Forum Moderators: open
That is to say, should one be checking to see if the sites are out of the sandbox regularly or only when they know there is a major Google update? :)
Thanks
Mc
I have read alot about the sandbox theory and I have come to two conclusions:
1. If the sandbox does exist and is intentional, then trying to fight it might actually do more harm than good. Better to stick to the old tried and true, be patient and let it come out naturally.
2. Because we are not hearing from webmasters how sites have come out naturally, at least not with any consistancy and even though we hear things like it lasts 6 months, yet webmasters are reporting many sites old than that still suffering....I personally agree with those that believe the sandbox effect is not intentional but rather indicative that Googles serp ranking system is broke. I believe that at first Google didn't realize it was really a problem and thus dismissed it. As time has gone on, Google began to see it was a very real problem, but unfortunately has not been able to fix it without degrading the quality of their serps.
After all, If this is all a ploy to increase adwords revenue, at some point you have to let it go because what is the point if your serps become inaccurate because your trying to stuff adwords done everyones neck. Eventually your going to lose searchers traffic and creditability. Basically for various reason, this will lead to a negative return because while it might boost revenue by forcing new sites to use adwords, as searcher traffic defects to the likes of yahoo and msn, people can not continue to be able to afford adwords if the ROR is not there.
Unless something happens soon, in another few months the percentage of sandbox sites clocking in at their 1 year anniversery is going to go through the roof. When this happens the inaccuracy of Googles serps will also hit a 1 year anniversy and sooner or later, it is going to be major news that Google serps are just plain inaccurate. Google competitors are going to pounce and then it will be game over.
I'm not a genius, but I do have some understand of business economics and marketing, so I tend to lean towards the "Google has a real problem" theory because I would hate to think that they are dumber than me and yet billions richer.
But on the other hand, given the talent G has on hand, why are the serps still so bad? Makes you wonder if this is intentional, and if so why?
We've given up on G and perhaps thats exactly their goal here. To make as many webmasters as possible give up and focus on Yahoo.
What we have decided to do is spend our time and effort on building quality sites, sites rich in unique and useful content, good graphic appeal, etc... The days of trying to figure out what the hell G is doing are over. We figure they'll sort it out when they sort it out, and in the interm we'll spend our time building kick ass sites and let it work itself out.
The site has around 320 pages of content and it grows by about 6 pages a day. It is php based and all told there are about 700 pages that can be spidered. I made some tweaks using mod_rewrite in August that significantly hurt the number of pages in Yahoo and Ask. They have been getting rid of old pages slowly and getting new ones in very slowly. Google recognized the change in URLs immediately - to their credit.
Right now Ask.com has exactly 18 good pages and Yahoo has 3 in their index compared to Google's 650. Last month I got more referals from each of ASK and Yahoo than Google.
Based on the statistics I've seen, I should get 5 times the traffic from Google (versus Ask) and 36 times the traffic based on pages spidered. Everything else being equal (which it never is) I should be getting 180 times more traffic from Google.
What we have decided to do is spend our time and effort on building quality sites, sites rich in unique and useful content, good graphic appeal, etc... The days of trying to figure out what the hell G is doing are over. We figure they'll sort it out when they sort it out, and in the interm we'll spend our time building kick ass sites and let it work itself out.
What pisses me off is that this is what I have done in the past and what I am doing right now, but Google fails completely to recognise it. Unlike those (including a few on this forum) who produce nothing but spammy directories and scraper sites I always offer something real for nothing on my websites. This may be technical information, free white papers, spreadsheets, etc. but they are of value to people.
I spend my time producing this stuff and Google spends its time hiding my sites from those who may be interested in it. Got to be something wrong there?
I have to agree, sit back and do nothing.
I know I'm a small fry in the grand scheme of things, but since google offers no explanation to the sandbox that clearly exists, I will focus more attention on MSN's new search, telling other people about it. I will also continue to do what I have always done: create content and build links to other places. The benefits of doing these things extend far beyond Google.
[kottke.org ]
They clearly are pushing adwords. What better way to motivate people than to give them a healthy taste of good rankings? Sort of like the classic schoolyard pusher... "this first one's free, but the next one'll cost ya..." After all, despite their motto "don't be evil" Google is a business and most businesses are there to make as much money as possible in whatever way possible. Forget about all the platitudes they receite about community responsibiity that they've lifted from the texts in that mandatory business ethics class. What’s more, for the past few years, Google has been something closer to exhibiting monopoly behavior than what one expects in a truely competative market, because it was so much better than the others, it could. We’ll see what happens to the sandbox when MSN gets it together and offers some competition such as Yahoo/Ink can’t seem able to do.
