively competitive term. So, start thinking like a search engine - what would be the benefit of this?
>Why does the 'Google Lag' exist?<
Best guess I have is that the index went into a quiet period before the IPO and that a fresh index is cooking behind the scenes that is soon to be ready for primetime.
Proof?
Nope, pure speculation.
you don't know this for a fact, do you?
I know that it's a terribly ridiculous explanation for a simple problem.
I mean, hell, why don't we just say that Google has 47 different indexes, one for every country that they serve. The reason the SERPs are different for each localized region is because they're all pulling from different indexes!
To assume that they have multiple indexes instead of one index is a flawed assumption without any other evidence to go on. (Supplemental aside, which has a known purpose and is clearly marked, acknowledged, and is not related to the sandbox).
i believe this is waht a forum is. if somebody makes a statement which does not appear logical or factual, we have to question. i hope you're not saying that nobody should challenge anything posted in this forums?
it is only through interchange and factual evidence that we can come uncover the truth and reality of things.
do you want me to start questioning how you personally behave in this forums?
With all due respect, I think you're way out.
My site can appear at #1 for non-competitive kws, but for the target competitive kws it's 300-400. It's all down to the competitiveness of the search terms as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe this sandbox index thing.
You probably think the earth is round as well.
Seems everyone is on edge these days...Can't we all play in the "sandbox"
People post and share what they are observing, and others evaluate and decide whether to accept their conclusions. If something is blatantly wrong, it's expected that a post giving alternate suggestions would be forthcoming.
What kind of scientific proof is expected or possible?
>>My site can appear at #1 for non-competitive kws, but for the target competitive kws it's 300-400. It's all down to the competitiveness of the search terms as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe this sandbox index thing.
Sorry. but it does not follow. I have a page that ranks in the first page for non-competive term but buried down in the serps for competitive terms. the page is "supplemental". Does it follow that the supplemental index does not exist?
Guys. this is just a theory, maybe speculation. shoot it down and let's see if it's totally out of this world.
marcia, let's stick to shooting down ideas, not people. ok?
we're obviously not looking for scientific proof, so don't try to make it look ridiculous. in a forum like this, we're looking for anecdotal evidence.
when somebody says "google dropped my site". then we have to accept this a fact. we'll assume that nobody here purposely lies.
but when somebody says "the sandbox index doesn't exist". this is a statement claiming a fact and needs to be explored further since it is not obvious that this is true. so asking for evidence, proof, explanation is totally reasonable.
Back on topic, there is no indication of any separate index like the supplemental, which behaves differently. There is a big difference between an index and a phenomena or an effect. This seems to behave like a filter, and more like when algorithmic criteria are applied.
Anyone remember back to a couple of summers ago, the +20 penalty that hit lots of sites? It certainly wasn't by hand, there were far too many. Sites were not removed from the index and didn't slip back to way past the hundred mark; they simply dropped down to about 20 spots lower than they had been. When the +20 was lifted, their rankings were restored.
When the massive actual "penalty" happened a couple of winters ago that affected the Zeus sites, in subsequent months the penalties were gradually rolled back; not all at once. This is not a penalty - it couldn't be, being new isn't naughty - but there's some kind of a progressive tone to how it's happening, simply because of the inconstancy of how sites are included as they're found. There's a progressive timeline that's a variable, not anything fixed in time overall.
The fact that some sites are getting around the "sandbox effect" somehow indicates that either they're finding a hole or that in some way they're meeting algorighmic requirements and avoiding the "filtering" that's keeping new sites out.
[edited by: Marcia at 7:56 pm (utc) on Oct. 1, 2004]
Does it follow that the supplemental index does not exist?
No, because it is marked "SUPPLEMENTAL", and GoogleGuy tells us that those are pages which are old and not crawled frequently. We know it exists; the damned engine tells us so.
Your "sandbox" index doesn't exist. Please, please, please show me that I'm wrong and you're right. I'll kiss you.
But it's generally not a good thing to invent something from thin air, then to ask everyone to disprove that you've invented it from thin air. There's no other defense other than "You've made it up, pass the pipe"
