Sandboxed site study results

Preliminary

[Powdork]

I have been doing a study of sandboxed site statistics and here are some preliminary raw results. This is probably not as scientific as it could be but as the sample size grows it will become moreso. At this point i am not including data from one of the questions relating to directory listings (I used a radio button rather than a checkbox, so it could not be unchecked). The numbers represent the number of sites that fall within each parameter.

Month Domain Registered
* January 2004
* February
* March 2
* April 1
* May 2
* June
* July
* August 1
* September
* October
* November
* Prior to 2004 6

Month Uploaded
* January 2004 1
* February
* March 2
* April 1
* May 1
* June 3
* July 2
* August 1
* September
* October
* November
* Prior to 2004 1

Month Indexed
* January 2004 1
* February
* March 2
* April 1
* May 1
* June 3
* July 2
* August 1
* September
* October
* November
* Prior to 2004 1

Number of Pages
* 1-25 5
* 26-50 2
* 51-100 1
* 101-500 3
* 501-1,000 1
* 1,000-5,000 1
* >5,000 1

Number of Backlinks
* 1-25 2
* 26-50 2
* 51-100 1
* 101-500 4
* 501-1000 1
* >1000

Method of Backlinks
* None/Natural
* Passive 6
* Moderately Aggressive 5
* Very Aggressive 1

Anchor Text
* Natural 4
* Varied 4
* Tightly Focused 3

Adsense
* Yes 3
* No 9

Adwords
* Yes 3
* No 9

Content
* New 11
* Moved 1

Level of SEO
* Low 1
* Moderate 6
* High 4

Pages are
* Static 10
* Dynamic 2

There was also one site which was mature but added a large % of new pages.
Not all fields were required which is why there aren't always the same number for each field.
It is interesting that all the adsense users are also adwords advertisers.

[suggy]

Agree with Powdork. I have two sites launched late 2003. Both got PR4 straight off from good natural links.

In fact, to cut a long story short, I followed exactly the same philosophy and strategy with these two as with a site I launched late 2002. That first site was developed according to Brett's notorious post and modestly optimised in March 2003 and has been top of the pops for 10-million-plus searches ever since (in a very competitive area) and has grown 200% a year!

The other two, one on a similar subject and another completely unrelated, have limped along thoroughly under achieving.

I can only conclude they are Sandboxed, but don't know why? It seems to be a timing thing to me - can't think of anything else!?

Suggy

[g00gl3r]

I'm new to this forum so firstly, HELLO. :p

I have about lots of sites I either manage or own, here the case for one of them which I truly believe is packed neatly at the bottom of the sandbox and isn't coming out until google needs it's pair of gloves which is underneath the site. (weird eh?)

anyway lol,

domain name registered: 1st Feb 04
Month Uploaded: August 04
Month Indexed: August 04
Number of Pages: 281 (growing daily)
number of backlinks: 142 (growing on each dance)
Method of Backlinks: moderately aggressive
Anchor Text: Concentrated
adsense: no
adwords: only since Oct
content: eeerm, new and old? (as old as aug?!?!?)
level of SEO: high considering me as a n00b :p
pages: static
dmoz: no still bloody trying.... i've got a couple of pages to finish before I dare to submit again (refused twice, checked in dmoz forum and it's ok with them, they are waiting for me to finish the few last pages before I let them know the score. They're a friendly bunch really :))

allinanchor allintext allintitle - all top 3 (actually for about 8 keywords too)
yahoo position #1 to #3 keyword Dependant
google position: well eeeerm, it's in there somewhere..! (i promise)

I hope I have understood this research info correctly...

[junai3]

The other two, one on a similar subject and another completely unrelated, have limped along thoroughly under achieving.

Hi Suggy,

When did you start these "other two" sites that have limped along?