Forum Moderators: open
I have been posting in favour of the Sandbox's existence and I have 2 sites firmly stuck in the sand!
However...
2 weeks ago I registered a brand new domain and started to build a new site. I knew it would be at least 6 months before anything happened but..
This morning it entered the index for the first time - straight on page one for a one word search (a town, granted only 194,000 matches) but none the less the last 2 sites still cannot achieve similar results after 6 months.
Also preliminary early pages ranking very well
The site has only one incoming link, no adsense, banners or anything, vanilla html etc.
Built as per my last 2 sites so clearly something has changed!
Regards and hope to all
Rod
I agree that the only logical (although death for Google if they dont sort it out) explanation is a capacity issue and the only way they can seperate the data is to place them in a different database. The only thing that I dont get is how some sites got out of the sandbox then went back in. We had a site come out after 6 months #4 for a major keyword. Two weeks later completely dissapeared and in the #4 slot is a press release we did for the site for the same keyword. So a link to the site stays in the position but the site dissapears. Any theory.
I appreciate your input
Putting links on probation would certianly stop short term spammers flooding a site, but there would seem to be work-arounds anyway, so I don't know how useful such a strategy would be on Google's behalf.
I'm not saying the theory is correct, but it seems to fit in with my observations on a number of my own sites. *shrug*
I also think google is not counting the PR of those links to our pages until they are?6 months old?
By doing those 2 things they can stop link trading co-ops because those links keep changing weekly and are not permanent.
Google is looking for solid permanent links and not counting the new links for a period of time. after 6 months or whatever time they have set, the solid links will begin to transfer PR to the pages they link to and will rank accordingly.
MSN and Yahoo don't have any ways to fight the link co-ops yet and that is why we see so many blog type results in them.
Google is very smart to do this kind of link devaluation to prevent inflated page rank from co-op link trading. It also makes it expensive to buy links from high pr sites because you have to invest so much money before it does any good. VERY SMART!
Paying for a site to link to you for 6 months would hurt the pocket book.
MSN and Yahoo don't go by page rank. They go by sheer link volume to calculate rank. That's why the co-op link trading works so well with them.
Too many theories ...
Too much speculation ...
Too many people expressing opinions as facts :(
Expect to see this type of thing last until a few months or so after most of the primary share holders have cashed in their stocks. Then maybe they can start fixing their problems, or maybe they won't, it's getting hard to say with those guys. Microsoft actually used to be a somewhat cool company too, back in basic days a long time ago, but money always pulled them too.
It was somewhat amazing to read all these people here for most of last year talking about the fact that questions of capacity couldn't possibly affect perfect google, then capacity got stuck at 2^32 for almost a year, then they include the count for the second index in their results count. This is pretty much blatantly admitting that they had, and I think still have, this issue, which was pretty clear to most people who seem to understand this stuff for quite a while.
if spammers are beating google's algo then there's a problem with google's algo. Why is that fact hard to understand? What we're seeing here is not an improvement, a sophisticated operation designed to carefully weed out spam.
I can't understand people who think that all new sites shouldn't be listed high, and that old sites should. The web isn't a library, it's like streaming online radio, that features the best of the new and old. Luckily I don't have to depend on google to deliver that best to me, or I'd never hear any new stream station that's gotten popular overnight because they are really good.
Nice to see Yahoo finally update their stuff, it's getting better. Too bad MSN beta is a ways away, you'll know it's ready I think when you don't find major errors in the searches you do, especially complicated searches.
Sandbox = hilltop
New links take a bit longer to be counted.
Thats all it is.
that's known as spin. I think I remember reading that too. Whoever said it was doing spin for google, pretty straight, now you know.
<< New links take a bit longer to be counted. >>
Probably one factor that triggers the flag that tells the algo where to place the page. Seems reasonable, after all, a major way to escape the sandbox was and is to create links to the site long before it goes up for real.
Obviously there are triggers that determine where urls are placed, there have to be. These things are just little 1 or 2 bit flags, as small as possible, the information they give the algo has to by definition be quite basic and simple.
