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
mark1615: I think I stated "exactly" what over-optimization was in my last post.
over optimization= kw(title) + kw(h1) + kw(high copy density) + kw(all backlinks)
But I'm with the others.
I've good title, good h1, good content and good backlinks. We're proof your theory isn't as simple as your explanation!
DerekH
But wait, why would Google want to be fair.
Google's stock price is double or more than what it IPO'd at, so the group of people that are financial affected by Googles actions aren't bothered by it.
Nobody in the high profile public media is talking about it, for instance the Wall Street Journal and therefore it is not creating negative public relations.
Because of the lack of national or world wide media attention, the public isn't being made aware of how stale this really makes Googles results, so searcher traffic is not being affected significantly.
They can defend it as a fight against spam, while at the same time not having to admit that it really is an effort to boost adword revenue, which by the way won't upset stockholders.
Until the media starts bashing Google over the less than accurate results and until the stockholders start bashing Google for being a little reckless with THEIR Company and investment, the sandbox will continue....
Meanwhile MSN will be working hard to seize the opportunity before it passes them by and eventually Google will find itself in a dual with a catender (Microsoft) and it will be round after round of one-up-manship until finally Microsoft does what it always does, wears you down till your so distracted that they takeover sheerly because they have enough resources(money and people) that they don't get worn down themselves.
IT will be just like netscape, just on a grander scale.
Microsoft is going to have to deliver a heck of lot more traffic than they do now to affect Google at all.
Mark my words ... Microsoft is coming strong in 2005 and will be doing some MAJOR marketing to get people using their new search. I have historically been an anti-fan of microsoft, but Google and their sandbox effect makes choosing the lesser of two evils MUCH more difficult.
If I could get my new site ranked as well as my 2 1/2 year-old site for the same keywords, my new site's traffic would be 15 times what it is now.
It's too bad that investors aren't aware that Google's results are stale. Perhaps someone with a talent for writing financial articles might submit something to the Wall Street Journal or another financial media outlet. The investment world just might like a story like this.
I thought "sandboxed" sites are not supposed to show up for even non-competitive keywords.
Also, regarding what I said about over-optimization. I'm talking about cases where those keyword phrases are EXACTLY or almost exactly the same.
Broadway, you said why it works so well - you have 1000's of backlinks that you didn't control the text for. That's why your site ranks so well. Good Job btw.
My question is whether or not these sites supposedly "sandboxed" for nine months (! ouch) are really sandboxed at all?
I doubt it. I think there's something else going on.
(GoogleGuy would probably say something lame like, "check your robots.txt file")
I'm talking about cases where those keyword phrases are EXACTLY or almost exactly the same.
In my case they ARE all exactly the same --- still rank number one (not the sandboxed site)....
In the sandboxed site, the backlinks are mixed in their anchor text.
No, they show up fine for non-competitive keywords. That's never really been a question, forums like this one have had many threads on that.
"I think there's something else going on."
That's a safe guess I'd say.
I thought "sandboxed" sites are not supposed to show up for even non-competitive keywords.
In my experience, sandboxed sites do poorly in the SERPs, without being 100% wiped out. Currently, my site is #3 when I search for my company name. There are 1,500,000 results. AFAIK, it's safe to say that sandboxed sites are pretty much useless for Google SERPs.
Nobody in the high profile public media is talking about it, for instance the Wall Street Journal and therefore it is not creating negative public relations.On 11/9, I sent an email similar to this (below) to the author of the WSJ article referenced in this thread [webmasterworld.com]. Who knows how many emails they get though.
Hello,
I have often wondered why noone at any major news agency has caught wind of current problems at Google. Perhaps many have, but are unwilling to take on the hugely popular corporation. It seems as though they are currently unable to apply their ranking algorithm to as many pages as they index. The end result is that they are not presenting new domains within the top several hundred results for searcher's queries. There are numerous reports of this within the webmaster community but so far none from without. It seems quite possible that if some of the reports are true, Google was remiss in not mentioning the problem to potential shareholders prior to going public. Originally, folks thought it was intentional as a method to combat the ability to put up a 10,000 page site up overnight and have 10,000 backlinks the next day all with easy to obtain software. But that was when the effect was thought to only last 60-90 days. Now that sites are entering their 6th to 8th month of the effect, webmasters are increasingly understanding that Google is broken, and has been for quite awhile. Below are some links to some of the threads ongoing and otherwise discussing this phenomenon. You can also search on any engine for 'Google Lag' or 'Sandbox'.
[webmasterworld.com...] Thread at WebmasterWorld discussing the effects of Google's problems from a surfer's point of view. The search query I reference towards the end is "Tradewinds Bar kings beach" (no quotes). It's not a well optimized site by any means, but does get the problem across.
[webmasterworld.com...] Thread at WebmasterWorld discussing the technical aspects of the Google Lag (sandbox).
Furthermore, Google only recognizes 22 backlinks from my website, the old Msn recognizes 104, and MSN beta recognizes 500.
Google is quick to update, but its useless if it doesn't rank you. MSN beta may not update the pages in the index as frequently, but MSN ranks you!
I had my website for about 6 months, I am nowhere to be seen in Google for competitive phrases. I am just one more person to present proof that Google's results are stale. My main competitive keyphrase has really stale results in the top 10. CNN ranks for my main keyword, which is "recording studio" by the way. How relevant is that? CNN ranks because they have tons of old backlinks, and apparently someone died at a recording studio, so now CNN ranks for the phrase which is contained maybe once in the whole article. God knows how long it will be in the top 10 results. Its not fair that it outranks a well optimized site (mine), with a decent amount of backlinks, not to mention, a website that is right on topic.
At first I may have thought to myself that the sandbox is just a sorry excuse for webmasters who can't rank. Now I know where you all are coming from. With 6 months of experimentation, and solid proof (with the CNN business ranking for my main keyphrase) and the fact that I can't rank on the first few pages for some semi-competitive results, such as mispellings, I conclude to all, there is a sandbox.
i get many links for pr 3-4 sites and no luck on serps
with pr5-6 site, i added content much later and show up on google better than pr3-4 site.
1) 7 months old - main kw returns abount 2MM sites. This site is well optimized, lots of content, right on topic, about 1,200 good backlinks. We are not in the top 1,000 in G.
2) Old site - new page on a new VERY competitive topic. This kw returns about 8MM sites. Page is not yet 3 weeks old. It has 3 backlinks. It is currently #477 and moving up. Now obviously 477 is useless, but I think the point is still clear. This new section appeared immediately with almost no effort and is on the move.
Coincidence?
JudgeJeffries, I agree with your post except the date you site as being February.
Same here. Brand new domains launched up to July are ranking well for me but two other new domains launched on the same day in August have only just (wasn't watching dates) started ranking but one is a lot worse than the other. So, in a sense they didn't "emerge" at the same ranking (similar site designs, yet different products) -- they are competing with all the other sites.