Have any of the sharp minds here ever done a study as to how the length and keywords most effected by the sandbox correlate to Adword revenues? Run a regression and I wouldn't be suprised to find some patterns (provided it were possible to collect an honest, representative sample about the sandbox effect from webmasters).
It seems to me that it would almost be corporate mismanagement not to take advantage of one’s privileged position to the greatest extent possible; then again that's what the Big Three automakers did in the 1970s and lost a lot of market share to Japanese automakers. Are current Google SEPS starting to handle more and more like a Ford Pinto?
In another matter, has anyone noticed that the sandbox begins at the moment that pages see the first green of the PagePank? I’ve had a couple sites début at PR5 and disappear from the SERPS.
I spend my time producing this stuff and Google spends its time hiding my sites from those who may be interested in it. Got to be something wrong there?
Well BeeDee, at least you know you have lots of company.
You know, I can think of lots of things to comment on about how completely ridiculous the sandbox effect is regardless of whether it is intentional or unintentional and how errant it is according to numerous business principles
I will just say this. I believe that anyone that pays attention to what is going on is in the future going to have witnessed what is probably going to end up being one of the greatest business blunders of history. When people are trying to dissect what lead to Googles implosion, it will simple be one word..." Sandbox".
First the Webmaster will just leave in frustration, for yahoo, msn and whoever comes along. Webmasters will put there optimization efforts where they can most benefit and so Googles serps will suffer. Joe Searcher will not find what he/she is looking for and adapt to trying elsewhere, Google's revenue will suffer as webmasters find they can get a cheaper deal or even a free one elsewhere, as the revenue suffer Google will not be able to satisfy it stockholders, Googles stock will drop to the point that exist shareholder demand new management, new management will be focused on cutting costs, this will lead to many of Google most talented going elsewhere, Google will then become unstable and the whole thing will implode...Game Over.
How was it Netscape got it butt kicked by Microsoft? It was simply because Internet Explorer was free. Don't think for a second that Microsoft doesn't have a plan already to win everyone over, Joe Searcher and Webmasters alike. I would even bet that Microsoft is looking at the sandbox problem and sitting back, lick it's chops. Microsoft never just puts out another run of the mill product.
that's what the Big Three automakers did in the 1970s and lost a lot of market share to Japanese automakers. Are current Google SEPS starting to handle more and more like a Ford Pinto?
Rollo, I was think the exact same thing!
First the Webmaster will just leave in frustration, for yahoo, msn and whoever comes along. Webmasters will put there optimization efforts where they can most benefit and so Googles serps will suffer.
I find it amusing that you think a lack of SEO's optimizing for google will cause the serps to "suffer". The reason for all the "trauma" of the massive algo changes in the last 2 1/2 years (including this latest rediculous "sandbox" effort) is the result of those very "SEO's" who have optimized to the point of over-commercializing (in google's opinion) today's serps. I doubt google (or any other engine for that matter) would care is every SEO on this board shouted at the top of their lungs "we're not optimizing for you anymore". Hell, I think that's what they're trying to make us do anyway.
Frankly, I think the free ride (for commercial sites anyway - mine included) on any enging is coming to a quick end. If your only source of income is free traffic, you had better start learning the world of paid advertising real quick.
Anyhow, once webmaster optimize for yahoo there sites will suffer in Google, but who cares because they want there sites to be optimized for the search engine that has that can provided the traffic, After all, if Google was just some search engine no one used, we wouldn't be having this discussion. My point is when both the intelligent webmaster and Joe Searcher leave Google for say Yahoo, what's left?
Frankly, I think the free ride (for commercial sites anyway - mine included) on any enging is coming to a quick end. If your only source of income is free traffic, you had better start learning the world of paid advertising real quick.
Think of Google as a newspaper, your have paid advertising and articles. Would you read a business newspaper that had old news and the only way to know about anything recent was if they paid to buy an advertisment? What if Barrons or The Wallstreet Journal decided that they were only going to publish your recent quarterly results if you paid them to advertise. For how long would you read that paper, notr very long if you wanted to know the latest a greatest about the stock you invested in. Wait Fortune Magazine is calling, they say they would like to do a story on your new company, talk about your innovative approach, but if you want people to see it, then you will have to buy advertising from them.
