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?
do you also believe the supplemental index does not exist?
To be honest, I don't pay a lot of attention. Staring at our screens for hours while trying to discern the meaning of things hasn't helped us much in the past. When we stare at the screens, we pay more attention to the "what's" than the "why's." I always have theories about the "why's" because the theories help generate hypotheses about what works and what doesn't, but ultimately what's important is *what* works.
As dear old cavedad used to say: "I'm not exactly sure why it rains, but I know enough to hunt when it's sunny, and get into the cave when the skies go dark." Cavedad was a good provider. ;-)
P.S. Don't get me wrong...I agree with Jake's premise that learning the why's here might really help. But I can't contribute much there. All I can do is offer the encouragement that this thing is beatable, and perhaps offer some things to think about. Which probably means I should get out of this thread!
I assume you are able to somehow get a new domain by it with competitive keywords or you wouldn't be saying this stuff, that's interesting, nice to see where the bar stands. And hopefully this isn't the pre-linking strategy, where you point many links at the domain to be long before it goes up, also not a secret.
<<<<All I can do is offer the encouragement that this thing is beatable, and perhaps offer some things to think about>>>>
which seems like, at least theoretically, the only reason to spend any time on this forum, no?
[edited by: isitreal at 6:10 pm (utc) on Oct. 5, 2004]
Ditto. Correct.
Google used to use incoming links and an ODP listing as their primary measure of a site's quality. Obviously they have revised that criteria with Florida and our task is to identify the new criteria and take advantage of them.
"Why does the 'Google Lag' exist?" The answer to that question is a simple one. It exists to thwart SEOs and their manipulation of Google's index.I stand by that statement. The entire Florida update was to thwart SEOs. This thread and many others bear witness to how effectively Google HAS thwarted SEOs. After all, it's been quite a while since someone has posted, "Google is easy to optimize for, just get lotsa links!" ;)
[edited by: DaveAtIFG at 6:21 pm (utc) on Oct. 5, 2004]
WOW! this is the most significant piece of information. since you do not want to divulge (rightfully so) your secrets, why don't we set up an experiment. let's set up a new domain (i'll pay for the registration is if you want), decide on the keywords and you prove that you can get around the sandbox. this would be most helpful to everybody even not knowing how it's done. i'll even volunteer housing it in one of my servers, but i'll understand if this may compromise your secret. how much time to get results? 2 weeks, 1 month?
That explanation doesn't explain enough for my taste, although it is more or less what I would expect to read if I were reading a google prospectus.
What I'm seeing is Yahoo/MSN traffic rising slowly as people get sick of their search engine not delivering new stuff anymore, aka throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I just can't see why any search engine would deliberately do this, the SEO angle just isn't as convincing to me as it appears to be for some people, I see that as much more of a sideaffect than the primary cause..
True, except there isn't much whaling and whining about sites losing postitions - the same seo's are still ranking up and down the serps....Also, it is sorta hard to believe that google enginerr that came in and said "I've got it. The cure for preventing all future spam! We will simply not score any new sites!" :)
how much time to get results? 2 weeks, 1 month?
48-72 hours. And mfishy's right, it's possible to rank sites faster than ever.
But, that's not the point. We're trying to establish why the sandbox exists.
It exists to thwart SEOs and their manipulation of Google's index
If that's the reason, then Google is being extremely stupid, because as mfishy says (and I said in my first post), the same spammers are still ranking. The only thing the sandbox is doing is hurting innocent people.
Google isn't that stupid. Look at the SERPs. The sandbox has not helped with the proliferation of spam. If you think it has, you're not looking at competitive SERPs.
No, I still can't buy the spam explanation, not even when it comes from my favorite board member. ;-)
Understanding this IMHO is the most important thing. Or, if not understanding it, at least accepting it as a premise. Either way it leads in the right direction WRT site dev.
Related thoughts...
Not enough people are paying attention to:
--the fact that aff and small innocent sites got murdered in Florida;
--the fact that it happened again, to a lesser extent, in subsequent updates;
--founders' and management comments on info versus commercial sites;
--the fact that the 'lag time' for new sites to appear in the SERP's was extented in May;
--the fact that large auto-gen sites and feed sites recently fell victim to 'tweaks';
--G's competitive differences versus Y! and MSN (and how G's self-perception might cause them to take certain directions with their core business).
I just can't see why any search engine would deliberately do thisThey didn't. It's a side effect, not an intended goal. Whether it's a desirable side effect is for Google to decide. In other words, does it solve a bigger problem they were addressing?
Is it a deliberate side effect? I have mixed feelings so far and have not yet formed an opinion.
