Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
It will pan out. Just wait for it.
Frankly, I feel this sandbox thing is more of a penalty for new sites that attempt to inflate ranking my acquiring incoming links in an unnatural way (too many, too fast), but that's only an opinion since I have no first hand experience with being sandboxed.
My point is that being sandboxed may be a possibility, it's certainly not an inevitability.
I put a site up in march. It immediately started ranking for some good terms and picked up some pr.
It is now sandboxed. Don't be fooled into thinking that yours won't be. I think if you are working in a money making area your site will end up being sandboxed for a short time at least. My site is just starting to show signs of re-appearing. I have seen this on 2 or 3 other sites of mine as well. Maybe the sandbox is not an immediate thing.
Ska
Frankly, I feel this sandbox thing is more of a penalty for new sites that attempt to inflate ranking my acquiring incoming links in an unnatural way (too many, too fast)
I disagree. I personally didn't aquire new links too fast, simply because I am too lazy! But I did aquire some, and good quality ones, like Dmoz, Yahoo directory etc.. Still, I launched my last site in November and only this Bourbon update in June finally got me out of the sandbox.
You see, all depends on your topic.
- I launched a site on a widget that returns 613,000 results - it was never sandboxed.
- Then I launched a site on a widget that returns 1,730,000 results - it got sanboxed for about a month.
- Then I launched a site on another widget that returns 25,500,000 results - and this one got immediately sandboxed for 7 months. And I beleive it's fair.
Frankly, I feel this sandbox thing is more of a penalty for new sites that attempt to inflate ranking my acquiring incoming links in an unnatural way (too many, too fast), but that's only an opinion since I have no first hand experience with being sandboxed.
I can only echo what Natashka says. I launched two sites last November that were sandboxed and they only had about four or five links each, including DMOZ. They came out with Bourbon. There has been some talk about a Google engineer denying the sandbox at the conference but personally I think that if he said it he may just have been playing with semantics.
Google may not have called it the sandbox. It may not have even had a name but it is/was very real to many of us who suffered. Call it the sandbox, call it a penalty, call it a filter, but whatever it is/was its effect was very real.
BTW is it possible that it has been now been dropped with the Bourbon update?
I know people that start a website i.e. with the name/title "About Blue Widgets" and they report that their site is sandboxed because it is not on the top of 10,000,000 results when they search for their... site name "About Blue Widgets"...
Generally, I believe that "sandbox" exist as it should be in the real world but is NOT applied to ALL the sites under the same weight/timeframe. It does depend on topic, content quality and - of course! - backlinks.
I think that many people believe in "sandbox" as they try to find something as THE official reason that their sites are not on top of SERPs.
I have created several websites for competitive keywords (like "About Blue Widgets") within the last few months, but I would never expect them to be on the top for my site... name so soon.
On the contrary if you develop a website with the name "BlueWidgetAccessoriesAndResources", I am sure that the so called "sandbox" with your site name will be minimum.
Maybe it sounds that I am a fan of sandbox :)
I am not, but I prefer to be realistic indeed.
but I would never expect them to be on the top for my site... name so soon.
The sandbox has been discussed so much it's drifting from dry observation, to tall tale, gone on to myth and has now graduated to legend; over half of what people say about it is pure BS, on both sides of the coin.
Right now you just need to make accommodations and plan for whatever; "delay" you want to call it.
I launched two sites last November that were sandboxed and they only had about four or five links each, including DMOZ.
If I were Google, I would ban forever the sites born with DMOZ link.
I think Google is a little mild here, they probably just don't count that link.
In the name of goddess, why? Amongst the numerous problems I can see with that idea is that an ODP editor could get a new site forever banned by Google simply by adding it to the directory immediately.
Amongst the numerous problems I can see with that idea is that an ODP editor could get a new site forever banned by Google simply by adding it to the directory immediately.
That's right.
In that way about 0.2% innocent sites which do not belong to the editors&co would be really affected.
But that's the price of fighting scam.
?
All they have to do is to monitor number and pace of getting links and to decide if the site is worth being DMOZ or any other valuable dir listed.
One with 10 links only (all got at once) and one of them being DMOZ, almost clearly shows that something is very wrong there.
Hardly. What you are failing to consider is the huge number of amateur sites out there. Consider the hypothetical woman Jane. Jane is a big fan of a relatively minor music band called the Rolling Widgets. Jane put up an amateur site about the Rolling Widgets. She then e-mails the webmasters of the the dozen or so other webmasters with sites about the Rolling Widgets. These sites quickly add a link to her site. After all, they don't see her as competition. She also immediately submits her site to the ODP. The ODP editor of the Rolling Widgets cat happens to frequently check the unrevieweds. That editor quickly adds her site.