<< Thats all it is. >>
convenient explanation if you want to ignore most empirically observed facts over the last year, each to his own, I prefer explanations that explain all facts, not just confirm personal beliefs. But each to his own.
Sandbox = hilltop
New links take a bit longer to be counted.
... more opinions being expressed as facts. We have to be careful here. Some people actually believe what we say so if we are not sure of something we should not be stating it as though it was a fact.
I keep coming back to the one plain and simple fact that if this WAS an effective anti-spam measure then Google would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops. Or perhaps if not exactly "trumpeting", GG would have made one of his veiled references to it ;)
They or GG have made absolutely no comments. THAT is a fact ;)
I conclude from this that it is not an anti-spam measure. It is a defect in their technology. THAT is an opinion ;)
It's unlikely he would be allowed to - anything he said could affect stock market prices. So his silence is indicative of nothing more than that.
Once you go public it's a different ball game. Google answers to shareholders first and foremost.
1) Some new sites rank well
2) Most new sites rank very badly.
3) Algo's and seo tactics change.
Business as usual.
Since the IPO, has GG made any comments?
He has made a couple of appearances in "safe" threads but overall it looks like he may have been sandboxed.
You obviously have no idea what hilltop refers to.
"New links take a bit longer to be counted."
And what on earth do you think this means? New links to new domains take longer to be counted than new links to older domains? Um, duh, that would be one way to make a sandbox. Again, you really don't seem to have an idea what the topic of discussion is.
If the sandbox is simply a device to not count the value of new links to new domains (and I don't believe such a fantasy for a second), then that is what it is. Saying it doesn't exist and then saying new links take a bit longer to be counted is schizophrenia. Your left hand needs to talk to your right hand because you completely contradict yourself.
I could give example after example but you get the message. An update gave me hope that they might have come to their senses its worse. Geesh!
> New links to new domains take longer to be counted than new links to older domains? Um, duh, that would be one way to make a sandbox.
Correct. All external links are taking longer to be counted. How many times do you get an email saying "we have linked to you. please recipricate within 14 days......" Well Google now ignores these unless they stick. This is just a new shift in link evaluation and the delay is at most a month or two.
People are refering to sandbox as some kind of new site penalty which lasts for months. This is evidently not true, supported by numerous reports that new sites can rank well. The reason old sites have dropped and many new sites fail to take off is hilltop.
There are a lot of ostrichs here and they need to take their heads out of the sand (box). Google is not broken, nor is there some ridiculous conspiracy against 'quality new sites'. They are playing a long game of evaluating sites and this will result in the cream rising to the top. Rumours are already rising from Google reps that in January there will be another big shift. I suspect all the directory and ppc people (like me) will be hit hard, which will probably improve the serps. As I said in this thread ages ago, move on and forget 'sandbox'. The current poor serps is a consequence of a longterm transition towards hilltop and other link evaluation algos. Its a symptom, not a cause. If you have the frustration of a new site not performing it is not because of some kind of 'sandbox' filter, but simply new rules that apply to all sites. Unless you know of the tricks to fool these new algos (and they will not last) , you need to wait until you naturally gain rankings. If you have a good site it will happen. The 'sandbox' theory is born from the history of putting up a site and seeing it fly. Those days are going fast, they gave an unfair advantage to the spammers. Hilltop is far more discerning, hence the delay.
I predict that in the next few months the natural serps will become more 'information, advice and review' orientated, with a lot less affiliate/ppc/directory content appearing. Advertisers will need to use adwords to gain significant traffic, with ppc directories relying on seo, falling by the wayside. New content rich sites will still take time to get established, but with all the affiliates/ppc dropping this will take less time. However, new sites will never have a god given right to displace established good quality sites, nor will they be able to rise to the top with basic seo manipulation. They will have to earn their position via hilltop.
