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.