Please explain how the above scenario shows that something is very wrong with Jane's site?
Please explain how the above scenario shows that something is very wrong with Jane's site?
I think the judge wouldn't believe it.
He wants justice in the long run, so a small mistake wouldn't make the big deal.
Sandbox Filter (and there is one) will be the end of Google and quality of their SERPs. Word is already getting out regarding the age of content in Google's index.
AG
Google doesn't want to "reward" any site that gets "too many" links "too quickly." Um, what if I choose to get a bunch of links because I want the TRAFFIC from those links on related sites? DUH! That Google would penalize a new site for actually trying to get visitors from related sites should tell us all how out of whack things are.
Yes yes, I know, Google owes none of us anything. How they rank sites is purely their own purview. I'm merely pointing out the sandbox was borne out of a flaw in their own underlying philosophy of ranking sites. They chose to overemphasize linking and underemphasize actual on-page content. Sticking new sites that actually try to get the word out about themselves and bring in visitors through links on related sites is an idiotic way to rectify a problem they created for themselves.
Ignore Google and their schizophrenic ways. Get lots of links on related sites and do basic optimization around good keywords. You'll get the traffic and sleep better at night not worrying so much about where you rank on the Insane Search Engine.
Google doesn't want to "reward" any site that gets "too many" links "too quickly."
Ha! ..and if there were true, one would need to post a message on their index page: "Welcome to our site - Please don't link to us so others can access our new product"
Wait - Even better let me go get a bunch of links to my Competitors site to knock’em out!
I don't think punishing a site for getting links right off is the case here in my opinion.
It’s bad business and will catch up with Google sooner or later. See: [webmasterworld.com...] I tried to start a thread around some of the silliness about Google's Sandbox, but I feel people are just too accepting these days, and tired of this topic. ;)
Anyone have real evidence its link related?
Don't buy into Google's attempt to portray themselves as above it all. Think of them as you would a slick politician. Ignore what they say, and pay close attention to what they do. When you do, you quickly realize that what they say doesn't hold with what they do.
What if you were to build the best, most thorough, most authoritative site in the world on some topic?
Dear Swebbie, I guess you are kidding :)
You already know that FEW that are NEW, best, most thorough, most authoritative AND INNOVATIVE (that's the most important IMO) sites are doing well in Google very quickly.
If we are speaking for "best, most thorough, most authoritative" sites on "Blue Widgets" then that's another story...
And I still have not received a reply from you regarding how i.e. a new online store would perform in the real world (with the exception of a store that sells trips to the moon! this is new and innovative indeed and would gain many authoritative backlinks!). I am sorry but I think you are overreacting.
Best regards,
Aris
All I can say then is it really would suck for any brick and mortar business in my home town that puts up a website. I happen to be the listed editor at the ODP for that branch in Regional. There are absolutely no unreviewed sites in those cats. Any business in my home town that puts up a website and immediately submits it to the ODP will get it reviewed within a week. Possibly even the same day. And if that site is listable per the ODP guidelines it will be listed.
You already know that FEW that are NEW, best, most thorough, most authoritative AND INNOVATIVE (that's the most important IMO) sites are doing well in Google very quickly.
Yes, I did already know that, which is the problem if you want to believe that Google's STATED goal of providing the most relevant search results isn't a lie.
If we are speaking for "best, most thorough, most authoritative" sites on "Blue Widgets" then that's another story...
Why should it matter what the topic is? Again, I'm referring to what Google tells the world about their goals. If they aren't lying, then the age of a site would be utterly irrelevant in rankings and the actual INFORMATION and/or PRODUCTS being provided would be the heavily favored means of deciding who gets ranked where on any given search. They're lying to you... stop believing what they spew.
And I still have not received a reply from you regarding how i.e. a new online store would perform in the real world (with the exception of a store that sells trips to the moon! this is new and innovative indeed and would gain many authoritative backlinks!).
"new online" and "real world" are not the same thing, as you know. Google purports to produce the most relevant results they can, but they ignore new sites carte blanche. C'mon man, how can you possibly argue that these two behaviors are congruous? The analogy would be if the yellow pages refused to list your new bricks-and-mortar store in their pages for 6 months to a year. See?
I am sorry but I think you are overreacting.
Honestly, I'm really not. I think I'm making a basic point, but I don't lose one bit of sleep over any of this. I find it an interesting debate, but that's the end of it for me. I do just fine with traffic to my 10 sites from Yahoo, MSN, and all the links I've negotiated from related sites. Would I love to be ranked well at Google? Of course. If you're in business online, you want that. But it isn't necessary to be successful. And I hate liars. :-)
