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
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.