I'm in the ppc directory business, and over the last few months our 'crappy' directories have failed miserably. Last year we could put up a site and within a week get 10,000 visitors per day, now we are lucky to get 100. We also have some quality sites where we have genuinely put in the hard work. These are doing well. The reason is simple, they are naturally linked to and benefit from hilltop. We can launch a new site now and fake this, but we, like many others, cannot repeat this too many times because a pattern will emerge that google will spot. In other words, the days of the spammy directory/affiliate on mass are over already. The rubbish sites that have survived (and there are still a lot) are there because they have acquired a few 'hilltop' links over the years. However, good sites will gain good links at a faster rate, so in the long term low quality sites are doomed. Add to that some aggressive ppc/affiliate filters that I think will kick in next month and Google is going to change a lot in 2005.
To answer the question of the thread, Sandbox has been abandoned because it never existed. The reality is that links are being evaluated in a 'hilltop' way, rather than the old 'any link will give you pr' way. It is no coincidence that the pr toolbar and links:command is now useless, because pr and links are primarily evaluated at run time. People here demand facts and not opinion. Well I think all the facts are staring us in the face.
Google is not broken, nor is there some ridiculous conspiracy against 'quality new sites'.
So why haven't they made a statement to this effect?
MHes thank you or taking the time to provide such a detailed reply. You clearly know much more than me about SEO and I bow to your greater knowledge. But there are a couple of anomalies in your explanation.
For one thing there is no benefit to be gained by Google by allowing all of this bad feeling to fester away in these forums. We may only be web designers as opposed to Google's main clientele but many of us have been griping about the sandbox outside of these forums. I would hope that ALL of us have been telling prospective clients about the sandbox because we know that there is little chance of their new sites developing any significant free traffic for upwards of a year.
I am fed up repeating this but no one has ever countered it so I will say it again. If this is an improvement initiative surely they would be happy to let the public know about it, officially or unofficially? Google are always pretty good at blowing their own trumpet. They even brag about things that are still in beta for goodness sake! The bad vibes that this sandbox is causing can only be harmful. Te me this is an indication of a problem rather than a deliberate initiative.
To answer the question of the thread, Sandbox has been abandoned because it never existed.
I must take you to task on this one. The Sandbox most certainly did exist and still does. Perhaps its your definition that's at fault? I believe that the definition I submitted earlier in this thread sums this up adequately.
Sandbox: A name that has become associated with a particular function of the Google algorithm that prevents the vast majority of new sites from ranking highly in the SERPs for an indefinite period.
If anyone [from Google ;) ] wants to come along and tell me my definition is **** then fine.
This is purely a programmtic issue of the datastore and byte sizing. Adding more servers can't fix this problem, since it really isn't a problem, it's just programmatic fact for now. The best fix was to add a complete second datastore which is what caused the doubling of total indexed pages.
I tend to think of this like a full glass of water, in order for new water to enter the glass, some of the old water must "splash" out. I think that sites moving in and out of the new index into the old index is this splashing affect.
But the old index contains sites with lots of backlinks and sites that have some type of seo effort. So in order to move them out it will take some time.
I have personally launched several sites in the last month that are now ranked in the top 100 for their terms and are consistently moving up. All this means to me is that the sites above me have been working on backlinks and have some seo effort built in. So I will have to work twice as hard to get to the top. These sites aren't extremely competitive, which also supports that there would be less seo efforts to overcome.
Of course, for a highly competitive keyword phrase, it would take much longer because those sites have defnitely been working to get to the top, so why in the world would anyone think that they could not them off without a lot of effort.
So, there really is no sandboxing, it's just a simple fact that there is only so much space and not everyone can be the top. If you want to call it a sandbox then fine, but it's not an intentional act, it's consequential of what a computer can and can't do.
I don't know if you play golf, but if you want to improve your swing you often have to start again and end up playing very badly for a long time while dealing with the problem. I think google is the same. They can't announce that they know the index is rubbish but things eventually will be much better. They will make the song and dance when the index looks better.