I have heard this "Google owes us nothing" mantra alot, but what Google does owe us is relevent quality serps. With the sandbox, can you as just another "Joe Searcher" say that is what you are getting?
Unfortunately, until the press stops their google love-fest and starts bringing it to joe searcher's attention, google will maintain their stranglehold on the kind of top of mind awareness that all their other engines are striving for.
Regardless of the lack of quality of google's serps, I doubt we'll see a major shift until MS starts bundling thier new engine with the upcoming release of longhorn (which is too far away to even be concerned with at this point).
Nope...our only hope of seeing google get "fresh" again and add (and rank) every site/page as it should is if:
1. The press smell a "story" and start some real digging about the truthfullness of google's supposed "8 billion pages indexed".
and/or
2. Google solves whatever problem (I personally think it is software/capacity related) is causing the sandbox effect, and fix it.
Maybe the same department that checks McDonald's claims of burger sales on their sign will investigate.
Now that I can agree with, because it would explain the sandbox and the lack of a cure for it.
However, that is equally as damaging, because it says Google is at it's capacity and so it's serps can not maintain quality and relevancy....ya I'd buy stock in a company that has that problem.
Quality of search results: One big area of complaints for Google is connected to the growing prominence of commercial search results -- in particular price comparison engines and e-commerce sites. Hölzle is quick to defend Google's performance "on every metric", but admits there is a problem with the Web getting, as he puts it, "more commercial". Even three years ago, he said, the Web had much more of a grass roots feeling to it. "We have thought of having a button saying 'give me less commercial results'," but the company has shied away from implementing this yet.
[insight.zdnet.co.uk...]
A site is indexed, and has good PR, existed for years and there's a unique non-commercial sentence on an old page, but it doesn't show up at all in the SERPs.
No wonder new sites can't rank for relevant terms.
Why google?
Either something is broken, or they are eating too many brownies baked by that grateful dead chef they have on staff at the googleplex.
Rubbish.
Adwords is full of new sites and new content every day.
Google built market share by providing free listings which gave them content. Those older sites that helped google become what it is today are now being rewarded by remaining in the index and ranking well. Thank you Google. I don't want to be ditched by some new site that just claims to be 'usefull' by some self opinionated webmaster whose new site is not as original or good as he thinks it is anyway.
"My new site is really good... blah blah..." Tough. You weren't there a few years ago developing your site, investing in new technology and making the internet more popular everyday. New sites have no right to knock established sites off the top serps. Older sites are just as good as any other site.
Sandbox is the best thing, whether by accident or design. Long may it continue, it helps the webmasters who put all the pioneering work into the net and helped make google. Why should some newbie webmaster/site wipe these guys off the top positions? They don't deserve it.
You want to beat sandbox... then pay for some traffic. You might want to try those 'spammy directories'.... lets face it guys, they whipped your arse, despite your whinging.
You want to beat sandbox... then pay for some traffic. You might want to try those 'spammy directories'.... lets face it guys, they whipped your arse, despite your whinging."
spot on MHes!
and by the way about the "irrelevant SERPS" of Google last night after watching an old Chaplin's film I wanted to get information about his last wife Oona
I typed oona chaplin and Google brought me the most amazing site at #1 ,I was reading for 2 hours about the lifes of all those old Great comedians.
-good and clean
-old
-well linked from quality directories
-enjoying good traffic
-has good PR
is bumped out by sites that
-are not so good (or even relevant)
-have no redeeming qualities (because they are computer generated spam)
Trust me, your best site? It's not that special where google is concerned. If you get caught in a bug or glitch, you will be whining too.
Take it from a guy who's followed many a whine thread over the years, without being a 'whiner'.
Many people probably wouldn't be concerned with new sites and sandboxing if they didn't have good, old sites dropping.
Things move on, but either way, adwords traffic is no substitute for the amount of people you get with good, natural listings.
I'd go as far as to say adwords is a waste of time in my sector.
You must be happy that enough of your sites made it in before the sandbox ;¬)~
A good search engine should have the ability to let in quality, new sites, not just ban them all because it doesn't have the ability to separate the good from the bad.
As far as the "The SEs don't owe anyone a free ride" argument that pops up every time someone complains, of course they don't. Their business is making money from advertising, and they get their own traffic by (hopefully) providing quality results. If their results only include old sites and sites that pay for inclusion, then IMHO, they are not quality results (which is the point that many people here are making). As time goes on, and if MSN and/or Yahoo ever get their act together, the sandbox will have to end eventually.
