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
It is my opinion that there was indeed a sandbox but it was associated with Google's resources diverted to the update of their index and I do not think it was deliberate. The next few months will tell as we put up new sites and see if the delay is the same.
Every day I have users ask what is happening to Google as they know I am in the industry. They are all moving to other Search Engines. The poor quality of the results are now hurting them. Google are not stupid and must know it so lets see if things get back to normal. "Normal" being up to date results and not old stale stuffy sites.
Having said all this we have been making a killing with old sites that we have SEO'd with even very competitive keywords racing to the top 10 two weeks after they have been optimized. Our clients love us so the sandbox has helped us in that respect. To be on the safe side we tell new sites they can expect to wait for 6-12 months to see results in Google just in case Google has gone mad and this sandboxing thing is a permannt fixture.
But I've never had a site do well for the really competitive stuff right from the start even years before the whole "sandbox" idea came about.
Keep in mind, it's only slightly over a week old. I doubt most of its backlinks have even been indexed yet. (btw - Yahoo hasn't indexed it yet)
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)
over optimization= kw(title) + kw(h1) + kw(high copy density) + kw(all backlinks)
So how come I have sites that do that and rank numero uno for kw
[Granted I can only SEO the first three factors, as far as the 1000's of backlinks this site has I have little control over text used in each backlink.]
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.