> Sandbox: A name that has become associated with a particular function of the Google algorithm that prevents the vast majority of new sites from ranking highly in the SERPs for an indefinite period.
Change the word 'new' to 'all' and you have the ultimate fact of search engine life. Most sites don't rank highly, not all can fit into the top ten. This has never changed. What has changed is getting any site into the top ten has got harder, especially a new site, because it doesn't have the 'history' or 'hilltop' links that mature with age and give you the ranking. You can fake it, but the tricks exploit the transition google is in and won't work long term.
p.s. Kind words but I learn a lot from you and others with very challenging arguments :)
I tend to believe that pages there is a continual shifting from the new index to the old. That accounts for sudden jumps of high rankings, then the sudden disappearance again. Pages go from the new index to the old index then back again. Of course this is speculation.
This might even be a first glance at an entirely new index (old and new combined) that is being formed and may launch early next year. If you recall, last years new index created a lot of angry wembasters since it happened just before xmas, so don't be surpried if the new one comes just after xmas.
Link value can be seen within 24 hours sometimes. But regardless of your alternate universe, you continually admit new sites have different rules than old sites and then, truly bizarrely, you say the sandbox doesn't exist. I'm sorry but that is just whacko.
I am fed up repeating this but no one has ever countered it so I will say it again. If this is an improvement initiative surely they would be happy to let the public know about it, officially or unofficially? Google are always pretty good at blowing their own trumpet. They even brag about things that are still in beta for goodness sake! The bad vibes that this sandbox is causing can only be harmful. Te me this is an indication of a problem rather than a deliberate initiative.
Forgive me, I'm veering off topic a bit but some of us seem to have "lost the plot."
Google is just a friggin' web site. It contained a great free search engine for many years. Then they began to monetize it, initially via AdWords, then AdSense. That created some hiccups in the free search.
The point is it's just a friggin' web site, much like our own web sites. Some of us run hobby sites, some are satisfied to cover server costs, and many make a living from their web sites.
Google has server logs to review, click tracking via the SERPs, toolbar data, advertizing revenue, feedback from advertizers, spam reports, and who knows what else available to evaluate the quality of their web site. If I was in their position, I think I'd be concerned if I couldn't find a few complaining web masters... And I get very annoyed when someone trys to dictate what I can or cannot have on my web site. Google probably does too.
Google is a very influential web site, but, let's not forget, it's just a friggin' web site!
I apologize for the rant. The lack of perspective wears thin after a while. Back to the sandbox topic. Please! :)
Google is a very influential web site, but, let's not forget, it's just a friggin' web site!
I couldn't agree more. Far too many webmasters have absolute tunnel vision when it comes to where their traffic comes from. Hell, we get over $200 in sales a day from LINK PARTNERS (the advantage of doing a link campaign CORRECTLY, as opposed to linking with /buying links from unrelated sites).
It amazes me that so many think the only way to profitability is free search engine traffic from a single engine. Don't get me wrong, I think google has been broken for some time now (be it from a capacity issue, software glitches, or a combination), but there is no single entity of which I have absolutely ZERO control over that I entrust my living to. If you can't make end meet without getting/maintaining high (free) listings in Google - get out of this business now, you don't have the imagination to last.
After being #1 for the website virtually since the beginning, I am now close to #200 for my own website name. Those linking to my website are ahead of me.
I had been getting around 30 referrals from google a day, today and yesterday I have not gotten 1. Is anyone else seeing this since the update?
I currently rank at 150 - 200 for my own website with links back to me ahead of me. I had ranked #1 - #5 for some uncompetitive terms, but it is now like you cannot even find my site. It is still in the index, all 650 pages. Is anyone else seeing this with a sandboxed site?
[edited by: BillyS at 12:04 am (utc) on Dec. 19, 2004]
Interestingly (though predictable) all those searches I mentioned way back in message 77 still don't produce the company. But now they all produce this thread among the top results. So if one of the owners searches for their company name they won't find their company, but at least they'll know someone cares ;).
BTW this only happens on 64.233.171.147