But for those of us who are doing well (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) and who don't want any new competition, the sandbox is actually a blessing, so I see your point. . .
Sandbox is the best thing, whether by accident or design. Long may it continue, it helps the webmasters who put all the pioneering work into the net and helped make google. Why should some newbie webmaster/site wipe these guys off the top positions? They don't deserve it.
Please tell me your tongue was in your cheek when you said this? :)
Newbie websites should wipe any old site off the top if they provide better information. You may as well say that we should all still be watching black and white television because it was there first. Do you include the developers of scraper and affiliate sites amongst your pioneers?
I am confident enough to claim that my new, content rich, but sandboxed sites are much more valuable than the useless directories which are claiming many of the top spots. Bear in mind that your pioneers did not create the Internet to provide a living for webmasters and unscrupulous directory churners outers.
Google seems to have stuffed and gorged itself to bursting point on them in many categories and this is very worrying trend. I cannot figure out their motives but I think that I could sit down and invent an algo that would get rid of them.
Burp! Fart! Burp!
Mc
You want to beat sandbox... then pay for some traffic. You might want to try those 'spammy directories'.... lets face it guys, they whipped your arse, despite your whinging.
This is not about whinging, or for that matter, gloating. Sites that provide no real content and that are built purely as Adsense vehicles contribute zero to the Internet. The sandbox is encouraging them but they should be and will be banned from the SERPs eventually so enjoy it while you can.
You talk about pioneers? Real pioneers, like Tim Berners-Lee, must be cringing. The sandbox, intentional or otherwise, is not the answer. The only way forward is manual editing and the penny will drop some day. People are inherently greedy. They will exploit situations like this as long as there is no fear of getting caught. The Google algo like those of the other search engines is incompetent and the clever dick spammers will always beat them.
How many of you would be happy to pay for manual submission as an alternative? I most certainly would because I know that my sites would pass muster!
I think they are blaming the wrong algo. Its hilltop that effects old sites, not sandbox.
elgrande - "If their results only include old sites and sites that pay for inclusion, then IMHO, they are not quality results.."
Wht not? To steal an analogy, its like saying a black and white film is no good because its old, or any film you have to pay to see is worse than a TV film for free. The reality is that there are enough sites now to cover all topics in good depth for the free listings.... new sites have to pay. If Google can attract new sites via adwords they are in a win win situation. They are offering older sites a degree of stability, which allows these companies the security to invest and make their sites better... this will improve the overall quality. Meanwhile Google can now profit from its long and hard work over the years. Its less hassle to keep old trusted sites, help them grow and ignore new ones.
BeeDeeDubbleU
"Do you include the developers of scraper and affiliate sites amongst your pioneers? "
Definately. Affiliate sites have helped many companies prosper, thats why they themselves prosper. Google is the ultimate "scraper and affiliate" site which has helped us all.
"I am confident enough to claim that my new...are much more valuable..."
You may be right, and if they make money then buy traffic. If they are non commercial and get natural links then thats the future for them, they may eventually do well.
I applaud Google for bringing stability for older sites, who can then develop better content with a more secure future. New sites?... tough, you missed the boat.
Adsense. I rest my case.
Its true -- why does Google even bother spidering hollow affiliate rubbish?
Searches limited to the Yahoo directory often pull out better sites than organic search (certainly more trustworthy sites overall).
A lot of these don't come up in search at Google because a) they didn't optimize their directory anchor text in the first place and b) they haven't been forcing links.
PageRank hasn't been giving us anywhere near the true essence of things for a long time.
"Do you include the developers of scraper and affiliate sites amongst your pioneers? "Definately. Affiliate sites have helped many companies prosper, thats why they themselves prosper. Google is the ultimate "scraper and affiliate" site which has helped us all.
When Google first appeared on the scene it was like a breath of fresh air. Recent "developments" make it smell more like a nasty f@rt and a highly commercial one at that! It is evident that they no longer care for their results, only for their bottom line.
The fact that many companies have prospered through plagiarism, spam and insidious techniques proves only that they have people who are smarter than the Google algo. This means that the situation is probably beyond saving. Of course as a directory producer you are happy with the situation. Google's problems are allowing you to get it all your own way right now but that does not make it right.
I am not not clever enough to make a forecast about what is going to happen with Google in future. All I would say is that it cannot really expect to retain its dominant position while its results deteriorate at this rate and while it essentially ignores all new websites (that's nine months gone now). Their claim to be "Organising the World's information" is starting to wear a bit thin.
