Why does the 'Google Lag' exist?

Trying to understand its purpose.

[bakedjake]

I had some in-depth discussion this weekend with some friends about the sandbox. Every theory on how to beat it kept coming back to one central problem - no one is sure why it exists.

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?

[metatarsal]

Marcia refers to 'scientific proof' - but if scientific proof was the requirement for any posting regarding Google's algo; all posts, present and past would have to be pulled.

Let's get realistic.

BTW, there are at least a couple of basic principles surrounding Google's results which could be regarded as 'scientific':

1) Make some money for Google.
2) Make more money for Google.
3) Make a bit more money for Google.

Scientific evidence?

Adwords is the basis, Adsense provides the final proof.

Beyond that: who's to say? But I guess we're trying to subvert it - what's unnatural about that Marcia?

[Marcia]

There is no "scientific" proof possible; aside from which, most people who run extensive controlled testing on huge amounts of data, which some certainly do, while it's as scientific as it can get, tend keep their findings to themselves as trade secrets.

>>Adsense provides the final proof.

It certainly provides the motivation to flood the index with swill. ;)

BTW, is anyone else seeing "sandboxed" sites showing up in the backlinks for a site they link to?

[ciml]

Let's just swing this back a bit.

Why does the 'Google Lag'/sandbox/whatever exist?

* Because Google want to hold pages on new domains back from ranking for the first few months? (Why just newly linked domains, surely it's just as easy to add junk to existing domains? What's wrong with new sites anyway?)

* Because Google have run out of diskspace/addresses? (Very, very unlikely.)

* Because Google have some new ranking/theming/quality system that takes a few months to run? (Months? Seems odd.)

The reason for a 120+ post thread on this subject is that the answer is not obvious. Or maybe it's really quite simple but none of us have suggested it?

[Marcia]

ciml, could it be your #1 and #3 combined? And time needed for testing?

Remember a while back someone saying that Google's new algos and indexes are thoroughly tested for quality before they're released for public consumption? It would make sense then, particularly if as some believe there's more than a one step process going on.

Because Google have some new ranking/theming/quality system that takes a few months to run? (Months? Seems odd.)

That one, if there's a new system or ordering, might take considerably more testing time. Just pure conjecture on my part of course, but there's too much otherwise unexplainable and there's been too much reason not to expect a somewhat different type of scheme eventually.

[edited by: Marcia at 8:30 pm (utc) on Oct. 1, 2004]

[graywolf]

Since everyone shares just a little bit, and as Marcia suggest we keep the rest of it close to the vest, because it's a 'trade secret'. We can't come to much of a conclusion.

Since things have only moved out of the lag box once most of us don't have enough data to predict how/why what got out did, and how to develop a reliable workaround.

[Marval]

Thinking back to when this "effect" first appeared - or people started posting about it anyway was just about the same time that Googleguy was posting in here that they were looking at how to handle expired domains being used for their old linkbacks to build up new sites. If memory serves - it had really gotten out of hand people were suggesting ways to handle it here.
There was quite some discussion about a way to dampen the ability to use a "new" domain (aka the ones that seem to be having the so called sandbox problem) as a spam tool. One of the effects people could see with some of the remedies was that it would effect brand new domains as well as expired domains that were transferred as Google seemed to be going the path of looking at the modified date in whois databases instead of the created date to fight the expired domain problem.

One of the important facts here that has been proven is that old domains that a person has had around for quite some time with a site or just a holding page have not been affected - wheras a brand new domain or domain that was transferred since this talk was going on seem to be the affected sites.

To boil this all down - I believe this "sandbox" effect that everyone claims is just a by-product of the algo change Google has made to handle the old expired domain spam problem.

[randle]

It’s a total mystery for us. Some say they have gotten by this thing but boy they are in the minority that’s for sure. We do ok in this business and Google has been a big part of that so I’m not going to whine. But this sandbox is really beginning to weigh on our minds. We have launched four new sites since March, unique subjects, and unique content, slow natural link building, submitted to all the usual places, basic on page seo, ect, ect. All the stuff we have been doing that has brought good results.

However, ever since March of 2004 these sites just won’t punch through for any meaningful terms. There you see them using the various commands, well placed. The bottom line is they just don’t make us any money; we are just unable to drive the necessary traffic to convert. It’s not even close.

All of the good thoughts put forth by everyone are interesting and maybe the truth lies in the somewhere. But the problem I am having is that for all practical purposes no one has ever gotten out of this thing. Some claim they have and if that’s true my hats off to them. But for the great majority we are stuck going on seven months now. It’s inconceivable to me you could go a year not being able to monetize a site organically. But that time frame is not that far off.

Keep the thoughts coming, I for one appreciate each and every one.

[Livenomadic]

If there is one think you can count on google doing it is that they always (pardon the phase) think outside the box and think FAR OUTSIDE.

GMail became a internet legend overnight by doing something nobody had ever DREAMED of before. Can you image how ridiculous Hotmail felt when they are offering 2 mb for free and google offers 1000mb.

I believe whatever google is doing, it is something big and in one or two or six months from now half of us will be leaping in the air for joy and the other half will be crying like babies. God I love this business. :)

[Jane_Doe]

>>>> Why does the 'Google Lag'/sandbox/whatever exist?

One more theory....perhaps newer sites, especially those focused on competitive terms have a higher bar / different criteria to rank than old sites and that's the way it's gong to stay. Google got a lot of bad press after Florida for creaming a lot of small business listings, so perhaps they decided to go ahead with their algo changes but grandfather them in, so it's much harder (needing more links, more themed links, more uniique content, time lag on links, natural linking patterns etc.) to rank these days and that is the way its going to stay.

That way the old businesses can't compain because they aren't getting hit (unless they have datafeed, duplicate content, auto gen pages, etc.) and the new web site owners can't really complain about "lost traffic" since their sites are new and they never had any traffic to lose.

It's just a thought but it's something I've been wondering about.

[subway]

pmac -

Site with loads of decent inbounds, TBPR of 6, scores allinanchor in the top 5. Nowhere to be seen for any query worth a damn. Proof enough for me

how old is the site?