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
As I said previously, I remember a thread here at WW (about May or June) where there was somewhat of a large consensus that sites had come out of the sandbox. I know one of my sites came out of the sandbox then. (I have many sites launched after that that are still in the sandbox.)
I have tried to find that thread but have not been able to. I am not sure of the date of the sites coming out of the sandbox but I belive it was in May or June of 2004 and before June 7, 2004.
Can anyone remember that period or find that thread?
Nice work by the way in stirring up the pot with the email to WSJ. Whatever the sandbox may be, it is something that should be addressed by the media.
Also, does this mean that once your out of the sandbox, you can create a new page and rank for a semi-competitive or competitive phrase within a week or so? (lets say everything is optimized and you have a decent amount of backlinks)
Does this mean that that there's a specific date for new sites to come out of the sandbox? If so, when do you think that date will be for sites that are still not out yet?
I don't think there is any specific date and if there is one, only people at Google know about it.
I am of the camp that this is a capacity issue at Google rather than an anti-spam filter. While I feel that way, I am not convinced of that 100% myself. Google would have lost its head if in trying to fight spam, they kept new sites out of the index such as election sites, new movie sites etc. If it was a capacity issue, this is something they should have let investors know about in their filings to go public.
If the sandbox is related to fighting spam, it is a terrible measure and just a matter of time before someone eats Google's lunch. Either way, this creates a very poor user experience. They may not notice this now, but they are starting to and the problem will only get worse.
Also, does this mean that once your out of the sandbox, you can create a new page and rank for a semi-competitive or competitive phrase within a week or so? (lets say everything is optimized and you have a decent amount of backlinks)
That is a good question which seems to yield different answers here at WW. I personally have not realeased new pages on sites already in the index and therefore cannot say. From what I have read though, I am tending to think that even new pages on non-sandboxed sites are struggling more often than not to get into the index in earnest.
Nice work by the way in stirring up the pot with the email to WSJ. Whatever the sandbox may be, it is something that should be addressed by the media.
The media must have been notified about this many times during the last few months. How many people in here have tried to get this some publicity yet not a whisper has been seen anywhere. The sinister (perhaps the wrong word but I can't think of a better one) thing is that it is at least worthy of some coverage and it has had none.
Let's face it Google is big news nowadays so why no coverage on what is essentially a really major problem with their search technology? It can't be that the press are better informed than those in this community so why are they blanking this?
Its in the top 300 out of about 6 000 000.
To back this up:
I have a new site still sandboxed it cannot rank high for its number one term (my city) it can rank high for areas in my city above other websites.
Further more if i add my main keyword Back into my search i cannt be found.
Does anyone else think this? - or am i way off :)
Internetheaven I can only congratulate you on being the only one in the World to have beaten this thing
I'm not, and I've known it hasn't existed since the first time the myth was created as have alot of other webmasters. It's just that I'm the noisy one! Do you really think that webmasters who aren't affected want the "sandbox" theory to end? What if everyone knew the algorithm changes that have caused what people are blaming as a "penalty", then the thousands of us who do know would have competition ...
There is obviously something built into G's algo to hold them back.
It's the reverse, there is something built into the pages that are holding them back. Google didn't create the algorithm to penalise new pages, it changed the algorithm to weed out the mountains of junk. Unfortunately, most SEO's build their pages the same way as spammers.
Does anyone have a
1. Site placed on a brand new (never registered before) domain
2. That was launched after May
3. Doing well on google.com
4. for a phrase that is competitive on google.com
Yes, and to answer the other question regarding geographical location I can honestly say that it this is the case for both UK and US as I have servers in both countries.
I was not a huge fan of the sandbox theory as many sites I looked at that claimed to be sandboxed, just ranked poorly (and they deserved to).
I would attribute this to 99% of claims on these boards personally! ;)
Do you really think that webmasters who aren't affected want the "sandbox" theory to end?
Well you certainly seem to be doing your best to debunk the theory.
If I had your knowledge I would not be idling away my time on forums. I would be SEO'ing like a man possessed ;) In the present Google climate you could be worth millions!
It's the reverse, there is something built into the pages that are holding them back. Google didn't create the algorithm to penalise new pages, it changed the algorithm to weed out the mountains of junk. Unfortunately, most SEO's build their pages the same way as spammers.
1. Google has not weeded out the "mountains of junk". Their results are spammier (and staler) than they have ever been. As long as they allow Adsense on sites that have not been manually reviewed this will just get worse. Google has turned the full circle. They are now ultra commercial, that's just a fact of life.
2. I have placed new pages (using trusted methods) on established websites recently that got good results very quickly, i.e. two or three weeks.
3. If Google had developed some new algo formula to weed out spam why would they apply it to new sites only? Clearly they would apply it to all newly found pages. It would not make sense to allow existing spammers to carry on regardless while penalising all new and legitimate sites. Not when they could prevent it.
Let's be realistic about this. This is not an antispam measure. Something as blatantly flawed as this cannot possibly be deliberate.
So, to get back on McMohan's topic, IMHO you don't come out at all and currently there is little prospect of this happening.
Let's be realistic about this. This is not an antispam measure. Something as blatantly flawed as this cannot possibly be deliberate.
I think it is unrealistic to assume that Google is "flawed" and that if this "effect" was a mistake that they wouldn't simply switch the algorithm back. If they were delivering results as bad as what you are saying then surely no-one would be using them anymore? If the results are that bad and this has been going on for almost a year then why are people still in these forums obsessed with Google? What you mean is, they aren't showing the results YOU want, they are still miles ahead of Yahoo and MSN which is why you are all obsessed about getting good rankings on them.
By the way, everything in this thread so far has been on topic, what makes you think it has deviated?
